Look, I am all game for attacking fake news. However, this seems to me like a blanket ban which could apply to anyone. For example, Fox News has a slant which one could consider highly misleading. Would they get de-ranked too?
Wouldn't a better solution be to identify the claims in the article and automatically alert the reader that one or more claims have been debunked? Then let the user decide?
Google makes no illusion about it any longer, they aim to curate what their users have access to and want to ensure that the curation conforms to an acceptable spectrum of thought.
They are in the business of feeding users advertisements and information, and hitherto that has benefited users with easier access to the world's full breadth of information and ideas. That era is drawing to a close.
Obviously this is a lazier approach than others that could be taken, but I do think that it's completely fair that a state run news agency would be given less inherent credibility on a wide range of topics(read: any that might effect the nation in a positive/negative way.) How can you guarantee the objectivity of a by-design mouthpiece for a government? You can't.
I think the difference is that RT is literally registered as a foreign agent now, so everything they produce is actual propaganda in some form.
It doesn't mean that it is all fake news -- actually, the most dangerous articles are somewhat true but intentionally misleading or sensationalizing some component of a true story that helps Russia's cause.
When you say "better", remember to ask yourself, "better for who?" For you?
Honestly, I'm pretty sure Google doesn't care what would be better for you. You're a product, not a customer. Now, who is a customer, then? Usually, answer seems pretty obvious, but you couldn't answer it regarding this particular case, could you? It might be government, it might be some other company, it might be Schmidt himself for whatever reason…
And it seems to me, the fact you are being sold without even being able to tell who likely buys you anymore is even more noteworthy than the notion itself.
Fox News, being a stridently partisan media outlet, is a somewhat incendiary example (I edited that sentence a lot to take out more pointed insults about Fox News). A more neutral one is: imagine Google invests in Media Org A, and de-ranks competing Media Org B's sites. Bye bye, Media Org B.
Fox News probably should get de-ranked, yes, in comparison to generally reputable and truthful right-leaning news sources like the Wall Street Journal.
It takes an incredible amount of chauvinism and arrogance to believe that the American people are too stupid to realize that perhaps a news source called "Russia Today" might publish articles that would reflect unflattering aspects of American society and unflattering stories about American politicians. If our domestic news outlets reported on these things there would have been no market share left to be grabbed by RT in the first place.
Schmidt seems to want to suppress such ideas, helping to suppress these unflattering stories so that the Al Frankens, Donald Trumps, and George HW Bushes of the world can stay in power.
As an aside, Schmidt is the ultimate establishment opportunist, so of course he would do this sort of thing. He cares only about making Eric Schmidt powerful.
> Wouldn't a better solution be to identify the claims in the article and automatically alert the reader that one or more claims have been debunked? Then let the user decide?
Of course that would be better. It would also be what a capable tech firm should do to help create an informed populace. But Schmidt doesn't want that, he simply wants to be viewed as one of the "good guys" by the partisans who are promoting the Russia story and trying to make political headway with it.
I have zero respect for Trump, but the Russia story is total bunk and RT has published more important stories about America's disadvantaged citizens and failing infrastructure than all of the major news outlets combined.
This also probably reveals that Google rankings can no longer be trusted simply to reveal pagerank results with corrections for spam and pagerank exploits.
Note to Google: We do not want you to be an information censor or a moderator of the ideas that we are exposed to. Please stop.
I'm not sure that most 'readers' are able enough to balance points and counterpoints. If readers were capable of separating fact from fiction, you would think that 'fake news' would be less prominent.
I'm honestly tired of hearing this (don't take it personally, I just read it a lot) argument that "Well what if we ban Fox News? Where does it stop?
It stops where we bloody well want it to. Fox News is not the only news org that puts out crap content on the regular, they're just one of the bigger ones. CNN has a similar problem in the other direction, both doing the same basic tactic; taking and leaving facts and figures that don't suit what they want to say.
The vast majority of news networks yes, have a bias, but also report more or less the facts with more or less a complete picture. There are only a few news orgs out there that report just plain, outright, easily disproven bullshit and at the front of them is Fox News, that, in perhaps an honest attempt to counter the bias of most mainstream media, -or- in a cynical cash grab picked up and stoked the fears of white middle America, choose the narrative you prefer. Outside of that, most are relatively fine.
