It would be an honest comparisson if e.g. Telegram gets more popular in the West and there would be actual temptation to pressure it. We actually already see the first signs of it in Germany, where anti-lockdown protestors are using Telegram and the government doesn't like it.
And remember what had happened to TikTok as soon as it became massively popular? It was forced to surrender and get sold without a second thought.
> a general social media platform that has opinions from all sides on it.
Platforms like that exist, but are generally called despicable by people because of the multitude of generally supressed voices that are heard on platforms like that. Neither is Youtube, or Facebook. Ever since 2015 and 2017 dissident voices in the west have been banned from all these platforms.
Plus, at a more general level there’s the whole debacle of blocking RT (I know about the United Kingdom, maybe Germany, also, not sure).
Russia objected to Facebook fact checking and labelling (not removing) Russian state media posts. The Russian regulator (Roskomnadzor) has said it has "restricted" Facebook access in retaliation.
False. Facebook had applied restictions on the pages of these media for 90 days and ignored regulators demands to explain and lift these restrictions. That was the reason for RKN take action, not the "fact checking".
Source (use google translate): https://tjournal.ru/news/542107-facebook-nalozhil-ogranichen...
On a side note, I find the idea of "fact checking" reports on current military events, while having no actual unbiased sources, but only a huge torrent of potential misinformation, to be completely ridiculous. No one has actual facts right now.
That's not what Facebook said in their statement:
"Sir Nick Clegg, vice-president of global affairs at Meta, said Russian authorities "ordered us to stop the independent fact-checking and labelling" the outlets' content."
"We refused," he said.
As for whom you would consider a more reliable source of the regulator's demands: the regulator itself, or a Facebook executive ex-politician -- is obviously entirely up to you.
Your image of the situation is unrealistic.
1. Bob makes a demand, making a press release 2. Alice reports on the demand 3. You claim that Alice is more trustworthy than Bob himself in relaying Bob's demands -- how is that supposed to work? You realise that this is literaly gaslighting?
> Try some reliable news sources instead of Putin controlled "media" for once
Oh please, stop acting like you are not the one who is in an information bubble. Your news sources are only "reliable" because you virtually can't (actually, just don't want to) verify any of this.
Your "for once" makes it evident that you are assuming that we don't read your "reliable" news sources, but that's not the case, dude. What you don't realise is that Russian see this clash between Western media, Russian media and an objective reality, which makes us live in an atmosphere of radical skepticism as we can see the post-truth politics from each side.
This actually made me realise that you probably don't even percieve media as we do. You probably just take journalist's opinion at face value, percieving it as a final instance of truth. Where as I couldn't care less for an opinion and am only interested in references and sources (like actual sources, not relays), so that I can research the topic myself.
I will reiterate, your perception of Russian media is unrealistic, as you haven't ever actually interacted with any of it. Otherwise, you just wouldn't be talking of "Putin controlled media" over some blog post. It's just not how it works in real life, dude.
So why do you think looking at an .ru domain, on a Saint Petersburg IP under the influence of Roskomnadzor on any political matter would ever be a good idea? That's before we even get into the problems of identifying who the author is, what their motivations are or whether they fear arrest for saying the wrong thing. It takes balls of steel to write anything remotely politically critical in Russia, so wouldn't you agree that's a serious problem with the neutrality of any Russian influenced source? I think it's an exceptionally odd claim to suggest that the media of every single other democratic country with a free press combined is not perhaps a better place to look.