[Ma8ee]

No, but Russia is my enemy, and should be the enemy of everyone who cares about a liberal world order based on law, not might.

And in the case of RT, they had left even the pretence of journalism a long time ago. But I agree with those that say we should not have banned them. When we try to defend our liberal world order with censorship, we are certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[graemep]

> When we try to defend our liberal world order with censorship, we are certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I agree with that - freedom of speech is one of the few things I think worth fighting for. We cannot fight for it while rejecting it.

[ethbr1]

Freedom of speech is a grey area, though.

How long has it been since all had equal access to speech? The mostly-literate + printing press era?

Do we still have free speech if I can turn an algorithmic knob that causes 10% fewer people to see your opinion than those arguing against you?

[aftbit]

There has never been a situation where all had more equal access to speech than today. Printing presses were expensive and complicated machines, and distributing handbills was far slower and riskier than tweeting.

Today, anyone can make a website. If they say enough interesting things, they'll get eyeballs. Even if those things are false, and even if the algorithms of the walled gardens want to suppress them, they'll still get out.

[ethbr1]

I think you're drastically underappreciating the impact of promotion and discoverability on public discourse.

The internet / web has never been a platform where all had equal access to share their views. The ability to speak doesn't matter if few can hear you.

When it was more democratic in the early days, the masses weren't part of it.

When the masses came online, promotion and discoverability had already been centralized by large platforms.

[aftbit]

I think perhaps you're underappreciating the difficulty of physical distribution. Having one's voice heard has always been the domain of the rich and powerful. Sure, platforms control promotion and discoverability today, but I doubt that gives them more strength to control dissenting views than was available in the days of the printing press.

[ethbr1]

It's a heck of a lot harder to effectively eradicate physical media than digital.

F.ex. if I shower a town with 250 physical leaflets + I post on all the major platforms, and immediately people of power attempt to suppress them, which do you think results in more people seeing them?

[cies]

Glad you come to that conclusion.

> And in the case of RT, they had left even the pretence of journalism a long time ago.

What is RT doing that is not found in FOX, NBC, CNews.fr, Hayom?

> liberal world order based on law, not might.

This is a facade. The talking point the NATO/US/west uses, while they violate every such rule when they see fit. You may be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

[Ma8ee]

This is exactly one of the Russian talking points. "You see, we might have invaded a few neighbour countries with the intention of annexing the territories, but look at NATO, they are equally bad because they invaded Iraq." (NATO didn't invade Iraq, the US did with the help of UK, Poland, and Australia)

I can't take someone (like Mearsheimer) who warns that Germany again is likely to try to invade Europe even a little bit serious. He clearly knows nothing about contemporary German politics, culture, or how well they are doing manufacturing and trading.

[mistermann]

> but look at NATO, they are equally bad because they invaded Iraq." (NATO didn't invade Iraq, the US did with the help of UK, Poland, and Australia)

Where did you get the "are equally bad" part from?

> He clearly...

"Clearly", eh? Well, let's wait to see how you do with the question.

[Ma8ee]

I got it from:

> This is a facade. The talking point the NATO/US/west uses, while they violate every such rule when they see fit.

Which expresses that exact sentiment

[mistermann]

Which specific text contains "equally bad" objectively/deterministically?

[cies]

> This is exactly one of the Russian talking points.

Calling something a "Russian talking point" does not make it less true. Russia would not have invaded if (combination of factors): Ukraine did not have ethnic Russians that were being oppressed (see the Odessa union house massacre), Ukraine did not want to go NATO, Ukraine was not a safe haven of anti-Russia fascists (see the enormous statue for Bandera in Lvov -- bizarre how that's allowed in an "EU ally"). Minks agreements were "just to give Ukraine time to build military" said Merkel (a guarantor of the agreement). Russia was cheated by the west, and behaves accordingly, if you ask me.

> who warns that Germany again is likely to try to invade Europe

Lol. Where did he say that?

[ethbr1]

> Russia would not have invaded if [...]

> Ukraine did not have ethnic Russians that were being oppressed (see the Odessa union house massacre)

This has ceased being a valid casus belli in the developed world since 1945.

Annexation of a neighboring state's territory isn't justified by purported ethnic persecution.

Not least, because it's historically been the most common manufactured lie to justify war.

> Ukraine did not want to go NATO

Since when does Russia get a say in other sovereign countries' decisions?

Last I checked at the UN, Russia (and China) were big supporters of countries' ability to do whatever they wanted within their own borders (external complaints be damned).

> Ukraine was not a safe haven of anti-Russia fascists

> anti-Russia

Hard to forget the 4 million Ukrainians the USSR purposefully killed during the Holodomor. [0]

When a country does something to an ethnic group that ranks with the Holocaust, it shouldn't be surprised when people are anti-it.

>> fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [1]

> exalts nation and often race above the individual

How's the glorification of Russkiy Mir going? Or the vilification of non-Russian ethnic minorities?

> stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader

How long has Putin been president or prime minister?

> severe economic and social regimentation

How many state-owned enterprises are there in Russia?

And what inalienable freedom of speech and association rights do Russian citizen have?

> forcible suppression of opposition

How many opposition candidates ran in the last election?

If Russia is looking for fascism, it might want to start with a mirror.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

[ethbr1]

> What is RT doing that is not found in FOX, NBC, CNews.fr, Hayom?

Monopolizing discourse.

How many independent news channels are there inside Russia today?