And yes, get Fox News the hell off Google. I'm all for it. Let's get rid of CNN too for the same reasons, and make news agencies compete for ranking based on who gets the story RIGHT, not who gets it FIRST.
Deranking FOX would be an atrocious attack on investigative journalism and drain the brave people of the United States of America of a very valuable news source!
Welcome to the murky world of SEO. If you don't like it, use another search engine. It's up to Google how they want to rank websites and what criteria they use. I also doubt the technical feasibility of "identifying debunked claims". By annotating results and providing commentary, you take up an editorial stance.
But AIPAC isn't forced to do so, despite even engaging in espionage[1] and literally boasting about how they've corrupted and influenced top politicians[2]. So everyone should take this foreign agent registration stuff as more political theater.
> _“Good to have Google on record as defying all logic and reason: facts aren’t allowed if they come from RT, ‘because Russia’ – even if we have Google on Congressional record saying they've found no manipulation of their platform or policy violations by RT,”_ Sputnik and RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan said in a statement.
Funny, the official PR rings like a thousand troll posts I've read.
Good on Alphabet, some CSR in this area is long overdue.
I don't doubt that RT has a pro-Russian slant, but is there any objective evidence that the traditional sources are any less biased? It was only last decade when American media proved itself to be frighteningly biased in favor of the US government's agenda[1].
By abandoning algorithmic rankings, and directly targeting "enemy" news sources, Google is moving away from its engineering roots, and is starting to become a weapon for the US government's foreign policy objectives. Is it any surprise that foreign countries, including our allies in the EU, are becoming increasingly distrustful of American technology platforms?
It's not that RT is biased. Fox News is clearly biased, but I wouldn't treat it the same way. It's that RT utterly doesn't care to report the facts.
To show you what I mean, I came across an RT article that was trying to pin the blame on the hacking of the Estonian government on UIUC. The article had several flaws:
* It miscounted the number of people in the city. While I understand there's definitely some room to come up with different values (having two cities and a general not-in-city suburban area), I couldn't come up with a combination of reasonable values that was close to their estimate.
* It misidentifies the NCSA as the NSA.
* There was an odd bit about how it's "suspicious" that the area has so many IP addresses, which is a) nonsensical, b) I've no idea how to actually come up with a number here (I'm quite sure it was made up for the article), and c) not so surprising if you understand historical IP address allocation policies.
* It also identifies the small town as having three major airports. There is in fact only one airport served by one airline (now two) that serves two destinations (Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth) with 5 flights a day. There is a second, 4000 ft airstrip. I don't know what they think the third airport is--best guess is the decommissioned Air Force base in the next town over.
After reading that article, I have decided to never again grace RT with even ad revenue.
> By abandoning algorithmic rankings, and directly targeting "enemy" news sources, Google is moving away from its engineering roots, and is starting to become a weapon for the US government's foreign policy objectives.
This is precisely Schmidt's goal, and has been for a long time. He wants to weaponize Google and sell it to Government as if it were a defense contractor.
It's totally shameful. Schmidt is one of the enablers of villains like GW Bush. History will judge him harshly.
Most of the popular US media is very biased towards the US, but that's not what's spurring this action from Google. It's not just that RT is owned by a foreign state or that RT is biased or even propaganda. It's that it's owned by a foreign state which attempted to interfere in US elections, partially using RT, and partially with the help of Google search results showing RT stories. Google, being an American company, needs to draw a line somewhere, and that seems like a reasonable place.
American state-owned or private outlets deliberately attempting to influence other countries' elections (as they undoubtedly do) are also right to be de-ranked by those countries' search engines and aggregators.
RT is trash and propaganda arm of Russian government, however what Google is doing is thousand times more scary to me that what RT is doing. When you come to RT (if you do), you know where you are, you know how to evaluate the information and you don't even have to go there if you don't want to - every link would clearly tell you "you are going to RT". It is exactly what it says on the box, no surprises.
What Google is doing is essentially telling me "we own your information diet now, and for your own good we're not letting you to see this. Because we know what you should be seeing, and this is not part of it. So we will choose which content to show and not to show for our own reasons, and you don't bother your little head with it, we've got it".
