[zmgsabst]

Sure — but the UK or EU has to accept the constant rhetoric of “you clearly don’t support free speech, you block freedom.gov” when discussing with the US.

I don’t think it’s meant to be a perfect solution; I think it’s meant to be a political tool.

Also, the US does fund Tor — originally US Navy + DARPA, now through Dept of State. Entirely possible that they’ll eventually operate a Tor onion site for freedom.gov too.

[calmworm]

This is grade-school level mind games. Is it really that easy?

[thomasingalls]

I'm not convinced that this whole discussion section isn't astroturf... some real out there opinions popping up in here

[zmgsabst]

Late reply, but it’s not about mind games so much as rhetorical artifacts to actuate the levers of power.

When the US issues reports saying the EU is actively working against US values both within the US and globally, that report can be elevated by later US administrations to justify military drawdowns, exiting NATO, etc. The EU should produce counter artifacts demonstrating they do align with US values, but instead they responded as if this was a power struggle.

Your comment about “mind games” suggests too simple an interpretation:

This isn’t about what people believe is true, but what facts are available to the machinery of government policy making — much like litigating semantics and debating evidence inclusion within a court case.

This is about constructing the sentence:

“The EU’s widespread blocking of the freedom.gov free speech platform for the past decade demonstrates a divergence from American values that means NATO no longer functions as an effective vehicle for American vision on the global stage.”

[calmworm]

I’m unclear as to what the difference is between my comment and your reply other than a more detailed explanation, which I do appreciate. You’ve just described “mind games”, though.

[globular-toast]

When did you stop being a child? Can you point to the actual day it happened? Guess what... It didn't happen to anyone else either.