Good. It’s important to be able to see all sides. Everybody with a brain will know to be very skeptical of any news source directly controlled by a government. Same is true for CGTN and other channels still on YT.
Right now it is worthless, anything on RT about the "special military operation" is 100% propaganda. It's just fun watching their presenters try to act normal.
Yes, but I'm not sure we can trust what's coming out of Ukraine/Zelensky either, like 10K Russians killed, victory is imminent, etc. This way at least we may get tidbits from the other side, including arguments/thoughts from Russia side.
E.g., I saw a post yesterday on Medium that Ukraine is discriminating against black refugees (https://medium.com/alternative-perspectives/why-are-black-pe...). If you're only listening to the Ukraine friendly media, you'll miss that (IMO important fact).
listening to the other extreme isn't giving you their POV or even their perception of reality. it just gives you what they want you to believe, and more propaganda. if the aim is not simply more entertainment for our lizard brain (voluntary indoctrination while being also fully aware that this is what's happening), then the better way for seeking truth isn't to hear all sides but to find outlets that are not having a horse in this race. (which unfortunately is almost impossible, but my point stands that it will not add value for seeking truth)
Al Jazeera is probably the closest to that. They actually interviewed some DPR/LPR rebels, for instance. You wouldnt catch CNN doing that.
They also seem to put the greatest emphasis on human suffering, which is a bias im in favor of.
There is value to reading propaganda to have wider visibility though, especially since most propaganda selectively presents the truth rather than outright lying and both sides will often simply choose to present similar events in a different context.
what I noticed were reports against discrimination against South Asians (India was very vocal). It needs to be mentioned that India has not yet condemned Russia for the invasion and plays itself neutral. They are also the "I" in BRIC and therefore must be seen on the side of Russia until they make it perfectly clear. I'm not surprised that they aren't treated with silk-gloves by Ukraine (student or worker or whatever reason they're there for). It's India's responsibility to set the record straight so that UA knows if the people still in the country will be targeted back home for intel that can help Russia. It's reckless from the Modi government to throw them under the bus in this manner, but it's not unexpected.
There's no question that discrimination against Ukrainian refugees of non-European origin is reprehensible. The trouble is keeping a sense of the scale of this injustice compared to the scale of the invasion. Failing to give aid to African and South Asian university students trying to flee the war is bad. Vladimir Putin's media outlets would have us believe that since there is some good and some bad on both sides, therefore we should take no side in this war.
No society or people on Earth are perfect. Don't let them convince you that this means you should never take a stand.
What's coming out of Ukraine/Zelensky are optimistic numbers and morale boosting statements mostly based on real events
What's coming out of Putin and RT is pure fantasy and has virtually no basis on real world events: Ukranian government are Nazis, Ukrain population is mostly pro Russia, Ukraine is mostly welcoming Russian troops, it's a liberation operation, &c.
> I saw a post yesterday on Medium that Ukraine is discriminating against black refugee
Is Medium being censored ? Is medium a Russian source ?
See, you can still get informations of all kind without RT. And calling that "the russian" side is a stretch. It is used by russian propaganda to pretend ukranians are monster though (which is ironic considering Russian stance but whatever)
it is, and that's important to know. most russians (and more importantly russians abroad) are presented with the same tired old propaganda they always did
It's worthless since everything on RT is "Russia is always right, the rest are always wrong, and also they're Nazis/fascists/imperialists, and America/NATO did it too btw".
It's the only criterion that matters when that country started a war. It's not specific to RT, it's specific to all media still able to publish and air in Russia.
Freedom of press for me but not for thee.
Any war the US started had significant opposition in local media. Saying that it's the same is disingenuous at best, Russian propaganda at worst.
Silencing ideas that you do not agree with does not lead to an open society. Because guess what, the less popular ideas ends up being the right one sometimes.
(In this case I agree that RT is likely propaganda, but knowing an argument you disagree with makes it easier to argue against people that make it.)
Every media is propaganda. RT is directly financed by the Kremlin just like CNN is at the behest of the current American administration. It's absurd to think any of these channels will not try to manipulate their audience.
What is certain on the other hand is that it is Russia which invaded Ukraine, a free country, at first place. What is also certain is that any news organization in Russia that doesn't follow the Kremlin's narrative is deemed criminal by Russian authorities.
While I agree with the sentiment of your comment, I do not agree that a government financed news station is in fact "just like" CNN providing favorable coverage to the current administration presumably in exchange for access or similar.
In the case of CNN, we see the collective bias of those who run the company optimizing coverage for engagement based on their assessment of the bias of those watching. In the case of RT, we literally know that guests or anchors who do not work to legitimize propaganda are at risk of physical retribution.