This is an approach that takes away my choice, takes away my power to decide which content I want to consume. I'd probably be ok if the content Google demotes is clearly junk - like spam sites that game the ranking etc. Maybe even with sites which are clearly criminal or used as a tool to commit crimes. But here we clearly have tweaking search ranking as a response to political pressure. This is terrible, and also now you can't trust Google with not doing the same for any other reason - maybe they are tweaking the ranking to boost political candidates they like? Maybe to boost businesses they invest in or partner with? Maybe tweak it to demote some companies that offended them in some way or stepped on somebody's toes? Before, I could say it's paranoid to think so, Google would never risk their business by doing this. Now I see head of Google saying this and I can't honestly say it's just paranoia anymore. Thanks, Eric Schmidt.
That's why one should use every opportunity to use engines alternative to Google (I use DDG, other suggestions welcome) - when Google thinks they know what we need better than we do, it is a very bad symptom.
I remember seeing separate interviews with Richard Stallman, Steve Wozniak, and Andy Müller-Maguhn on RT about five years ago. Also, some early pieces delving into Bitcoin before that.
Has RT changed substantially in the last five years? Does it no longer interview people who are experts in their field?
No, it just covers issues that are unflattering to powerful US officials and to the US in general. The regular US press has somehow been conditioned to write lots of stories that are critical of other governments, other countries' infrastructure, etc., but always to carry the torch of American exceptionalism.
Once we realize that American Exceptionalism is among the most evil ideologies of the modern era, it makes sense that other nations would want to offer a competing voice.
RT has not been criticized for the quality of its journalism, only for its source of funding.
Less biased, or merely less obviously biased? Given that the argument against RT is essentially that they are too dangerous to include in search results because of their known and obvious bias, it would be interesting to look for distortions in their coverage. Did you spot any substantial differences in the two versions of the story? Or is the danger possibly that they will lull us in with factual reporting only to betray us once we let our guard down?
I think it's both legitimate and important to point out the fact that as this is a popular public internet destination where presumably some quite influential people are known to frequent that it could be a very likely target for Russian-backed (or otherwise) trolls looking to sway public opinion. I think it's important that everyone consider the intentions and motives behind the comments that they read.
> The Alphabet chief, who has been referred to by Hillary Clinton as a “longtime friend,” added that the experience of “the last year”
They don't even pretend to be unbiased. "Hillary is my friend and she refuses to acknowledge she lost due to her own hubris. Instead blames Russia, so I am going along with her here".
> showed that audiences could not be trusted to distinguish fake and real news for themselves.
"The people don't seem to be swallowing our propaganda for some reason. The Manufacturing Consent machine has broken down a bit. Please stand by while tweak our algorithms to ensure they are force fed the proper version of truth".
To be more serious, RT is propaganda and a branch of the Russian government just like Fox New is a branch of Republican party. What is interesting is the other media (traditional TV and print news) and now the tech companies have also dropped the pretense.
Well at least things are bit more clear. Nobody is pretending anymore. That in itself is a step forward as well.
You do not have to be a fan of Hillary Clinton to think that "audiences [can] not be trusted to distinguish fake and real news for themselves" based on the "experience of 'the last year'". The mention of her name in literally the same sentence where they implicitly question the validity of the "fake news" narrative could not be more transparently calculated.
So yes, you are right that RT is propaganda, but in that light I'm not sure how to take your first two sentences. The word "irony" comes to mind.
RT is Russia Today, which is funded by the Russian government. Sputnik, the other media outlet mentioned in the article, is similarly funded by the Russian government. Their Wikipedia pages imply that both are use for Russian government propaganda... in case anyone else also needed background context.
As a person, who lived in Crimea and survived Russian invasion I'm very happy about that. RT is not a media news it is absolute propaganda which exists for only one reason - to help russia seize other countries
Making the world safe from fake news is the new war on terrorism. In the same way there is just as much terrorism since 9/11, there will be just as much misinformation in the future, only with less freedom.
Please answer me this question - have your mods flagged this story? It sure is odd how an incredibly active discussion in a fresh story with >100 points is on page 2 behind stale and dead stuff on the front page.
