Ah but you see, there's no free speech in Russia. Posting anything could get you imprisoned by the orc regime. For that reason, it would have been authoritarian of us to not criminalise RT, actually.
This guy in the screenshot is an Elon simp. When I was still on the Nazi plaform I had to mute him. I wouldn't trust anything he posts without doing my own validation.
He literally links to the document which you would've read before commenting if you actually cared about facts of the situation. What you're very transparently trying to do here is throw shade so that people don't bother looking at the facts. It's quite telling that liberals care far more about who the source is rather than what the facts are. Explains a lot about the current state of western society. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/r-v-staatsanwaltschaft-saarbrcken-cjeu-judgment.pdf
I did a little reading. What I found out is EU Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating, or otherwise contributing to the broadcast of content from listed entities, including via internet platforms and distribution by any means. RT / Russia Today Germany is listed in Annex XV.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast. You may have an issue with this, I can certainly see why even if I think that no system of mass media is ever going to be healthy for society again, but what I don't really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws. You throw the liberal slander at me but 1) I'm not even close to a liberal and 2) you are upset that the EU is banning the media outlet of one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)? I'm really very confused by what you think you stand for?
one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)?
The propaganda blitz surrounding the Ukraine war puts that of the Iraq war to absolute shame. Look at how fucking deranged people STILL are about this.
Putin is a fascist . It has nothing to do with Ukraine. I thought this 20 years ago too because he is a textbook fascist i.e. there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state, he's an authoritarian nationalist who installed a singleâparty state, he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic. He might pine for Soviet times but in reality he is just in it for himself. Another pathetic ego maniac of which we have many all over the world these days.
I'm not upset about anything here actually. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal west. Communists aren't shy about the need for censorship because we recognize that some ideas are harmful. However, it is western liberals who preach free speech, but then do exactly the same thing as those they deride to be authoritarian whenever their own power structures feel threatened.
The fact that the court considers the source to be a problem rather than the content highlights that European society has turned into a cult where reality no longer matters, only narrative and ideology reign supreme.
That's fair but if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source. I do agree with your take on liberal free speech. Same as the free market. It's only free when it's benefitting the political in-tribe.
if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source
So if it can be shown objectively that a given Western source repeatedly spreads disinformation about a given socialist/anti-Western country, you would support a blanket ban from the government of that country using the same logic you're giving for supporting the EU's blanket ban, right?
You didn't answer the question. Would you support a blanket ban of a news outlet by any government as long as a pattern of disinformation can be objectively shown? Like China or North Korea banning RFA, the news outlet with verifiably bullshit articles that even other Western outlets have debunked? Or is that privilege reserved for "the good guys" in your mind?
You commented this earlier:
what I donât really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws
You say you don't understand I think you already have an answer. Is it accurate for me to say that you think it's because we support pretty much anything done by a communist government against the West, and oppose anything done by Western liberal government against communist countries? I.e. we're solely looking at who did something when deciding whether to support it instead of the merits of the thing itself? If so, I'm throwing that accusation right back at you. I think you blindly support pretty much anything Western governments do as long as it's against one of the West's enemies and blindly oppose anything communist governments do against the West.
Disinformation hasn't been the problem with the particular source, it's the fact that it is providing information that's contrary to the narrative. The actual disinformation about the war has been coming from western source which keep telling us that Russian economy is about to collapse, that Russian army is pulling out chips from washing machines, that Russia is running out of missiles any day now, that Russia is isolated on the global stage, that Ukraine is doing great, that there are no fascists in Ukraine, and there is definitely no busification happening. The real issue here is that it's western media that it's western narrative that's divergent from reality. And now it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide the fact that the war is going poorly, and its economic effect on Europe, so the EU is becoming very insecure.
This dualism you are promoting where there is a good side and a bad side, an honest actor and a dishonest actor etc is text book Hollywood propaganda. You're so trapped in the western overton window you can't even see it.
I think you might be talking about yourself here, cause nowhere did I say the west is the good guy here, nor have I suggested that there is a good side at all. What I actually said was that western media objectively puts out far more misinformation because the narrative it is promoting is at odds with reality. It's not that Russian media is more honest, it's just they don't need to lie because Russia is winning the war.
