Streisand effect - I had no idea about this and now I am curious and will find a torrent of it. I mean, I'm not Indian so I suspect Modi doesn't care about me personally but still.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:B96B9C1CD9A0332E82023FA934DDD4ACF94377DE&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com:80/announce&tr=udp://9.rarbg.m...
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:B96B9C1CD9A0332E82023FA934DDD4ACF94377DE&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com:80/announce&tr=http://tracker.trackerfix.com/announce&tr=udp://9.rarbg.me:2790&tr=udp://9.rarbg.to:2760&tr=udp://tracker.thinelephant.org:12710&tr=udp://tracker.tallpenguin.org:15790Being in tech, what is surprising is how powerful the post-truth era is and how such things can be hidden in plain sight by just knowing how to manipulate Google, Twitter, Wikipedia and all social platforms by using an organized army of trolls.
The minority hatred in India is now naked and public.
Possibly the BBC DMCA all content internet-archived, and the controversy about this particular content is a coincidence here?
Weather other sides carved to political pressure or where "tricked" by malicious DMCA notices (or non DMCA copyright take-down requests) or malicious flagging etc. or a mix of both is also an interesting question.
I can’t agree with this analogy, RT wasn’t banned before Russia started an invasion.
The difference is that prior invasion it’s a different opinions, after the shooting begins it’s part of the warfare and not a public debate activity.
For example it’s completely okay to claim that Zelensky should go and Ukraine and NATO caused the war, totally not acceptable to claim that Zelenksy left the country and requested amnesty in Poland. At war time yok can’t afford BS like that because the impact can have immediate and irreversible consequences.
There are people alive today who grew up in an India subjugated by the UK. It wasn't so long ago in the grand scheme of things.
Besides, everyone was once invaded by the British.
Objectively, the facts are that the UK once invaded India and some Indians alive today personally experienced that subjugation. But what any of that means or implies is subjective.
This doesn't mean that Indians shouldn't be cautious but gives them an opportunity for healthy debate thanks to input from outside. Because there's no immediate and irreversible dangers, they can counter the British arguments or get something from it to make their own position better.
Asians should flag the British media as foreign, can’t expect British do it for them.
Youtube at least tags BBC videos with "BBC is a British public broadcast service."
The reporting in the west is certainly ideologically biased with lots of ignorance and naturally often steeped in sensationalism.
Russias reporting is very often an intentional hostile psyops directed by state forces. Whatever take damages western society most is getting air time.
Its the same with western NGOs vs russian influence campaigns.
Those NGOs were in Russia since the 90s and havent changed a bit. Its the russian state that changed in a way that those NGOs are now hostile and detrimental to the cleptocracy. Now they are all banned.
In contrast Russias support of extremist groups in the west has no ideological consistency and is only aimed at doing maximum damage.
Not that you're wrong, they're trying, but we are just so much bigger.
Zelensky then decided to purge him and his entire party, charging him with treason. This led to Kyva making increasingly unhinged claims and recommendations. Among those were that Russia should nuke Ukraine, and that Zelensky had secretly fled to Poland. Some Russian outlets (I cannot find this story on RT, but perhaps I missed something?) ran this story such as here [2].
The article certainly doesn't state it as a fact. Instead it recounts the events in a relatively impartial way - two Ukrainian lawmakers said he fled. Rumors of something similar were spread shortly before the article was published and Zelensky rejected them while providing video evidence of himself in Ukraine. It also mentions that the US reportedly offered to help him escape Ukraine, and also that he rejected the offer. End of article.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illia_Kyva
[2] - https://sputniknews.com/20220304/zelensky-left-ukraine-for-p...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20050...
akin to how Europe has banned RT
It's just that it's more about selective reporting and creating news in a way that people come to conclusions not backed by truth without making up information (tho in practice it's often not that much better then making up information as most people will be tricked into believing misinformation you just never wrote down).
Like for example a reporting about a demo consisting of a march and then multiple speech and announcements at a plaza being written highlighting that extremists taking part in it and making it look as if only a small number people took part in it. But selectively ommiting (or hiding in subtle formulations) that 80+% of protestors where "normal" people and that while the number of people during the march where small the number at the plaza wasn't.
(One of the most stupid parts is that the "independent state media" using such tricks often doesn't realize that this is perfect to convince people of conspiracies and "media is all lies" etc., e.g. in that example they did claim "they lied there where 20 times the number of people (compared to the march) here see picture of plaza" and then backed down later one to "we miscounted it where only 15 times" making many people believe that this (15x) is the truth and media is outright making up things (the truth was 3-4 times of people at the plaza compared to the march)).