>“The SBU and the militants of the Azov Battalion are planning to blow up the reactor and accuse the Russian Armed Forces of allegedly launching a missile attack on the experimental nuclear facility,”
This isn't a discussion in which people are arguing different opinions in good faith, it's straight up manipulation to excuse killing more people.
Given that some of the Azov are literally Nazis (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/german-tv-s...), that's hardly completely beyond the realms of possibility. Or we're supposed to start giving Nazis the benefit of the doubt now just because Russia started it?
Given that Russia deployed Wagner Group in Ukraine, whose founder has SS tattoos on his neck, why unsubstantiated statements from Russia are to be believed?
Russia is also a known hotbed for neonazis. So is Alabama. Just because a region has small factions of race extremists it doesn’t mean they’re blowing up nuclear reactors.
But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example. They’ve invaded Georgia and Ukraine before using the same exact lies. Putin’s history in Chechnya is also horrific. So you should trust Russia saying they’re coming to liberate someone as much as you should trust a certain other country coming to liberate someone: you shouldn’t.
Any source to it that doesn't try to stretch the meaning of pseudo-term "right-wing" to mean "neonazis"? Are there knows instances of Russia openly incorporating entities publicly identifying with neonazi rhetorics and symbolics into their government structures?
> But Russia’s history of false flag operations and whataboutism are so well-documented that it’s literally a textbook example.
Could you refer us to this documentation? Should be an interesting read.
> They’ve invaded Georgia before using the same exact lies
Are you denying the fact that Saakashvili had invaded Tskhinvali, the capital of South Osetia, trying to solve a century old ethnic conflict[1] by force, which was last time put on cold under Russia's military guarantees[2]? What lies are you referring to exactly?
I mean there’s the Wagner Group very conspicuously using a German name despite being Russian and familiar skull design acting as a paramilitary organization in Russia’s “liberation” activities. [1]
There’s the fact 90% of Ukraine was completely peaceful just a month ago other than Russian funded “separatists” in the east constantly stirring things up. [2]
Russia claimed the whole Crimea operation was soldiers on vacation until they started blowing the place up and seized it. [3]
And Russia’s detraction from its own issues is so well known it has a wiki article. [4]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
Easily my favourite George R. R. Martin quote. We discovered why free speech is important during the 17th century in the Enlightenment period. The scientific method itself owes its existence to free speech, and the ability for any person to disagree with any other person, regardless of their class, race, age, nationality, religion, or beliefs. The same goes for democracy. Take away the fundamental principle of free speech and you undermine science and democracy.
Are evil people going to attempt to convince the suggestible that they're not evil? Of course! Contrary to common sentiment, free speech has a cost. We pay this cost gladly so that we can live in relative prosperity.
> as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion
I mean, we obviously can't. Who's going to make them provide balanced news ? no one since they're literally part of the Russian government. You can't "counter them by rational argument" if these arguments never reach the target
What about islamist news ? Why don't we broadcast that freely ? Can't you provide rational arguments against that ? What about nazis, why are they banned in Germany ? Are you afraid of not having rational arguments ?
> funny how the paradox of tolerance is thrown around most by the people who understand it the least.
Well, I can say the same about freedom of speech...
I did not argue that free speech is absolute. Merely that we should be free to try to convince each other of our premise. Even if you really, really, really don't like the other guy. Especially then.
I caution you to so casually frame RT as an example of the paradox of tolerance. The byline makes it clear that this paradox was created and applied to situations where the tolerated eventually seized authoritarian power to silence the tolerant. RT, and as you rightly describe, Russia, has no hope of invading the U.S. and seizing this power. It's just Russia spouting Russian propaganda. Either you trust your citizens to freely exchange ideas - even those you really, really really, don't like - or you don't. I'm getting the feeling that you don't.
It's also exhausting when there are centers manufacturing bullshit on an industrial scale. It's simply easier to manufacture lies than to track down the truth. I don't think the correct answer is the repression of lies, or certainly not in the long term. But fighting for truth without giving up freedom is not easy.
But the paradox is that everyone is part of some kind of "vulnerable audience".
Maybe you like to consider yourself superior to the people who would lead credence to what RT writes, but in my opinion there's nobody immune to some kind of propaganda machine. Maybe something more insidious is required for you or me, but in the end it's hubris to consider yourself invulnerable.
Not good. Reporting should be held to some standard. At minimum, knowingly lying about important topics while claiming to be a serious news organization needs to be a serious crime.
For instance, RT claims to be a news source, but knowingly lies about atrocities committed by the Russian government.
Most people don't have the resources (time, knowledge, smarts) to see what is not true by themselves.
Alternative viewpoints need to be shown for actually controversial topics, of course.
Normally I'd agree but knowing the damage that propaganda does - RT and any other Russian-government owned channels should be shutdown/"canceled".