Seems kinda relevant to the topic at hand. Also relevant is how little coverage this story is getting outside of RT - Fucking hmmm.
If you blacklist things that people like (however misguided their reasons are for liking them), they will double down and probably consume even more of their propaganda news.
Instead, demand that articles use language that states things plainly, probably with a machine learning model to help. No personal attacks, etc.
It's interesting to see people take sides here. We freely rely on Google to sift through people trying to manipulate search rankings and show us the best results. Part of this process often results in entire domains being blacklisted. Hell, we we even allow copyright law to dictate what we can find on Google.
So I don't understand why it's so controversial to exclude insidious propaganda and proven bad journalism from news searches.
Some others have called this a slippery slope, saying Fox (or the left wing equivalents) could be next... But seriously, why not? The threat to excluding bad outlets should be extended to all outlets.
One way to workaround this is simply to prefix your Google search with site:rt.com
ex
site:rt.com my search query
With or without the communist Chinese style ban on RT.com it is convenient to use this technique if even to cross reference a specific issue you've heard buzz about with an non-US (and by extension, non Five Eyes) based source of news. Otherwise your news is, now openly admitted, at the discretion of Google's / US governments distorted and now limited view of what is 'news'.
Have always enjoyed RT because it is one of the few quality international news outlets not based or biased in US - and will continue enjoying it despite Google or US introducing Chinese PRC style blanket censorship.
Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff are just a few of the respected names who have routinely appeared on RT to share their commentary.
Slippery slope, but hey - this way they seal their own demise as independent thinkers lead the way in replacing the likes of Google and other compromised tech companies with decentralized, censor-proof solutions.
The problem with Google "ranking" is that it's linear, when a real substantive analysis of results would first categorize results and then rank within those categories. Google needs to indicate the intent behind an article, such as to inform, to convince, to sell a product, or to generate clicks to show you more advertising.
I wonder if anyone has noticed that you can't even query a search without it already being flooded with the news. You can't really customize the search in away you get zero news from any search.
[+] [-] jenga22|8 years ago|reply
Wouldn't a better solution be to identify the claims in the article and automatically alert the reader that one or more claims have been debunked? Then let the user decide?
[+] [-] dleslie|8 years ago|reply
They are in the business of feeding users advertisements and information, and hitherto that has benefited users with easier access to the world's full breadth of information and ideas. That era is drawing to a close.
[+] [-] turndown|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bshur|8 years ago|reply
It doesn't mean that it is all fake news -- actually, the most dangerous articles are somewhat true but intentionally misleading or sensationalizing some component of a true story that helps Russia's cause.
[+] [-] krick|8 years ago|reply
Honestly, I'm pretty sure Google doesn't care what would be better for you. You're a product, not a customer. Now, who is a customer, then? Usually, answer seems pretty obvious, but you couldn't answer it regarding this particular case, could you? It might be government, it might be some other company, it might be Schmidt himself for whatever reason…
And it seems to me, the fact you are being sold without even being able to tell who likely buys you anymore is even more noteworthy than the notion itself.
[+] [-] chadlavi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crooked-v|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|8 years ago|reply
It takes an incredible amount of chauvinism and arrogance to believe that the American people are too stupid to realize that perhaps a news source called "Russia Today" might publish articles that would reflect unflattering aspects of American society and unflattering stories about American politicians. If our domestic news outlets reported on these things there would have been no market share left to be grabbed by RT in the first place.
Schmidt seems to want to suppress such ideas, helping to suppress these unflattering stories so that the Al Frankens, Donald Trumps, and George HW Bushes of the world can stay in power.
As an aside, Schmidt is the ultimate establishment opportunist, so of course he would do this sort of thing. He cares only about making Eric Schmidt powerful.
> Wouldn't a better solution be to identify the claims in the article and automatically alert the reader that one or more claims have been debunked? Then let the user decide?
Of course that would be better. It would also be what a capable tech firm should do to help create an informed populace. But Schmidt doesn't want that, he simply wants to be viewed as one of the "good guys" by the partisans who are promoting the Russia story and trying to make political headway with it.