Communists are not upset at any use of authority, but the authority of capitalists against workers. Communists want the working classes to have state authority. The idea that communists just love authority is liberal cope used to distract from the argument that the working classes specifically should have state power.
If communists don't love authority then why promote a political system centred around it. There are literally thousands of different flavours but you chose this one.
Any ideology that supports the existence of a state at any point is "authoritarian." What matters most is which class controls that authority. When the working classes control the state, as communists wish to establish (and have), this creates more freedom and quality of life for the working classes. The state is a tool, not an ideal.
Because the state exists as long as classes exist, and classes will continue to exist until production and distribution is fully collectivized. This requires highly advanced productive forces and the full conquest of political power by the working classes, which is a far way off.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast
Not quite, I made a comment here detailing the judgement; TLDR the law bans commercial distribution of RT content, and the court found that large sums of gifts & donations turn private individuals into commercial operators, thus banning them from distributing RT content. You can still operate a website that distributes RT content, so long as there are no monetary incentives to do so.
This seems like a nothing burger. The ban of RT is in place already, the new decision is not relating to whether it stays in place or not:
In the law, operators are forbidden from distributing content from a list of banned media, including RT. The question is not relating to the continuation of that ban, but on the word "operator" in particular; it essentially means that it's an entity distributing the content from a commercial perspective.
The question is whether gifts & donations to a private (non-commercial) individual turn that private individual into a commercial distributor and thus an operator.
âMust Article 2f(1) of [Regulation No 883/2014] be interpreted as meaning that operators, within the meaning of that provision, also include natural persons who, through a website operated by them, only generate income in the form of voluntary contributions from third parties (donations or gifts)?â
[The law] must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who operates a website by broadcasting on it content originating from legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, and derives from the operation of that website only income from voluntary contributions from third parties, in the form of donations or gifts, comes within the concept of âoperatorâ within the meaning of that provision
This is the conclusion on the last page of the judgement (is it me or the wording is pretty bad around "that website only income from"?)
The judgement also carefully qualifies why gifts & donations are qualified as income in #15
However, that court observes that the collection of private donations, which constitute gifts under civil law, is capable of being classified as a âprofessional activityâ, where it is carried out to such an extent that the beneficiaries receive significant sums enabling them to finance, at least in part, their means of subsistence. In the present case, the appeal for donations appears to be designed to generate financial resources for the continued operation of the traugott-ickeroth website and therefore to constitute a sustainable source of income, which is characteristic of a professional activity
So essentially, the information itself can still be freely shared so long as it's done without monetary support that can be qualified as "income"; they're not further banning the information itself, simply closing a "loophole" around hidden commercial exploitation.
I don't like the original law either (because the media list can be amended to practically include anything and anyone), but this is not changing much, and given the amount of the donations (60k in a year) it's surprising that they thought it would not be considered commercial exploitation to begin with.
Honestly, if they had cut off donations early or capped them to their server costs, then the prosecution would have no recourse.
Thank you for this detailed context. On the one hand, that makes perfect sense: Closing a loop hole. On the other hand, it's chilling how this could be extended to cover other media or, ultimately, other community-driven projects, like open source, which rely on donations to survive.
So essentially, the information itself can still be freely shared so long as itâs done without monetary support that can be qualified as âincomeâ;
Why is not Fox News not banned then?
Don't get me wrong, I don't care about RT it's a Russian controled media so their bias is clear. I don't find them to be credible source. Just like Fox "entertainment" news.
Because the European countries like America. Theyâre just playing good cop to Americaâs bad cop to fool plebs into thinking theyâre the good guys. Thatâs so obvious it hurts. Get the working class people from Europe to fight against the working class people from America and the rich win!
How "convenient" of the screenshot to not even mention that RT stands for "RussiaToday": a website and organization that was proven to spread Russian propaganda, and is proven to be sponsored by the Russian state.
In reality, yes the EU resources are limited and you can't bring down every individual post after going to court first. If the platform systematically does illegal stuff and spreads lies and propaganda, you ban the platform. That's the only logical way.