For the last eight years, they've been riling up the Russian population with portraying Ukrainians as Nazis, barbarians, etc. It's gotten to the point now where they would make up fake stories (e.g. crucified boy). Right now, during the war - you literally can't call it a "war" or you might face being sentenced. If you share anything opposing the official view - you could get 15 years behind bars. Russian government has also forced all "opposition" media to shutdown in the last couple of days. Soon, they will annex themselves from the internet and the population will only have one source for news - the propaganda channels.
RT reported about ukrainian army crucifying a child in Donbas in 2014 which literally caused some people in Russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention to kill ukrainians.
No, RT should be banned and every person working for it should be jailed for life.
Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred.
Remember the story about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators in Kuwait? Told by a “nurse” in from of the UN, so that the US would get permission to invade Iraq?
People need to be able to see these stories to learn to recognize them as the bullshit they are. Hiding them will do more harm that good in the long to.
> without allowing enemy propaganda to poison gullible part of population uncontested
With all due respect but this paternalistic approach to what people should and shouldn't be allowed in knowing is a despicable point of view. Why do you think that you personally, or anyone can be sufficiently impartial to decide what's allowed?
I hate to be the cynical arm chair commenter but you have to understand that most of the world is not at war with Russia at the moment.
I can understand if the Ukrainian government wants their "airwaves" clear of russian propaganda, but asking the whole world to censor them brings no benefit in my opinion. More so, Ukrainians probably can tell from their own experiences how much bullshit there's on RT, so it serves no actual purpose to do so even for them.
I did read that in our original post. And I agree that there's always things that really ought not to be said. (And giving alternate examples is not always whataboutism.) But the problem with censorship, and specifically the underlying power in implement it, always comes back to "who watches the watchmen" - I don't trust RT to tell me the truth, but I really don't trust big tech and the US/EU gov to be the gatekeepers.
And a number of mainstream western outlets are trying to convince us to join the war by reporting on Russia's use of thermobaric weapons as if it was a warcrime.
Would you also apply this rule consistently with all of the Iraq war cheerleaders who also promoted fake news (like yellowcake)?
Im reminded of Chomsky's quote here (it's surprising how often it is relevant):
>Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.
If CNN participated in a blatant propaganda - i would want to hold them accountable. I don't believe they did during Iraq war, primarily because CNN is not government owned media and they don't know what is true or not. You can blame them for not verifying stories (and there should be responsibility for that as well), but RT absolutely knows what things they report are propaganda lies and what aren't.
>primarily because CNN is not government owned media
Depends on how much stock you put in Operation Mockingbird.[1] Many journalists in mainstream media absolutely carry water for the government. And it's not just CNN either, it's Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post etc.
This is an instance of bad actors taking advantage of vulnerable / dumb people. Banning RT comes across as whack-a-mole because it will just sprout up elsewhere.
This is unfortunately something that can't be simply banned out of existence.
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of inciting violence and hatred.
Zelensky lied about a Russian shell hitting a nuclear plant and called for retaliation, which is exactly inciting violence. There's a lot of misinformation spread by both sides (Russia and the West) but silencing any of them would be stupid and unfair.
Zelensky was talking about an attack that happened within hours of his message, can't blame him for fog of war. And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community, which frankly he has every right to do when fascist invaders are taking over major nuclear power plants in your country, don't you think?
You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response and getting separatists to start fighting?
That's exactly what you should, though. Especially if you're in his position, where the smallest wimp is taken as fact.
> And he didn't call for violence but for response from international community
What exactly would you think the "response" would be if the nuclear plant was actually bombed? You don't have to be a geopolitical expert to know it is violence.
> You seriously bringing up that example in contrast to russian propaganda machine weaponising a completely fabricated story about crucified boy, with intention of evoking deep emotional response
Have you been following the news? Western media is doing exactly that with recent events like the snake island "heroes"?
Given Putin's ties with Israel and the enormous Nazi problem in Ukraine, it seems that describing the invasion as "fascist" is really skirting the line of absurdity.
there is no "enormous nazi problem in ukraine", that is literally russian propaganda. there is much larger nazi problem in russia in fact, from existence of radical far-right groups all the way up to concentration camps for gays in
Chechnya. i suggest you re-evaluate your sources.
russian invasion can't be called anything other than fascist - military glorious leader annexing a chunk of neighbour's territory under justification that people there are compatriots that need saving. you can't make that shit up.
A page that doesn't even reveal openly who runs it (real names, affiliations, background) is completely worthless crap. If you judge alleged "news" uncritically like that, just by consuming it, you're part of the problem.
They sure as hell have to do that, it's basic journalistic integrity. These people could directly sit at their FSB office and you'd never know. You don't know who does it, who pays for, and you don't have the slightest clue how to fact-check their "arguments."
