Hacker News Reader

Comment by hutrdvnj | Hacker News Reader

I think it's important to distinguish between opinion and false information.

It's very important to have different opinions represented across all different kind of media, but the opinion should be based on facts or make it very clear that there's not enough evidence in case of speculative posts.

RT, however, actively and knowingly publish false information and opinions based on false information, as ordered by the kremlin. This is dangerous because people can then build their own opinion (or adopt) based on false information.

View on HN

There are judicial means for controlling this. At least in EU (TBH i don't know about US). You cant publish any kind of crap, the editor will have to answer for it.

But this is a judicial process.

My understanding of this ban was that it was a political move.

No such distinction is necessary. I have a human right to be informed, even when that information is false.

Censorship doesn't just violates RTs rights to inform, but also violates my right to be informed.

what's your definition of the word informed?

Informed covers knowing enemy propaganda.

Being able to read both Galileo's contention that the sun does not move and the church's condemnation of his theory.

Being able to read both the corporate press's arguments in favor of invading Iraq and independent voices critiquing those arguments.

Being able to, in short, inform myself of competing views on an issue.

As Richard Feynman said, "science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts."

If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.

Censorship leads invariably to tyrrany, which is why the USA's bill of rights enshrined the right to free speech and free press as the first and most fundamental guaranteed right.

Freedom of speech truly is the eternally radical idea [1], it seems.

[1] https://www.thefire.org/what-is-the-eternally-radical-idea/

> If arguments are obviously wrong, they are easily refuted.

Let's assume we live in an idealized world, where everyone could indeed easily refute false information. In this case you're right.

This is unfortunately not the case for many. The US citizens are a good example, Trump can claim voter fraud and continue to do so even if there's zero evidence. This is not an opinion, but false information. However, many people still believe Trumps words, and if they crowd up, storm the capitol and kill police officers, based on false information, then this has nothing todo with freedom of speech.

I can receive information.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com