So then ban BBC and other state owned propaganda outlets. The BBC has been proven to spread disinformation about socialist countries and geopolitical adversaries to the west. Either commit to censoring disinformation, or commit to "free speech," as it stands it's just protecting fragile western narratives.
The war in Ukraine? Duh? If Russia was losing, the EU wouldn't bother censoring RT. They're just words, and words don't matter when the actual material realities on the ground erase whatever gains they could possibly make with propaganda.
Ok... Show us the EU army then, where are they? How can such a block raise an army and no one hears about it, this is an amazing feat many would love to know the tricks of.
No EU citizen dies regularly over there (except the few loonies that go over there on their own). It's all Russians and Ukrainians dying there.
Europeans supported it until it started hurting them financially. Now that the EU and USA economy starts hurting they're going to crank up the censorship because murdering those pesky non-Aryans is starting to become a lot less popular.
Do you think all European people are a hive mind like the Borg? There are many people here who followed the events in Ukraine from 2014. Especially the numerous ethnic Russians in Eastern Europe and Germany. However the mainstream media never reports about them. In many cases they were even criminalized for supporting Donbass and Russia.
If you only follow the news media, you will see what the European ruling class wants you to see and nothing more.
Are we doing the #NotAllEuropeans? It's a generalization like how is talked about US "lefitsts".
The overwhelming majority of Europeans don't care about Ukrainians going into the meatgrinder. They don't care about Palestine either. They keeping voting for whatever politician they believe will put 5 euros more in their pocket no matter how many non-Europeans have to die for it.
What do I know? Immigrant persecution, Neocolonialism, anti-Russia sentiment, Ziorovision, etc.
And the most obvious: Gaza is the outcome of European settlements in the Palestine. Something smells bad and this time it's not European people in public transportation.
all westerners are also guilty of turning a blind eye to absurd levels of evil revealed by the epstein files and maxwell case; if they're capable of ignoring literal baby farms to manufacture child fucking kompromat or genocides, then they will do whatever their oligarchs want them to do.
All "news" outlets will selectively only focus on certain news. Especially the ones you probably think are "unbiased" such as the BBC.
Even on news outside of Europe such as the genocide in Gaza, many great news clips have an RT logo because RT is one of the few willing to hire freelance journalists in Lebanon and not spout pure Israeli propaganda.
RT has plenty of good reporting on topics which European "news" would never air because it runs counter to their narrative. And I still post plenty of articles from TheGuardian and BBC despite knowing they frequently post propaganda.
Okay, what's the outlet? Are you able to point to one media organization and say "this organization is an organ of EU propaganda?
Or are you just pretending to hold that opinion because being honest about what you actually think propaganda is (i.e. anything a Designated Enemy government says at all, for any reason, ever) would reveal your position to be exactly what you guys always claim is the communist position: rabid, uncritical in-group loyalty divorced from facts.
What's your issue with communists? Why do you think communists are incapable of being genuine? Either way, BBC is easily an analogue to RT, both spread state-friendly messaging for either side, and both have been caught spreading disinformation (the BBC for example lies about China, Russia, and other western adversaries all the time).
obviously, nobody likes a violent neighbor, and nobody likes russia invading ukraine. so much should be clear.
but, the fact that the EU just literally doesn't allow russia to speak or to give any kind of explanatory statement, makes me thing that russia actually has good reason and EU does not want us to see that.
You say that Russia is not allowed to speak in the EU and state it as a fact. However I am living in the EU and still get to hear or read about e.g. what Lawrow has to say.
do you mean, what Tagesschau and other western newspapers report that lawrow says? because i'd rather hear it from themselves personally. otherwise it's just a game of chinese whispers
Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes the truth is amplified unnaturally by foreign intelligence services to divide and destabilise western democracies.
It's not so much about what's true, but more about the agenda of the person who is speaking it.
Let us have our own discussion of what matters in our societies, instead of letting our enemy dictate the agenda of our public discourse.
"Our enemy"? Our enemy is the rich pedophiles who have given weapons to nazis, destroyed Ukrainian sovereignty, made opposing Palestinian genocide illegal and are hellbent on cooking the planet to death for oil money. That's who the enemy is, not other proles who speak a different language than you.
If the amount of "fuck the orcs", "shithole country", and even "glass Russia" shit I've seen from The Good Guysâą in the past four years is any indicator, it is not the communists who have this problem.