To play devils advocate, why should we give our enemies the same rights as our neighbors? Both cohorts are not held accountable in the same ways, nor can we expect our enemies to reciprocate the same good faith.
I think in principle free speech is good, but RT news - and any and all messaging coming out of Russia - should be classified as such. If said propaganda is disguised as genuine sentiment on social media then that's bad for free speech.
People also trust non-anonymous posts. You just have to form your own view based on several sources, and try to verify / dismiss some of them. Put everything together, hopefully not like in the movies (wall full of pictures, thumbtacks, and rope)
Sure identified sources can be bad actors too, but that doesn't really matter w.r.t free speech.
For one, the effects are asymmetric. Anonymous bad actors can do more harm than identified sources can do good. Identity discourages bad behavior.
Second, free speech and other ideals of liberalism assume that people are fundamentally good. So if the identified sources are openly bad actors such that they out weigh the good actors, then you're kind of screwed regardless.
No one in the US government is forcing their hand here, and freedom of speech includes freedom from compelled speech, or the compelled platforming of others.
Right, it’s owned by a financial elite who also have control over the state. In China and Russia, there’s a managerial class who run the state and have control over the financial elite.
CNN is also not party owned... It may have similar views to eg. democrats, but that's not even remotely similar. Eg. They aired unedited coverages of many of the Trump campaign rallies.
Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened.
> Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN.
The only time this comes up on CNN is when they show Putin saying it and talk about what a bullshit lie it is.
The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. This was just one of the myriad excuses he used to invade. Repeating it is repeating Putin's propaganda, which is the job of his propaganda groups RT/Sputnik/etc
And everyone happily consumes this, as no one has their own opinion anymore. Doesn't make it less of a concern from security perspective of Russia.
Frankly, this kind of chauvinistic attitude is one of the main actual reasons of why Russian-Western relations had degraded to this point. All of this had already been predicted by political experts all over the world almost 20 years ago.
> The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire
Please don't state such ridiculous assertions as facts.
Degraded relations because of testing war responses from Russia, hacking everything except Russian keyboard, actually invading Europe now and 8 years ago could have something to do with it though.
Those warnings were indeed mentioned more than 20 years ago, that is correct. The rest is bs.
> Putin has seen NATO's expansion as an existential threat, and the prospect of Ukraine joining the Western military alliance a "hostile act" -- a view he invoked in a televised speech on Thursday, saying that Ukraine's aspiration to join the military alliance was a dire threat to Russia.
But that's not the whole picture. The main reason behind this war is that Putin considers Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine as one nation, one people. In a lot of ways his actions mirror that of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, when he wanted to unify the german people under one nation. Here's a quote from a lengthy article by Putin published last year:
> I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
> Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.
How convenient. What was Russia's excuse before NATO was created? Do you really think that if NATO did not exist that Putin would keep it in its borders?
> Putin wouldn't even be a thing, and modern world would be vastly different, if NATO did not exist.
You're right, it would be different. Russia would be all over the Baltics, Finland, parts of Poland and Romania, performing special peacekeeping operations.
> Excuse for what?
Excuse for attacking and occupying neighboring countries. Russia's track record goes back in history much further than 1949.
> Russia would be all over the Baltics, Finland, parts of Poland and Romania, performing special peacekeeping operations.
Maybe, maybe not. There would probably be no point in peacekeeping operations if there was no transcontinental military industrial complex as a factor for geopolitical destabilization.
> Russia's track record goes back in history much further than 1949
Considering the historic period you are referring to, Russian track record seems much more restrained then other superpowers rising in 20th century. Maybe you should be more specific?
Are you for real comparing integrity of CNN and RT?
Show me a single outright lie CNN published, comparable to RT publishing a story that ukrainian army crucified a child on a main square in 2014 which caused some people in russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention of killing ukrainians.
No, please, do tell. Does a different stance make you fascist? Or does it make you pro-Putin? Or are you about to accuse me of being paid for taking a different stance?
You've already called me "fcking piece of sht garbage of a human" in a different thread. Ironic.
it's war. just like north korea would launch missiles during war, they would block enemy propaganda during war. doing the same doesn't make you tyrannical dictatorship - it's just means of waging war. weird that i have to explain basics of logic to you. or maybe not weird at all..
I'm genuinely shocked that all of this goes straight over your head. I suppose that your desperate need for yes-men and sympathy lead you to pulling false equivalence out of thin air. Perhaps that also confirms the name-calling, it must be frustrating to you.
Your account has been breaking the site guidelines by posting flamewar comments and has also been using HN primarily (in fact, it seems exclusively) for political/ideological/nationalistic battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of what you're battling for. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. Therefore I've banned the account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Edit: we got such an email so I've unbanned the account. Please stick to the rules going forward.
