Your example of moon landing theories isn't an apt comparison because you're picking a fringe group. RT already had millions of international followers on Facebook, YouTube, etc., often more than high quality journalism outlets. I've been online long enough to see RT showing up uninvited in my feeds before.

Consider the cost of the sites I listed. Literally, how do you pay these companies? With the monetization of your attention, first and foremost. Good journalism costs money to produce, leaving good journalists unable to be the highest bidder.

▲

vintermann 4 days ago | parent [-]

Point is, you should be glad the attempt at censoring RT fails pretty bad.

If it had been more effective, more people would become very impressed the first time they came across a new to them, consistent (more or less!) narrative universe in which the bad guys are the good guys. Not only that, but their narrative incorporates a bunch of entirely true, verifiable damning truths about "our" side.

▲

DoctorOW 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Verifiable damning truths about "our" side

I don't have a side in terms of a political entity or official, I'm defending evidence-based action. I genuinely think my life is better because I don't have to defend anyone uncritically, but you're welcome to try and change my mind I guess lol

	▲	vintermann 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		"Our" side in that particular context obviously means NATO, the US, the five eyes countries, the west etc. Take your pick. And yes, I think you have a side, and I think these groups' foreign policies are 1. Very far from being simply "evidence based" and 2. Not in any meaningful sense under democratic control. Have you ever wondered why so many people actually turn up to vote for Putin in Russia, even though they don't really influence anything by doing so? I think they have simply decided that it's easier to want what they can have. Learn to like the taste of the only course that's on the menu. And I also think that attitude is very common in the western world.