Most of you are still either denying or justifying the Ukrainian puppet government's drone swarm attack on that boarding school that killed all those kids a few weeks ago. Most of you still outright deny the ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbas region that kicked off this war in the first place.
The Russian people support the war. The narrative that the war is exclusively supported by Russian capitalists is wrong, even the CPRF supports the war.
Yeah, Russia is EU's enemy but only because EU, with US and Israeli help, keeps antagonizing Russia all the while criminalizing dissent and enforcing private surveillance panopticon and maintaining support to genocidal and openly fascist entities, eg. Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. Through Ukraine EU and NATO engage in proxy war with Russia, and EU leaders seem intent on taking us all down with them in open war against Russia. Russia is not my enemy, Russia is the capitalists' enemy!
Taiwan is the place where the fascist KMT fled after being beaten by the CPC in the civil war. They remained independent because as the PLA was preparing to liberate the island's population the Korean War broke out, leading (eventually) to the creation of both ROK (South-Korea) and ROC (Taiwan). The PLA lacked strength to to do both I guess. Which is understandable ater fighting both the Japanese (though the KMT fought them also) and the KMT and remaining independent. On the KMT's treatment of the local you can take a look at things like the February 28 Incident and the period of suppression by governmental forces known as White Terror and accompanied martial law that lasted from 19 May 1949 to 15 July 1987.
My support for Russia is critical, as in I support it in the fight against imperialism but realize the state or its leaders are not socialist. I could support Ukraine if the people kicked out the fucking nazis in charge, but then again they'd need help doing it. I don't believe that the people of Ukraine need any more war right now, though.
118 Comments
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · 30 pts · 52d
Fun fact, this is objectively harsher than the Great Firewall, which does not have any criminal codes against sharing outside information.
The EU is more pro-censorship than China.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 26 pts · 52d
davel@lemmy.ml · 25 pts · 52d
Unironically,
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 51d
Ah but you see, there's no free speech in Russia. Posting anything could get you imprisoned by the orc regime. For that reason, it would have been authoritarian of us to not criminalise RT, actually.
Hope that makes sense đđȘđș
culprit@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 52d
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards
olenkoVD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 50d
More like Leopards Ate My Face
Fancy_Gecko@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 52d
this is the price for freedom of speech bro
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 52d
This guy in the screenshot is an Elon simp. When I was still on the Nazi plaform I had to mute him. I wouldn't trust anything he posts without doing my own validation.
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 51d
He literally links to the document which you would've read before commenting if you actually cared about facts of the situation. What you're very transparently trying to do here is throw shade so that people don't bother looking at the facts. It's quite telling that liberals care far more about who the source is rather than what the facts are. Explains a lot about the current state of western society. https://courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/r-v-staatsanwaltschaft-saarbrcken-cjeu-judgment.pdf
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 51d
I did a little reading. What I found out is EU Article 2f(1) of Regulation 833/2014 prohibits operators from broadcasting, enabling, facilitating, or otherwise contributing to the broadcast of content from listed entities, including via internet platforms and distribution by any means. RT / Russia Today Germany is listed in Annex XV.
Essentially the court read the law and gave their opinion that reposting content on a site you run counts as a broadcast. You may have an issue with this, I can certainly see why even if I think that no system of mass media is ever going to be healthy for society again, but what I don't really understand about some of the posting here is that there are many proud authoritarians of the communist variety getting upset about authoritarian laws. You throw the liberal slander at me but 1) I'm not even close to a liberal and 2) you are upset that the EU is banning the media outlet of one of the world most preeminent fascists (Putin)? I'm really very confused by what you think you stand for?
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 51d
The propaganda blitz surrounding the Ukraine war puts that of the Iraq war to absolute shame. Look at how fucking deranged people STILL are about this.
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -8 pts · 51d
Putin is a fascist . It has nothing to do with Ukraine. I thought this 20 years ago too because he is a textbook fascist i.e. there is no separation of private/corporate enterprise and the state, he's an authoritarian nationalist who installed a singleâparty state, he brutally suppresses dissent and is overtly militaristic. He might pine for Soviet times but in reality he is just in it for himself. Another pathetic ego maniac of which we have many all over the world these days.
