Which, btw, is very obvious when you actually look at RT. It’s a (more American than Russian for some reason) right wing sewage pool in the comments and some Daily Mail level “journalism” above.
You're going to have to explain the difference between these two things.
Europe doesn't ban [dis]information from Russia (until of course it violates specific laws of a given country against say inciting violence, propaganda of genocide, etc.)
It is up to a specific government whether they allow another government to come in and for example spread propaganda or mine coal or build railways. Usually there is some reciprocity expected. Russia blocked not only West government propaganda agencies, it is also blocked independent media. So, the West governments are more than expected to block Russian government propaganda operations, especially given that non government information flow from Russia isn't blocked (that would be the censorship similar to that Russia has been doing, and West hasn't done it yet).
So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them.
Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
[2] - https://thegrayzone.com/?s=Bbc
[3] - https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...
Perhaps an article from a website that isn't actively known for misleading reporting and being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.
The wikipage on the grey zone is pretty damning. I mean using these people as a source for anything on the west that is critical would be a huge mistake.
> The website published pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the debunked claim that Ukrainian fighters were using civilians as human shields, and that the Mariupol theatre attack was staged by the Azov Regiment.[24] The Russian fake news website Peace Data republished articles by The Grayzone in order to build a reputation as a progressive and anti-West media source and to attract contributors.[38]
Why do you think Twitter added a "hacked materials" warning to that article instead of simply removing it as "Russian misinformation", as they have repeatedly, and perhaps justifiably done for other tweets?
Wikipedia is totally unreliable for controversial topics that challenge the media establishment. Just look at their list of "reliable sources". It's a bad joke!
do you really think that that BBC lying was a deliberate action of Great Britain government against your country? I think nobody thought that, so it wasn't banned.
In general you're mixing 2 different things - an operation of a foreign government on your territory and information content. Blocking the first is sovereign right while blocking the second is censorship and is a mark of dictatorship.
The RT operation in EU is blocked, while the content isn't - you wouldn't get punished for forwarding or retelling (on your own volition without any payment from Russian government for doing so) a content of RT propaganda contradicting official information of EU. In Russia BBC is blocked as an operation as well as its content - i.e. you'd get criminally punished for forwarding or retelling (again, even at your own will) a BBC content contradicting official [dis]information of the Russian government, i.e Russia does have censorship.
Instead of keeping an editorial line on a list of subjects, organizations like the BBC simply maintain a culture, from the top down, where if you were to threaten propaganda by the government or it's allies that is too valuable, you will lose your job.
And who gets to decide whether something is "information content" or a "foreign operation" ?
And that is relevant how? Here comes the whataboutism.
> Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
Russia uses misinformation as an attack, EU blocks it.
Also, RT block is very different from censorship in China: it’s aimed at the outlet itself, not at its users.
That's what you do during a war. All democracies do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
Yup, just call anything you don't like "russian disinformation", and you are free to ban it, easy.
I delight in the irony
Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods. 2
But they don't do business "here", they do their business "there". We're "here" and connecting to their service "there". EU doesn't want us to connect to their business "there".
> Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods.
I was born in yugoslavia, I know how the government-lead media is. And that's another reason to not-censor foreign media, even foreign government owned, because the real truth is always somewhere between what russians say and what the western media says. I really don't want to read articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...
I am in EU and I have access to TASS https://tass.com so at least in my country I can get free access directly to Russian main media, I can also see the Russian trolls version of facts on social media and Russia has a group of fans that promote their alternate reality so we are not in "danger" of not knowing what Putin wants us to know.
TL:DR
- we don't have absolute free speech in EU, most constitutions have limits and consequences for bad behavior (we are not USA)
- there is high quality western media(stop reading tabloids)
- if you hate the waste read Easter European media, Ukrainian neighbors have journalists on the ground and they are also more familiar with the history of the region and remember media past Russian/Putin actions
- only a few propaganda media channels might be blocked, there are plenty Russian media channels available, so only "concerned trolls" will raise the issue that we the poor EU guys can't read Putin approved facts.
If I make a law in my country that allows me to throw rocks at people in another bordering country without repercussions, then that other country should just let me do it because those are my country's laws?
You're conflating intent of one law with execution of another.
No one would do that, because it's stupid and ineffective.
Instead you potentially punish the citizen for having committed a crime on foreign soil, and/or arrest the dealer should they come to your country. This is something nearly every nation state already does. Another thing to look at is extradition treaties.
In the case of disinformation, punishing someone for reading it doesn't stop the spread, but the manufacture of it is undesirable. Current execution is the best method to reach the intent, because doing things like blowing up webservers is undesirable.
how do you know if something is disinformation if your government blocks your direct access to the content and suggests that you read local moderated outlets instead? You just blindly delegated your conclusion forming capacity to a third party that decides for yourself.
But they didn't commit a crime on foreign soil... they did something legal there.
The servers, manufacture and the information is created and stored in russia, and we're just "travelling" (with our IP packets) to russia to read that content there (I'm assuming the servers are located there).
I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.
Irrelevant to how a state chooses to organize its criminal code. If the act is considered severely criminal in nature then most nation states do not care where it occurred, nor should they.
> I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.
Lies by foreign actors are not the same as opinions or criticism of a country's own citizens. They are an offense against the public and should be policed. This isn't about simply "not liking what someone said". This is about statements that have negative value; created for the express purpose of causing confusion and harm.
It seems to have been reduced to "country that allows enemies a free platform".
You're being irrational. Free countries don't broadcast the enemy's information during a war.
Is US in war with Russia? Is EU in war in Russia?
If so, should we already send nukes?
Yes.
> If so, should we already send nukes?
No.
1. Nukes are bit more complicated than vodka or coal, and given that nowadays Russia can’t even make a car, nukes need regular servicing, and the rest of its armed forces are a joke, it’s highly unlikely their nukes are any better.
2. Sending nukes would turn Russia into wasteland; rest of the world would do better because of its natural advantage.
1. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-nigeria-with-nukes_b_1..., and of course Nigeria got much better future prospects
Riiight. Because that’s why RT was banned.
(And this isn't even the stated reason! You can just watch Putins faux-historical speech!)
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-adm...
There's already a perfectly close place to put them, which the US hasn't bothered doing, because it's unnecessary.
In the many years that Cuba was friendly and cooperative with the USSR, the US never made any more than a joke attempt at a military intervention. The US was obviously not thrilled, but never did anything comparable to the current invasion of Ukraine. Not sure your point.
There is a difference though: we can’t punish US, because it’s a superpower. USSR was a superpower too. But Russia isn’t.
Also, everyone has just realized Russian army was all bluff. Every single country bordering with them will take advantage of this. Which means there will be multiple parties we can buy the formerly Russian gas from.
https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-gas-crisis-landlords...
> Germany starts rationing hot water and turning down the heating in case Russia cuts off its natural gas supplies
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/economics/germans-told-t...
> Germans told to wear a sweater to cope with soaring energy prices
Yeah...
But that’s besides the point, which is: like it or not, in politics might makes right, and Russia very obviously lacks the might.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
[1] "iraq has weapons of mass destruction"