> 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.
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?