I'm glad to see the alternative tech companies (Rumble, Truth Social) that promote truly free spread and competition of ideas, and that they are surviving (RIP Parlor). If Facebook, Youtube, etc. insist on restricting thought and discussion on their platforms, it will be to their detriment.
Anecdotally, in my experience you are just as likely to be banned / shadowbanned on these kinds of "free speech" networks as well. The only thing that changes is who is pressing the keys and what message they want you to hear. I think referring to them as such is problematic.
I'm afraid this may be out of date. Lee Camp said Saturday on Unauthorized Disclosure [0] that RT America was done. [EDIT:] I suppose that is a different entity from RT itself. So, it seems the synchronized censorship (DirectTV, Roku, Spotify, YT Europe) has achieved its real aim, of silencing American critics of capitalism, imperialism, and war. That the mouthpiece of a different imperialist regime remains available is a trivial matter.
Quick question, most countries have laws on how media should work, like what can you put on public TV at what hours, how to mark certain content, rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective and punishments if you don't follow the rules, like removing your TV license. Did we allow this new media to just ignore our laws and publish one sided fabricated news? Maybe is finally the time to block stuff that is not media, or force them to label their content as "fiction/fabrication"
And someone will say "what about XYZ?", yes label Xyz fiction too if it does not follow the rules. With national media that exists physically here you can have the justice system give them big fines if they for example fabricate bullshit about a person/company but if this media is some freelancers far away the justice will never reach them so we should do something before we reach the scenario in Idicracy
That doesn't force covering "both sides" of every issue though, in the way people often mean by "fair and balanced" in these discussions, where every issue needs to have a counterpoint aired.
The UK election rules are more about ensuring all the candidates for election get some representative airtime, and that overtly political advertisements are labelled as such during the election period, so a channel is not allowed to promote one party and completely block out another, or be monopolised by advertising funds. (There's also a very short quiet period just before the voting takes place.)
If all parties generally agree on something, the opposing view to that is unlikely to get much airtime, even if someone not running for office would really like to talk about it.
>Not sure what country you're referring to, but there's certainly no such rule in the US, Australia, or the UK. In the US it would be unconstitutional.
So in US you can say on newspaper or TV things like "Bob did X" and Bob can do nothing about it? I thought the at least justice can demand Bob to be paid damages and the newspaper/TV to show a retraction. I mean are you free to denigrate people in US with no consequences? If yes, let's ignore US and focus on countries where we demand media to act like professionals, to have a code and rules and to pay if they broke it, pay damages if they damage people etc.
In the US, there are slander and libel laws that you can be sued for if you print something that is untrue. But if you are a public figure or entity, you have to prove not just that an untruth was printed but also that it was done with "actual malice".
Which country were you referring to specifically? I don't know any that require presenting both sides of a political issue as a general rule.
there is the obligation that if you presented false acuzations(not opinions) about someone you are forced to give this person the right to present his defense, also the editors of the news are responsible for the things they published.
So you are not forced to invite both sides when presenting general news, this is the journalist code though, to always ask the other side for a comment.
At least going by the Google translation of the article you cited, I doubt that any of these broadcasters would be required to carry RT under this law. This is more about slander and libel, not about giving every political viewpoint equal airtime. So I guess the answer to your original question is, "no, we did not allow new media to ignore our laws." Because there are no laws enforcing the mechanisms you contemplated in your original comment.
As far as giving the other side the opportunity to comment, the news networks are falling all over themselves to give Russia the opportunity to comment. They would all love to have frank, on the record discussions of this issue with Russian officials. That's different than broadcasting Russian propaganda though.
Sorry for confusion, there is no law to give all possible political ideas equal air time.
Is about preventing fake facts being presented , you will pay if you do that and you are forced to admit it like a TV channel will have to present
"Our channel was fined with XYZ for the content we published at date because we did ABC"
Since bad behavior costs you money and you have to publicly admit when you were wrong and you have to also show affected parties response you will think a few times before you present something, maybe if you are not sure you label it "we cannon confirm X" .
But the issue with this constitution rules is that are old and do not specify the internet, IMO is a good idea to have media follow an good code of conduct and punish them when they repeatedly fail to do so, they are professionals not teens on reddit
The regulation requires equal access for political candidates during an election, which is substantially different and weaker than the claim I was rebutting.
> rules that demand to always provide both sides perspective
This regulation does not satisfy the "always" part of the quoted description. In fact the regulation does not even reach the standards of "most of the time" or "often." If the description had been, "in certain rare cases," then this regulation would have satisfied it, but then the whole comment would have made no sense w.r.t. the banning of RT.
> most countries have laws on how media should work
Much of how the internet works reflects its origin in the United States where freedom of speech is a paramount value. In America, the notion is that it's better to combat lies with the truth than with repression.