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 51d
Russia isn't a single party state. Stop Just Saying Shit(tm)
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -5 pts · 50d
Of course... I totally forgot about all the other parties that have been in power since the fall of the USSR. My bad
AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 50d
I wish I could be as free as you and just change what words mean any time you get called out for lying with them
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 50d
Is Japan a one- party state?
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 51d
I'm not upset about anything here actually. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the liberal west. Communists aren't shy about the need for censorship because we recognize that some ideas are harmful. However, it is western liberals who preach free speech, but then do exactly the same thing as those they deride to be authoritarian whenever their own power structures feel threatened.
The fact that the court considers the source to be a problem rather than the content highlights that European society has turned into a cult where reality no longer matters, only narrative and ideology reign supreme.
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 51d
That's fair but if a specific source is a regular source of disinformation then you can understand blanket bans on said source. I do agree with your take on liberal free speech. Same as the free market. It's only free when it's benefitting the political in-tribe.
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 51d
So if it can be shown objectively that a given Western source repeatedly spreads disinformation about a given socialist/anti-Western country, you would support a blanket ban from the government of that country using the same logic you're giving for supporting the EU's blanket ban, right?
Riiiiight?
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 51d
Exactly why I said there can be no healthy mass media environment. It's bullshit from everyone from all angles all the way down.
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 51d
You didn't answer the question. Would you support a blanket ban of a news outlet by any government as long as a pattern of disinformation can be objectively shown? Like China or North Korea banning RFA, the news outlet with verifiably bullshit articles that even other Western outlets have debunked? Or is that privilege reserved for "the good guys" in your mind?
You commented this earlier:
You say you don't understand I think you already have an answer. Is it accurate for me to say that you think it's because we support pretty much anything done by a communist government against the West, and oppose anything done by Western liberal government against communist countries? I.e. we're solely looking at who did something when deciding whether to support it instead of the merits of the thing itself? If so, I'm throwing that accusation right back at you. I think you blindly support pretty much anything Western governments do as long as it's against one of the West's enemies and blindly oppose anything communist governments do against the West.
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 51d
Disinformation hasn't been the problem with the particular source, it's the fact that it is providing information that's contrary to the narrative. The actual disinformation about the war has been coming from western source which keep telling us that Russian economy is about to collapse, that Russian army is pulling out chips from washing machines, that Russia is running out of missiles any day now, that Russia is isolated on the global stage, that Ukraine is doing great, that there are no fascists in Ukraine, and there is definitely no busification happening. The real issue here is that it's western media that it's western narrative that's divergent from reality. And now it's becoming increasingly difficult to hide the fact that the war is going poorly, and its economic effect on Europe, so the EU is becoming very insecure.
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -9 pts · 51d
This dualism you are promoting where there is a good side and a bad side, an honest actor and a dishonest actor etc is text book Hollywood propaganda. You're so trapped in the western overton window you can't even see it.
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 51d
I think you might be talking about yourself here, cause nowhere did I say the west is the good guy here, nor have I suggested that there is a good side at all. What I actually said was that western media objectively puts out far more misinformation because the narrative it is promoting is at odds with reality. It's not that Russian media is more honest, it's just they don't need to lie because Russia is winning the war.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 51d
Communists are not upset at any use of authority, but the authority of capitalists against workers. Communists want the working classes to have state authority. The idea that communists just love authority is liberal cope used to distract from the argument that the working classes specifically should have state power.
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -8 pts · 51d
If communists don't love authority then why promote a political system centred around it. There are literally thousands of different flavours but you chose this one.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 51d
Any ideology that supports the existence of a state at any point is "authoritarian." What matters most is which class controls that authority. When the working classes control the state, as communists wish to establish (and have), this creates more freedom and quality of life for the working classes. The state is a tool, not an ideal.
thanksforreading@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 51d
Why do we need a state?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 51d
Because the state exists as long as classes exist, and classes will continue to exist until production and distribution is fully collectivized. This requires highly advanced productive forces and the full conquest of political power by the working classes, which is a far way off.
mathemachristian@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 50d
To resolve conflicts between the classes, the employers vs the employees
CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 50d
Not quite, I made a comment here detailing the judgement; TLDR the law bans commercial distribution of RT content, and the court found that large sums of gifts & donations turn private individuals into commercial operators, thus banning them from distributing RT content. You can still operate a website that distributes RT content, so long as there are no monetary incentives to do so.
timdrake@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 51d
CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 51d
Quite ironic to read this under a post decrying the sanctioning of information based on the author and not the content of the message.