There is a a difference between someone operating as a news channel actively continuously repeatedly spreading misinformation with the intention to undermine a government and a documentation which seem to be mostly correct but unpleasant to hear information.
Also there is a difference between restricting availability in your jurisdiction (country, country union, i.e. case RT) and trying to restrict it beyond that.
While it is questionable banning BBC in India is well in the right of the Indian government, it banning BBC (content) outside of India is on the other hand not something which should be possible/allowed/tolerated.
Maybe people are meant to face these things straight up and be hard about them
Personally - I'm willing to fight tooth and nail for the truth, and I'm sick of people acting like there's some kind of ambiguity here. The world has enough genocide as is without people being wishy-washy about it while it's happening.
If you have a problem with mass murder predicated on bigotry, it's time to take a stand, just saying.
Maybe people can learn in other ways that also don't subject them to harm.
Will this documentary cause its viewers to end whatever specific ills are shown within? I presume so, otherwise it wouldn't be getting censored.
Will it cause any specific person to effect that change? Probably not, most of us have no influence whatsoever over Indian politics or economics.
[0] or, if you don't like the word "evil", sadistic Machiavellian psychopathy
This is what you are advocating for.
Rather than present other means to learn about this, you insist that this is the ONLY way to learn about this.
It's not education of the topic you are promoting, but hurting people. You are, in many ways, supporting Modi's cause by actively working to limit the spread of the knowledge of a chilling and depressing story of how an Indian politician uses communal violence to further his career and promote religious fundamentalist fascist ideology in India.
Why are you protecting this?
> mass murder predicated on hate crimes
choose one
Tell me again how video is the ONLY means by which someone can educate themselves? Without using words.
Edit: In fact, by pretending that the ONLY means to watch this is a video which everyone in this thread admits is hard to watch, you are in fact helping to limit the knowledge that it shares.
In a way, you protecting Modi.
Share links to reading material that informs the reader without harming them, or admit that by your tortured logic, you are also "protecting" Modi.
I definitely agree with this, but in my perception the moving images themselves are secondary in effect to the audio. Tone of voice and emotive music in particular are very powerful methods of hacking emotions. When watching videos that I think are trying to be manipulative with music or tone of voice, I like to mute the audio and rely on subtitles. This is also one of the reasons that I read newspaper articles but avoid all radio and TV news broadcasts (the other reason being that newspapers hire better writers and provide more details and nuance. I read https://lite.cnn.com/ to stay in touch, but the writing there is abysmal.)
Its all out there, and you' ve got to stay informed!
Some of those I turned off after a few seconds, but I think I got the gist.
I think it is only fair to question if he lives up to hos own standards
WARNING: First Kill is a deeply disturbing documentary about human nature in war (The Writer of Full Metal jacket and Apocalypse Now speaks too about his memory's in Vietnam), it's brutal and brutally honest, and the best explanation why you as a person should never ever go to war (if it's not absolutely necessary)...you have been warned.
One should be enough mentally stable learning something about reality.
Have you ever heard about hoa mental health is going for people that have to moderate social networks for this shit?
Yes i even eat beef for example.
> social networks
Yeah i don't do that, THATS not good for your health, not knowledge.
Good one. Doesnt count if you've never been to a slaughterhouse and only ever see a steak wrapped a plastic at the supermarket shelf.
The people who are into that admire the strongman, and don’t really care about the how and why. Understanding nuance or balancing interests is cast as weakness. Caveman clubs cavelady, ugh ugh.
Or maybe not. People who were actually tough and did things like fight in WWII may not have fallen for it. This stuff appeals to wannabes.
They could have rebranded Soviet communism as a tough no nonsense real man’s ideology and brought big chunks of the American right.
Russia has a lot more difficulty subverting the left in the US, though they do fund the more radical elements (which have very little power compared to the centrist dems and extremist right). The Mueller report goes into a lot of Russia's efforts in this arena.
For better or worse, times are different but people are the same in terms of vulnerability to demagoguery. McCarthy played to postwar America’s fear and anxiety the same as people are doing today. As myko said, modern Russia’s influence operations are pushing a Soviet-like narrative without the communism. Stalin was pushed as a father figure, Putin was wrestling bears shirtless and doing other man stuff, etc.
How much of this was real, as opposed to hysteria?
> They could have rebranded Soviet communism as a tough
We had 'independance-loving' Nigel Farage admiring Putin