In the era of Fake News and The Big Lie, this value is being stretched thin. It may be that we'll need rules to restrict the spreading of untruths, perhaps a labeling system as you suggest. Even so, I think it will be very hard, if not impossible, to craft laws of that sort without building an edifice for repression.
At least some punishment or force them to comply with the basic rule "
If you put false/wrong information on first page like Bob did Y. then justice can force you to put on the same first page a retraction like "We are sorry, we were wrong, Bob did not did X" and pay Bob damages.
So if some TV channel or Internet media thing says shit like "Masks do not help with Covid" they will have to pay a fine and publish "Masks can help with Covid in this cases "
The issue remains with extrnal media like from China and Russia, they can refuse to follow the local laws and then we can label them, maybe tax them and use the money to support local news/media related universities.
HN can auto-label all our posts by default as personal opinions but if they can detect I am a MS/Apple/ employee they can auto-label me with that, if I am part of some group they can label me with "member of this group". Transparency if fine with me.
Like for food, label what is inside, if you want the "media" label you should be an actual journalist and follow the laws and the media code of conduct, otherwise we can give you a different label more appropriate.
The fact that pro putin’s propaganda channel comments are getting upvoted, while those against are downvoted says a lot about the type of people that use this forum. Russia today and sputnik constantly promote anti western values, politicians and groups and are a major source of misinformation yet some call banning these weapons of war censorship. Appalling.
No, it's literally moderation. Platforms can promote or demote content as they see fit to better appeal to the market. Newspapers are not obligated to print every letter to the editor. Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded.
Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech.
Of course they have the right - nobody has claimed that YouTube is breaking the law by censoring RT.
Nevertheless, they are still engaging in censorship, per Wikipedia:
> Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship.
You are doing exactly what I just warned against: trying to redefine words to exempt yourself from criticism.
It's insulting. Nobody has said or implied that YouTube is breaking the law here, so why does your reply hinge on that?
More importantly, why would anyone want such a shameless megalomaniac filtering what they can read and watch? That's the crux of censorship: you're not just refusing to personally host some content - you're demanding everyone else does the same in order to ensure that it's not available at all.
The merits of censoring an enemy propaganda outlet during a war can be debated, but pretending that it isn't censorship at all is equal parts absurd and dangerous.
> Youtube is not legally bound to air any random video that was uploaded.
Although, given that it's not a newspaper, but rather a massive telecom service, it should be.
> Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech
Censorship is not a technicality, and if someone is capable of doing a mass filtering of opinions, it's still censorship. And given that the government can pressure private entities into practical censorship (congress hearings on how facebook does a bad job of filtering alternative opinions on controversial topics), the technicality part is so thin that there is no real practical difference, except maybe you don't even have any legal way to challenge it, given that there is no legislation.
Yeah, sure, let's completely depend on our own honest media rather than being able to cross-check it with opposing parties. It surely won't create an echo chamber wherein our own media could report whatever they want, it surely won't result in less objective reporting and more propaganda.
the issue now is not "how good of a reporting does this or that media produce?" the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode".
> the issue is "a literal fascist government is invading a sovereign country and their propaganda machine is in full throttle mode".
Explain to me how you would come to that conclusion if it wasn't for the media? And how would you justify spreading that information if it came from "not really accurate or objective" media? Without being able to cross-check, you're just spreading one-sided gossip, if not rumors like the snake island story.
You've been breaking the HN guidelines so badly, so repeatedly, and so shockingly, we have no choice but to ban the account. I don't want to do that, but this is not allowable here:
HN has some of the most pro-putin comments I see anywhere. These are established accounts with years of history talking about tech, so not Russian bots or whatever.
Not everyone is a paid shill. Lots of tech people are Russians and/or from Russia and support the war in Ukraine. Independent polling shows that the majority of people in Russia support the war, including the majority of the highly educated.
> Independent polling shows that the majority of people in Russia support the war, including the majority of the highly educated.
Is there any independent polling in Russia? Is it even possible?
I am under the impression the penalties for being against the war are severe and getting worse, to the point that even having messages on your phone about it could get you into trouble if stopped and searched by Moscow police.
Who in their right mind would answer a poll question honestly in Russia now?
There is also the question of whether Russians even know there's a war where Russia is the aggressor against a democratic state, and attacking civilians. There are by now many reports of people in Russia who simply don't believe that's what's happening - instead they think there is no war, that it's a lie propagated by Western aggressors against Russia, and that Russian soldiers are in Ukraine to liberate the people.
If I were in Russia and asked my view, and highly educated for real on the actual circumstances, I'd answer that I was pro special military operation (what war?) because there's a chance the person asking is special police and I might end up in prison - or provoke an investigation which gets my friends into prison - if I say anything else.
