[TMWNN]

>Being blocked from sharing Russian-owned content is absolutely nothing like being cut off from the internet or information. At best it's limiting the spread of Russian-owned content.

I am reading Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9PMM/>). Right after hearing about YouTube shutting down Russian state media channels, I was surprised to learn in the book of the extent of the freedom of the press in late 18th-century Prussia. A British visitor wrote that people were as free to speak as back home, citing a work that was very critical of the king in the context of Poland. During the Napoleonic wars, despite the existential threat to Prussia from France, at least four newspapers that celebrated Revolutionary France as the next step in human freedom were allowed to publish.

It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech. Even liars deserve the opportunity to speak. This is especially true when there is no formally declared war between the US and Russia.

[ehsankia]

> It's always preferable to counter propaganda with free speech

Except the past few years have shown that not only does not work in practice, it can actually lead to people dying and democracy breaking.

The reality is that a lie takes a fraction of the effort than it takes to counter said lie. People can post dozens of blatant lie about vaccines and COVID on youtube in the time it takes people to fact check and counter a single one. The information war is asymmetric, especially when people can get rich from spreading lies which get clicks and attention.