Good. It's insane that the west is calling out censorship from Russia, but is doing the exact same thing itself.
To play devils advocate, why should we give our enemies the same rights as our neighbors? Both cohorts are not held accountable in the same ways, nor can we expect our enemies to reciprocate the same good faith.
I think in principle free speech is good, but RT news - and any and all messaging coming out of Russia - should be classified as such. If said propaganda is disguised as genuine sentiment on social media then that's bad for free speech.
The problem is ultimately anonymity, and people trusting anonymous posts as face value.
If we had a rigorous identity layer, a lot of this would be resolved.
For one, the effects are asymmetric. Anonymous bad actors can do more harm than identified sources can do good. Identity discourages bad behavior.
Second, free speech and other ideals of liberalism assume that people are fundamentally good. So if the identified sources are openly bad actors such that they out weigh the good actors, then you're kind of screwed regardless.
Even journalists of RT in the West decided to quit their job ( publicly announced through Twitter), because it went insane.
Show me one 'Ukraine is in war' topic in RT and Russia invaded Ukraine. Which is literally what happened.
Note: Yeah, thought so.
Show me one "How NATO's push eastward scared Russia into war" on CNN.
The only time this comes up on CNN is when they show Putin saying it and talk about what a bullshit lie it is.
The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire. This was just one of the myriad excuses he used to invade. Repeating it is repeating Putin's propaganda, which is the job of his propaganda groups RT/Sputnik/etc
And everyone happily consumes this, as no one has their own opinion anymore. Doesn't make it less of a concern from security perspective of Russia.
Frankly, this kind of chauvinistic attitude is one of the main actual reasons of why Russian-Western relations had degraded to this point. All of this had already been predicted by political experts all over the world almost 20 years ago.
> The fact is Putin wants to reestablish the Russian Empire
Please don't state such ridiculous assertions as facts.
Those warnings were indeed mentioned more than 20 years ago, that is correct. The rest is bs.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/04/world/china-russia-xi-put...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/24/europe/ukraine-russia-con...
> Putin has seen NATO's expansion as an existential threat, and the prospect of Ukraine joining the Western military alliance a "hostile act" -- a view he invoked in a televised speech on Thursday, saying that Ukraine's aspiration to join the military alliance was a dire threat to Russia.
But that's not the whole picture. The main reason behind this war is that Putin considers Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine as one nation, one people. In a lot of ways his actions mirror that of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, when he wanted to unify the german people under one nation. Here's a quote from a lengthy article by Putin published last year:
> I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. Our spiritual, human and civilizational ties formed for centuries and have their origins in the same sources, they have been hardened by common trials, achievements and victories. Our kinship has been transmitted from generation to generation. It is in the hearts and the memory of people living in modern Russia and Ukraine, in the blood ties that unite millions of our families. Together we have always been and will be many times stronger and more successful. For we are one people.
> Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.
> What was Russia's excuse before NATO was created?
Excuse for what? What are you even talking about? Do you even know what NATO is and when and how it was formed?
You're right, it would be different. Russia would be all over the Baltics, Finland, parts of Poland and Romania, performing special peacekeeping operations.
> Excuse for what?
Excuse for attacking and occupying neighboring countries. Russia's track record goes back in history much further than 1949.
Maybe, maybe not. There would probably be no point in peacekeeping operations if there was no transcontinental military industrial complex as a factor for geopolitical destabilization.
> Russia's track record goes back in history much further than 1949
Considering the historic period you are referring to, Russian track record seems much more restrained then other superpowers rising in 20th century. Maybe you should be more specific?
Except when it comes to the controversial topics. CNN is everything but honest or objective
Show me a single outright lie CNN published, comparable to RT publishing a story that ukrainian army crucified a child on a main square in 2014 which caused some people in russia to volunteer as fighters and cross the border with intention of killing ukrainians.
Edit: here, educate yourself - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified_boy
No, please, do tell. Does a different stance make you fascist? Or does it make you pro-Putin? Or are you about to accuse me of being paid for taking a different stance?
You've already called me "fcking piece of sht garbage of a human" in a different thread. Ironic.
Earlier, you said "sure, from their perspective they are" in reply to "So North Korea is doing good then".
I suppose that your agreement with tyrannical dictatorships explains more about you than anyone else.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Edit: we got such an email so I've unbanned the account. Please stick to the rules going forward.