> to the point that even having messages on your phone about it could get you into trouble if stopped and searched by Moscow police
Sounds ridiculous, like a half-fake unnuanced broken-phone twisted misrepresentation.
> There is also the question of whether Russians even know there's a war where Russia is the aggressor against a democratic state, and attacking civilians. There are by now many reports of people in Russia who simply don't believe that's what's happening - instead they think there is no war, that it's a lie propagated by Western aggressors against Russia, and that Russian soldiers are in Ukraine to liberate the people
And this, kids, is the exact reason why we need a real pluralism of opinions and shouldn't rely on one-sided biased sources, as you can't even do a reality check.
> If I were in Russia and asked my view, and highly educated for real on the actual circumstances, I'd answer that I was pro special military operation (what war?) because there's a chance the person asking is special police and I might end up in prison - or provoke an investigation which gets my friends into prison - if I say anything else.
This image is cartoonishly ridiculous. Do you actually unironically believe in some sort of secret police, asking for your opinion on war? Seriously?
Everyone in Russia knows there is a war and no one really "supports" it. But enough people somewhat understand reasons for it, or rather just blame incompetent politicians from all sides.
A lot of people obviously don't believe the "attacking civilians" part, simply because it's an overly convenient propaganda narrative and also a lot of video evidence of this are old recycled videos from attacks on Donetsk, that Russians had already seen before, having been in the loop much longer than average Westerner.
There is actually the question of whether Westerners even know that there has already been 13k bodies death toll before the invasion, or that Ukraine actually incorporates neonazi rhetorics and symbolics in their National Guard (google Azov Battalion)
Lots would laugh over calling Ukraine "democratic", given the coup, the dismantling of opposition (both in politics and media) and the "ukrainisation" laws. Most consider Ukraine to be just as oligarchy as Russia, but with a more ochlocratic spin, rather then autocratic.
Read the comments, not just the headline. It sounds like what many people would expect in any country tending towards dictatorship. If it's not happening, then of course, great. But it doesn't sound ridiculous.
>> There are by now many reports of people in Russia who simply don't believe that's what's happening
> And this, kids, is the exact reason why we need a real pluralism of opinions and shouldn't rely on one-sided biased sources, as you can't even do a reality check.
And thank you for contributing your own opinion. It could have done without the "that's ridiculous" etc. though.
Parents say things that children see are contradicted with their own eyes. The parents are, like your writing, dismissive, laughing it off, saying the other person is silly. Understandably, the children are distressed and think their parents are out of touch with reality.
In the West we all know large numbers of people who think naive things. So it's reasonable to think there can be plenty of Russians who think in that way too.
>> If I were in Russia and asked my view,
> This image is cartoonishly ridiculous. Do you actually unironically believe in some sort of secret police, asking for your opinion on war?
Russians leaving Russia in a hurry have said they were questioned at the airport by border guards about their views on the war, and being very afraid that if they give the wrong answers they won't be free to leave. There is certainly some asking about opinions on war going on.
Maybe it's too much to worry about secret police in some countries. But at least parts of Russia have a long history of secret police and good reasons for paranoia during the cold war. You cannot dismiss the re-emergence of that out of hand. We still remember the polonium-204 and recent Novichok poisonings by Russia in the UK, so we're inclined to think of Putin as still thinking that way.
So with that in mind, we were talking about "independent polls". That means phoning people at random, or similar. It's not that I'd expect some poller to be secret police, it's the 1% possibility that my answer might get processed somewhere with extremely bad consequences if I were frank and vocal with my answers. What would you think if someone you've never met or heard of phoned you at random, in Moscow, to ask your views on the war in the last few days?
The recently enacted anti-protest law with ridiculously long prison sentences shows there is a crackdown happening. We know the authorities like to hand out long sentences for holding the "wrong" views. Remind me, how long has Navalny been imprisoned so far?
"Alexei Navalny faces 15 more years in prison as new trial starts" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/15/alexei-navalny...).
> It sounds like what many people would expect in any country tending towards dictatorship
> But it doesn't sound ridiculous
> It could have done without the "that's ridiculous"
You didn't get my point. It could not have done without "that's ridiculous" because it is ridiculous, unrealistic and does not withstand any real critisim. It doesn't matter if it meets someone expectations, because the image they are basing their expectations on is cartoonish. That's just not real life. It's like people in Russia who think that the US government forces parents to make their children transgender — completely unrealistic bs, based on exploiting one's ignorance and fears.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60600487 "My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me"
> Parents say things that children see are contradicted with their own eyes. The parents are, like your writing, dismissive, laughing it off, saying the other person is silly. Understandably, the children are distressed and think their parents are out of touch with reality.
