I can't understand how this can be compatible with western liberal values.
Even floating this idea in an informal not binding way will do damage to the reputation of who is criticizing an authoritarian state. How can any benefit offset an own goal of this magnitude?
If they are doing something wrong, file a formal lawsuit etc, but removing from search results? Seriously?
Talk principles when others are concerned, protect interests when it concerns them. The hypocrisy, condescension and self-righteousness of the entire western world is on display in this conflict. The relentless onslaught of western propaganda might have worked 20 years ago, but is mostly a self goal now and a bubble for their own populace to bask in moral high ground. From Gulf to Africa and Asia, countries are paying lip service at best to western narrative or downright ignoring it. Everyone acknowledges Putin as a dangerous individual, sympathizes with plight of Ukrainians but knows west lead Ukraine on, refused to listen to Russian concerns (valid or not), all for a defunct military alliance that has lost its purpose and only exists for expansion.
> Everyone ... knows west lead Ukraine on, refused to listen to Russian concerns (valid or not), all for a defunct military alliance that has lost its purpose and only exists for expansion.
This is just propaganda of another kind. NATO exists to protect states from the terror of bully-states like Russia. That's why you see states famously neutral now clamoring to get in.
Russia concern-trolled its way right into an invasion and it looks like its propaganda worked, on you.
If everyone sympathizes why is the west and its close allies the only ones doing anything about it? If you're statement is accurate, doubtful but lets pretend, then if anything that adds more relevance to the reinvigorating of the West's military investments and treaties.
A more reasonable demand would be to have a warning sign for government propaganda websites, without that affecting ranking. Search engines and video hosting platforms like YouTube aren't the same. The first aims to be an index of all the information available on the internet, akin to "the eyes of the internet". When a search engine censors content, we lose sight of our surroundings. The second (e.g YT) hosts the content itself and is more akin to a hotel, in which case there is no expectation that it should host any given content.
Russia has been censoring media within Russia for many years, and has gone increasingly harsh. The RT ban in Europe came after Russia banned several western and local critical media and
disaccredited journalists.
In addition RT and Sputnik have been spreading literal fake news for years to rail up opposition to national governments both with a pro Russia slant but often simply to attack national policy and cause rifts with minority groups or migrants (e.g. [1])
I believe Putin invading his sovereign neighbor was the first punch. After that it's no hold bar, all Russian corporate entities should be harassed and dragged into irrelevance with targeted sanctions and bans. Let Putin have his vassal state bent over for Chinese resource extraction and turn them into a hermit kingdom.
I found it somewhat funny that a few weeks ago, there was a discussion in Germany about banning Telegram for spreading Coronavirus misinformation and giving covid deniers a space to organise. (Though to admit, it was never banned in the end)
Feed forward to last week and Telegram is hailed as a beacon of free speech in Russia and as one of the last options for Russians to find out the truth...
One German minister suggested it be banned. A few NGOs agreed. And a couple officials thought it might be against the App Stores' EULAs and should be discussed with Google/Apple.
[+] [-] ithkuil|4 years ago|reply
Even floating this idea in an informal not binding way will do damage to the reputation of who is criticizing an authoritarian state. How can any benefit offset an own goal of this magnitude?
If they are doing something wrong, file a formal lawsuit etc, but removing from search results? Seriously?
[+] [-] throwawaymanbot|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rdrock|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emptysongglass|4 years ago|reply
This is just propaganda of another kind. NATO exists to protect states from the terror of bully-states like Russia. That's why you see states famously neutral now clamoring to get in.
Russia concern-trolled its way right into an invasion and it looks like its propaganda worked, on you.
[+] [-] djohnston|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgut|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guilhas|4 years ago|reply
This is way past ridiculous, not to mention social media allowing violence
Looks like a "all in" from a desperate EU/UK/USA having been handed a losing hand
[+] [-] estaseuropano|4 years ago|reply
Russia has been censoring media within Russia for many years, and has gone increasingly harsh. The RT ban in Europe came after Russia banned several western and local critical media and disaccredited journalists.
In addition RT and Sputnik have been spreading literal fake news for years to rail up opposition to national governments both with a pro Russia slant but often simply to attack national policy and cause rifts with minority groups or migrants (e.g. [1])
[1] https://observers.france24.com/en/20160128-fake-video-german...
[+] [-] djohnston|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fwdpropaganda|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Ekaros|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xg15|4 years ago|reply
Feed forward to last week and Telegram is hailed as a beacon of free speech in Russia and as one of the last options for Russians to find out the truth...
[+] [-] HWR_14|4 years ago|reply
Let's not overstate the support for it.
[+] [-] ithkuil|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] yurish|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rurban|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YokoSix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realusername|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Proven|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]