Omodi@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 51d
Saying someone is unreliable source is a pretty massive difference from the state throwing them in jail.
CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 51d
This seems like a nothing burger. The ban of RT is in place already, the new decision is not relating to whether it stays in place or not:
In the law, operators are forbidden from distributing content from a list of banned media, including RT. The question is not relating to the continuation of that ban, but on the word "operator" in particular; it essentially means that it's an entity distributing the content from a commercial perspective.
The question is whether gifts & donations to a private (non-commercial) individual turn that private individual into a commercial distributor and thus an operator.
Cited in Judgement #16, page 6
And it follows in the conclusion:
This is the conclusion on the last page of the judgement (is it me or the wording is pretty bad around "that website only income from"?)
The judgement also carefully qualifies why gifts & donations are qualified as income in #15
So essentially, the information itself can still be freely shared so long as it's done without monetary support that can be qualified as "income"; they're not further banning the information itself, simply closing a "loophole" around hidden commercial exploitation.
I don't like the original law either (because the media list can be amended to practically include anything and anyone), but this is not changing much, and given the amount of the donations (60k in a year) it's surprising that they thought it would not be considered commercial exploitation to begin with.
Honestly, if they had cut off donations early or capped them to their server costs, then the prosecution would have no recourse.
Edit: Cutoff sentence, wording
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 51d
How authoritarian of them
tired_fedora@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 51d
Thank you for this detailed context. On the one hand, that makes perfect sense: Closing a loop hole. On the other hand, it's chilling how this could be extended to cover other media or, ultimately, other community-driven projects, like open source, which rely on donations to survive.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 50d
Wait till you hear abouty Radio Free Asia
Loce@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 51d
Why is not Fox News not banned then? Don't get me wrong, I don't care about RT it's a Russian controled media so their bias is clear. I don't find them to be credible source. Just like Fox "entertainment" news.
architect@thelemmy.club · 8 pts · 50d
Because the European countries like America. Theyâre just playing good cop to Americaâs bad cop to fool plebs into thinking theyâre the good guys. Thatâs so obvious it hurts. Get the working class people from Europe to fight against the working class people from America and the rich win!
Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 52d
First time?
vas@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 51d
How "convenient" of the screenshot to not even mention that RT stands for "RussiaToday": a website and organization that was proven to spread Russian propaganda, and is proven to be sponsored by the Russian state.
In reality, yes the EU resources are limited and you can't bring down every individual post after going to court first. If the platform systematically does illegal stuff and spreads lies and propaganda, you ban the platform. That's the only logical way.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 51d
So then ban BBC and other state owned propaganda outlets. The BBC has been proven to spread disinformation about socialist countries and geopolitical adversaries to the west. Either commit to censoring disinformation, or commit to "free speech," as it stands it's just protecting fragile western narratives.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 51d
The BBC is proven to spread western propaganda and is proven to be sponsored by the British state.. Ban when?
Kenvexity@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 51d
Ban both?
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 50d
Maybe less censorship and higher reporting standards?
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 51d
The EU would not need to do this if they were winning. This is desperate.
ManixT@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 51d
Hilarious that you're lgbt and support Russia. Did you know you're a terrorist there?
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 51d
Winning WHAT?
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 51d
The war in Ukraine? Duh? If Russia was losing, the EU wouldn't bother censoring RT. They're just words, and words don't matter when the actual material realities on the ground erase whatever gains they could possibly make with propaganda.
Jako302@feddit.org · 0 pts · 51d
That's not how how propaganda works.
We've seen often enough that people don't care about the actual truth once they've been influenced enough.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 50d
Hahaha hell yeah man it's so funny when liberals think to tell communists "how propaganda works"
Renohren@lemmy.today · -6 pts · 51d
Ok... Show us the EU army then, where are they? How can such a block raise an army and no one hears about it, this is an amazing feat many would love to know the tricks of.
