Is blocking Russian state media broadcasts counterproductive to the western audience getting a clear multi-sided view of the conflict... even if it's totally false? It may make our western governments look to be doing the same as our adversaries: controlling the narrative and what we see i.e. propaganda.... pot, kettle.

Edited March 4, 20223 yr by StringJunky

I struggle with this question. Who decides what is or is not propaganda, and how do you prevent people from circumventing your ban? 

Maybe we can start by just shutting off Fox News? /rimshot

I struggle with it too, that's why I'm asking.

That's a tough one because while I am pretty emphatically for free speech, within limits that of course I would have opinions on defining, clearly the Russian government is suppressing free speech for their political opponents and citizens well inside those limits, and just as clearly for their own purposes.

...so why should we allow them the free speech they disallow others? 

On the other hand how would we know that they are lying if we only hear it through restrictive filters?

Ofcourse it's wise. Exactly as wise as banning child porn or Nazi propaganda.

43 minutes ago, iNow said:

I struggle with this question. Who decides what is or is not propaganda, and how do you prevent people from circumventing your ban? 

Maybe we can start by just shutting off Fox News? /rimshot

I think a body count is a good measure of deciding what is exempt from free speech.

Edited March 4, 20223 yr by koti

Also, what happens when your opponents take over and sensor your rebuttals of their lies. 

Apparently Youtube decided to block WION for seven days for reporting statements by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's claim that Russia did not invade Ukraine...which is laughable if you watch any Wion videos as they clearly have and are covering the invasion...but sad that Youtube would even consider doing this...

(CBC reported the same and felt no need to point out that Lavrov's claims were preposterous either)

The block did not last very long but platforms like Youtube are in dangerous territory doing this.

Their blocks on Russian state controlled content continue, though in that case they at least have the argument that Russia has eliminated any dissenting views including factual information.

Wion's report was factual in that Lavrov actually said it, and they didn't endorse it or claim it was true. and they ran Ukrainian Foreign Minister's comments also, I think in the same video.

 

On 3/4/2022 at 10:20 PM, StringJunky said:

Is blocking Russian state media broadcasts counterproductive to the western audience getting a clear multi-sided view of the conflict... even if it's totally false? It may make our western governments look to be doing the same as our adversaries: controlling the narrative and what we see i.e. propaganda.... pot, kettle.

 

On 3/4/2022 at 10:20 PM, StringJunky said:

Is blocking Russian state media broadcasts counterproductive to the western audience getting a clear multi-sided view of the conflict... even if it's totally false? It may make our western governments look to be doing the same as our adversaries: controlling the narrative and what we see i.e. propaganda.... pot, kettle.

If you're going to lie, weave in a truth...

I used to be clearly in favour of free information flow, even if counterfactual. The idea was that facts would win out. Algorithm-driven self radicalization and the fact that I got pre-meds citing YouTube as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and don't work, I don't know anymore.

12 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I used to be clearly in favour of free information flow, even if counterfactual. The idea was that facts would win out. Algorithm-driven self radicalization and the fact that I got pre-meds citing YouTube as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and don't work, I don't know anymore.

Who would you like to decide what information you, yourself, are allowed to be exposed to?

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I used to be clearly in favour of free information flow, even if counterfactual. The idea was that facts would win out. Algorithm-driven self radicalization and the fact that I got pre-meds citing YouTube as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and don't work, I don't know anymore.

 

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best:

Groups that have some level of accountability.

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who would you like to decide what information you, yourself, are allowed to be exposed to?

 

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Groups that have some level of accountability.

 

That definition would include Russian state media.

In fact their "accountability" has become even more stringent recently.

Possibly. I would want folks to have some ability to discern fact from fiction. But it appears that this skill is lost.

Or perhaps we normalized that facts don't matter anymore.

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That definition would include Russian state media.

Only if Russia diceds to include it...

 

I was surprised to learn that Bertrand Russell was Welsh.   That sent me a-factchecking.  It seems that Monmouthshire was somewhat disputed as to its Welshness until 1972?  I wonder if Lord Russell self-identified as Welsh.  Or if he much cared.

I hope Dimmy is not trying to subvert our minds with pro-Welsh propaganda.

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I hope Dimmy is not trying to subvert our minds with pro-Welsh propaganda.

 

28 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I was surprised to learn that Bertrand Russell was Welsh.   That sent me a-factchecking.  It seems that Monmouthshire was somewhat disputed as to its Welshness until 1972?  I wonder if Lord Russell self-identified as Welsh.  Or if he much cared.

I hope Dimmy is not trying to subvert our minds with pro-Welsh propaganda.

He does subvert our minds with everything else...

Fact checking seems to be a pretty good counter to propaganda, and allows us to avoid having to make the call on what should and should-not be blocked.

On 3/5/2022 at 9:20 AM, StringJunky said:

Is blocking Russian state media broadcasts counterproductive to the western audience getting a clear multi-sided view of the conflict... even if it's totally false? It may make our western governments look to be doing the same as our adversaries: controlling the narrative and what we see i.e. propaganda.... pot, kettle.

 

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

I used to be clearly in favour of free information flow, even if counterfactual. The idea was that facts would win out. Algorithm-driven self radicalization and the fact that I got pre-meds citing YouTube as evidence that vaccines are dangerous and don't work, I don't know anymore.

 

On 3/5/2022 at 10:04 AM, koti said:

Of course it's wise. Exactly as wise as banning child porn or Nazi propaganda.

Of course all statements with regards to free speech are right and wise. As is koti's and many other examples. To me at least, it simply validates the fact that no amount of intention to be open and fair to free speech, actions, and philsophical standings, can ever be absolute, in every circumstance, on every occasion.  

On 3/5/2022 at 10:04 AM, koti said:

I think a body count is a good measure of deciding what is exempt from free speech.

Who counts the bodies? Who reports on the count? 

Perhaps all we can be confident in is as per the little ditty, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

The best we have is as per your great Abraham Lincoln was reported to have said during your civil war.......

The government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best:

Was going to comment and make a remark on that statement....and then suddenly, the penny dropped!! 😉

Edited March 26, 20223 yr by beecee

1 hour ago, beecee said:

 

Was going to comment and make a remark on that statement....and then suddenly, the penny dropped!! 😉

Makes cents to me!

Some Russians seem to be getting around government blocked internet sources.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/12/tech/russia-internet-censorship-circumvention/index.html

19 hours ago, beecee said:

 

 

Of course all statements with regards to free speech are right and wise. As is koti's and many other examples. To me at least, it simply validates the fact that no amount of intention to be open and fair to free speech, actions, and philsophical standings, can ever be absolute, in every circumstance, on every occasion.  

I agree. Thats why we have laws and regulations which should provide an effective way of distinguishing between what is allowed and whats not. It is especially important in todays world where the internet of things has taken charge over most information which ends up at an end user.