I have zero respect for Trump, but the Russia story is total bunk and RT has published more important stories about America's disadvantaged citizens and failing infrastructure than all of the major news outlets combined.
This also probably reveals that Google rankings can no longer be trusted simply to reveal pagerank results with corrections for spam and pagerank exploits.
Note to Google: We do not want you to be an information censor or a moderator of the ideas that we are exposed to. Please stop.
[+] [-] dataminded|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FussyZeus|8 years ago|reply
It stops where we bloody well want it to. Fox News is not the only news org that puts out crap content on the regular, they're just one of the bigger ones. CNN has a similar problem in the other direction, both doing the same basic tactic; taking and leaving facts and figures that don't suit what they want to say.
The vast majority of news networks yes, have a bias, but also report more or less the facts with more or less a complete picture. There are only a few news orgs out there that report just plain, outright, easily disproven bullshit and at the front of them is Fox News, that, in perhaps an honest attempt to counter the bias of most mainstream media, -or- in a cynical cash grab picked up and stoked the fears of white middle America, choose the narrative you prefer. Outside of that, most are relatively fine.
And yes, get Fox News the hell off Google. I'm all for it. Let's get rid of CNN too for the same reasons, and make news agencies compete for ranking based on who gets the story RIGHT, not who gets it FIRST.
[+] [-] blubb-fish|8 years ago|reply
just my ¢2.
[+] [-] cooper12|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akras14|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eclectic|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] untog|8 years ago|reply
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/14/564045159...
So it's not as if Google is picking media organisations it dislikes at random.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|8 years ago|reply
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs...
[+] [-] chiaro|8 years ago|reply
Funny, the official PR rings like a thousand troll posts I've read.
Good on Alphabet, some CSR in this area is long overdue.
[+] [-] whack|8 years ago|reply
By abandoning algorithmic rankings, and directly targeting "enemy" news sources, Google is moving away from its engineering roots, and is starting to become a weapon for the US government's foreign policy objectives. Is it any surprise that foreign countries, including our allies in the EU, are becoming increasingly distrustful of American technology platforms?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War...
[+] [-] jcranmer|8 years ago|reply
To show you what I mean, I came across an RT article that was trying to pin the blame on the hacking of the Estonian government on UIUC. The article had several flaws:
* It miscounted the number of people in the city. While I understand there's definitely some room to come up with different values (having two cities and a general not-in-city suburban area), I couldn't come up with a combination of reasonable values that was close to their estimate.
* It misidentifies the NCSA as the NSA.
* There was an odd bit about how it's "suspicious" that the area has so many IP addresses, which is a) nonsensical, b) I've no idea how to actually come up with a number here (I'm quite sure it was made up for the article), and c) not so surprising if you understand historical IP address allocation policies.
* It also identifies the small town as having three major airports. There is in fact only one airport served by one airline (now two) that serves two destinations (Chicago and Dallas-Fort Worth) with 5 flights a day. There is a second, 4000 ft airstrip. I don't know what they think the third airport is--best guess is the decommissioned Air Force base in the next town over.
After reading that article, I have decided to never again grace RT with even ad revenue.
[+] [-] psergeant|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grandalf|8 years ago|reply
This is precisely Schmidt's goal, and has been for a long time. He wants to weaponize Google and sell it to Government as if it were a defense contractor.
It's totally shameful. Schmidt is one of the enablers of villains like GW Bush. History will judge him harshly.
[+] [-] meowface|8 years ago|reply
American state-owned or private outlets deliberately attempting to influence other countries' elections (as they undoubtedly do) are also right to be de-ranked by those countries' search engines and aggregators.
[+] [-] smsm42|8 years ago|reply
What Google is doing is essentially telling me "we own your information diet now, and for your own good we're not letting you to see this. Because we know what you should be seeing, and this is not part of it. So we will choose which content to show and not to show for our own reasons, and you don't bother your little head with it, we've got it".