Why are you extrapolating and using a plural form for a singular case?
What exactly is wrong with "laughing it off"? The fact that this whole issue had captured your attention only a few weeks ago, doesn't mean it's the case for everybody else. What reaction do you expect, that people would get emotional like it's day 1 and not actually year 8? Especially when we are talking about older people and not some zoomers, who had just recently pulled their head from the sand and comfort of debilitating social media.
And in any case, if this lady still has civil communication lines, then sorry, but that's not a real shelling. Real shelling looks like Belgrade in 1999.
> In the West we all know large numbers of people who think naive things. So it's reasonable to think there can be plenty of Russians who think in that way too.
It is extremely chauvinistic point of view, based on the idea that you yourself is well informed in not naive, and everyone else is just a fool.
In real life people have different opinions because they have a different perspective and prior knowledge, not because they are somehow less then you are.
> But at least parts of Russia have a long history of secret police and good reasons for paranoia during the cold war.
Exactly what "long history of secret police" are you talking about that in your eyes make Russia stand out against other parts of human history and make "good reasons for paranoia"?
> it's the 1% possibility that my answer might get processed somewhere with extremely bad consequences if I were frank and vocal with my answers. What would you think if someone you've never met or heard of phoned you at random, in Moscow, to ask your views on the war in the last few days?
I will simply reiterate that the "fear of secret police" you are asserting here is not a real thing for real people. But I get how people who had never talked with real Russians and get all their image of it only from western media sources, as well as only western parts of the internet, would make such an opinion. I think you would like to talk more to real people instead of consuming pre-cooked opinions if you actually want to have at least somewhat realistic picture. Visit ru-net and some Russian web site's comment section at least once.
> You cannot dismiss the re-emergence of that out of hand
And yet I can and I will be as critical and as sceptical as I am in any other case.
> We still remember the polonium-204 and recent Novichok poisonings by Russia in the UK, so we're inclined to think of Putin as still thinking that way
First of all, who is "we"?
Secondly, just to remind you how REAL political assassinations (and not a publicity false flag circus) look like: https://t.me/dubinskypro/12275 -- a post from telegram channel of one of the members of Ukraine's ruling party.
> The recently enacted anti-protest law with ridiculously long prison sentences shows there is a crackdown happening
You were duped by propaganda. There is no "anti-protest" law, there is "anti-fakes" law. Before it, some bad actors were buying ads targeting Russian audience with propaganda, including fakes. Now large media companies operating in Russian jurisdiction had disabled targeting Russian audience altogether.
> We know the authorities like to hand out long sentences for holding the "wrong" views
> Navalny
You don't know much about Navalny apart his shallow heroic image in western media, do you?
Anecdotally, even if you say something like "I think sanctions will just hurt every day people who are just like me and you and probably just want to live a happy life without wars and not the people making the decisions to start war" people get incensed and call you a shill / bot / etc. It's a strange time.
There is no sociology in a dictatorship where everybody knows about repercussions of expressing an opinion that goes against their glorious leader's will.
What you’re seeing here is a place which is not 100% anti-Russia and recognizes that there are gray areas to anything. This is invaluable and anyone who values liberal democracies should support such discussion forums.
The problem is, many people only support liberal democracy and free speech when it suits them. This was very much visible when censoring and demonizing those that were criticizing vaccines or the policies of Western governments, it’s visible now too.
HN in general has taken a hard lurch to the libertarian right as of late. In this highly upvoted value system, there is no higher principle than free speech and no greater sin than censorship. Except censoring the censors, which is viewed more harshly than censorship itself.
People will respond and say that HN isn't a monolith, and thats true. At the same time, these extreme takes are dominating the top posts of every thread thats even slightly tangential. One of the top posts on the thread about wifi ovens was about how the government was installing killswitches into smart devices.
The view from nowhere [1] is especially relevant nowadays.
Some people are indeed really hard at work at creating a false equivalency or apathy. But it is to be expected on a public forum now. The kremlin is going to use western's freedoms against us, while granting their own citizens none.
>promote anti western values, politicians and groups and are a major source of misinformation yet some call banning these weapons of war censorship
It's pretty damn ironic that in the same breath you accuse Russia of promoting anti-western values, you attack the classic western value of free speech by calling for the banning of news sources you disagree with.
absolute free speech is an american construct. For historical reasons, in Germany the crime of Volksverhetzung is a thing and I'm glad for there to be limits. There's no question of what RT is doing, they're trolling at the state level.
Just because some commenters disagree with an action doesn't mean they're "pro-Putin". Please refrain from that tribal, binary thinking- it doesn't help the cause.
Flamewar comments will get you banned on HN, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it. Fortunately you don't seem to have much (any?) history of posting like the above, so it should be easy to fix.