This is an approach that takes away my choice, takes away my power to decide which content I want to consume. I'd probably be ok if the content Google demotes is clearly junk - like spam sites that game the ranking etc. Maybe even with sites which are clearly criminal or used as a tool to commit crimes. But here we clearly have tweaking search ranking as a response to political pressure. This is terrible, and also now you can't trust Google with not doing the same for any other reason - maybe they are tweaking the ranking to boost political candidates they like? Maybe to boost businesses they invest in or partner with? Maybe tweak it to demote some companies that offended them in some way or stepped on somebody's toes? Before, I could say it's paranoid to think so, Google would never risk their business by doing this. Now I see head of Google saying this and I can't honestly say it's just paranoia anymore. Thanks, Eric Schmidt.
That's why one should use every opportunity to use engines alternative to Google (I use DDG, other suggestions welcome) - when Google thinks they know what we need better than we do, it is a very bad symptom.
[+] [-] jancsika|8 years ago|reply
Has RT changed substantially in the last five years? Does it no longer interview people who are experts in their field?
[+] [-] grandalf|8 years ago|reply
Once we realize that American Exceptionalism is among the most evil ideologies of the modern era, it makes sense that other nations would want to offer a competing voice.
RT has not been criticized for the quality of its journalism, only for its source of funding.
[+] [-] mtmail|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dleslie|8 years ago|reply
> vice
I mean come on now; that's just swinging all the way the other direction.
[+] [-] sdenton4|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkurz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aalleavitch|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdtsc|8 years ago|reply
They don't even pretend to be unbiased. "Hillary is my friend and she refuses to acknowledge she lost due to her own hubris. Instead blames Russia, so I am going along with her here".
> showed that audiences could not be trusted to distinguish fake and real news for themselves.
"The people don't seem to be swallowing our propaganda for some reason. The Manufacturing Consent machine has broken down a bit. Please stand by while tweak our algorithms to ensure they are force fed the proper version of truth".
To be more serious, RT is propaganda and a branch of the Russian government just like Fox New is a branch of Republican party. What is interesting is the other media (traditional TV and print news) and now the tech companies have also dropped the pretense.
Well at least things are bit more clear. Nobody is pretending anymore. That in itself is a step forward as well.
[+] [-] caconym_|8 years ago|reply
So yes, you are right that RT is propaganda, but in that light I'm not sure how to take your first two sentences. The word "irony" comes to mind.
[+] [-] grandalf|8 years ago|reply
It is a relief that it's happened during the era when we can be sure that it was due to human judgment and not due to some sort of AI quirk.
[+] [-] cobookman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harry8|8 years ago|reply
Shut them all down? I can't see that being good for democracy.
[+] [-] vm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MRSallee|8 years ago|reply
And PBS is funded by US government.
[+] [-] stash_machine|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darepublic|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sone7|8 years ago|reply
Please answer me this question - have your mods flagged this story? It sure is odd how an incredibly active discussion in a fresh story with >100 points is on page 2 behind stale and dead stuff on the front page.
Seems kinda relevant to the topic at hand. Also relevant is how little coverage this story is getting outside of RT - Fucking hmmm.
[+] [-] grzm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makecheck|8 years ago|reply
Instead, demand that articles use language that states things plainly, probably with a machine learning model to help. No personal attacks, etc.
[+] [-] oliwarner|8 years ago|reply
So I don't understand why it's so controversial to exclude insidious propaganda and proven bad journalism from news searches.
Some others have called this a slippery slope, saying Fox (or the left wing equivalents) could be next... But seriously, why not? The threat to excluding bad outlets should be extended to all outlets.
[+] [-] mrschwabe|8 years ago|reply
ex
site:rt.com my search query
With or without the communist Chinese style ban on RT.com it is convenient to use this technique if even to cross reference a specific issue you've heard buzz about with an non-US (and by extension, non Five Eyes) based source of news. Otherwise your news is, now openly admitted, at the discretion of Google's / US governments distorted and now limited view of what is 'news'.
Have always enjoyed RT because it is one of the few quality international news outlets not based or biased in US - and will continue enjoying it despite Google or US introducing Chinese PRC style blanket censorship.
Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff are just a few of the respected names who have routinely appeared on RT to share their commentary.
Slippery slope, but hey - this way they seal their own demise as independent thinkers lead the way in replacing the likes of Google and other compromised tech companies with decentralized, censor-proof solutions.
[+] [-] speedplane|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diebir|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sl1e|8 years ago|reply