No EU citizen dies regularly over there (except the few loonies that go over there on their own). It's all Russians and Ukrainians dying there.
I think that EU judicial décision is only there to mirror the decisions the Russian federation took. About média. Just to stay close to what the most advanced country in freedom (Federation of Russia) does with media sharing.
SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 52d
Are all Europeans as evil as their oligarchs that want to raze Russia since time immemorial?
nutomic@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 51d
If European people supported these things, there would be no need for censorship.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 51d
Europeans supported it until it started hurting them financially. Now that the EU and USA economy starts hurting they're going to crank up the censorship because murdering those pesky non-Aryans is starting to become a lot less popular.
nutomic@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 51d
Do you think all European people are a hive mind like the Borg? There are many people here who followed the events in Ukraine from 2014. Especially the numerous ethnic Russians in Eastern Europe and Germany. However the mainstream media never reports about them. In many cases they were even criminalized for supporting Donbass and Russia.
If you only follow the news media, you will see what the European ruling class wants you to see and nothing more.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 50d
Are we doing the #NotAllEuropeans? It's a generalization like how is talked about US "lefitsts".
The overwhelming majority of Europeans don't care about Ukrainians going into the meatgrinder. They don't care about Palestine either. They keeping voting for whatever politician they believe will put 5 euros more in their pocket no matter how many non-Europeans have to die for it.
SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 51d
What do I know? Immigrant persecution, Neocolonialism, anti-Russia sentiment, Ziorovision, etc.
And the most obvious: Gaza is the outcome of European settlements in the Palestine. Something smells bad and this time it's not European people in public transportation.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 51d
all westerners are also guilty of turning a blind eye to absurd levels of evil revealed by the epstein files and maxwell case; if they're capable of ignoring literal baby farms to manufacture child fucking kompromat or genocides, then they will do whatever their oligarchs want them to do.
Squizzy@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 52d
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 52d
Silence, drone strike lover
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · -4 pts · 52d
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 52d
"Anyone who disagrees with me is an evil foreigner!"
RecursiveParadox@piefed.social · -6 pts · 52d
Oh, this is on lemmy.ml. Should have noticed that first before I went into the comments.
HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 51d
Why do people like you even bother commenting stuff like this instead of just blocking us?
Genuinely curious.
What do you gain from commenting this? Why is it worth the apparent mental anguish of continuing to see our posts?
Renohren@lemmy.today · -5 pts · 51d
I think it's to remind Lemmy noobs that not all Lemmy is equal and that some servers are seeded by government appointed handlers of fascist regimes.
Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 51d
Like the ones making news illegal lol?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 51d
Do you have any evidence of this, or is it just your way of dismissing speech you don't like?
Goingdown@sopuli.xyz · -6 pts · 52d
Oh yes. But to be fair, RT is pure Russian propaganda.
mistermodal@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 52d
[finding out Jeffrey Epstein's associates will imprison me for questioning them] this is good for me because I already don't do that
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 52d
Are there any big EU propaganda outlets you can think of?
Stitch0815@feddit.org · -11 pts · 52d
Whataboutism
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 52d
No, really. Do you think the EU puts out any propaganda at all?
Stitch0815@feddit.org · -7 pts · 51d
Of course it does
But once again a .ml account can't stay on topic
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 51d
All "news" outlets will selectively only focus on certain news. Especially the ones you probably think are "unbiased" such as the BBC.
Even on news outside of Europe such as the genocide in Gaza, many great news clips have an RT logo because RT is one of the few willing to hire freelance journalists in Lebanon and not spout pure Israeli propaganda.
RT has plenty of good reporting on topics which European "news" would never air because it runs counter to their narrative. And I still post plenty of articles from TheGuardian and BBC despite knowing they frequently post propaganda.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 51d
Okay, what's the outlet? Are you able to point to one media organization and say "this organization is an organ of EU propaganda?
Or are you just pretending to hold that opinion because being honest about what you actually think propaganda is (i.e. anything a Designated Enemy government says at all, for any reason, ever) would reveal your position to be exactly what you guys always claim is the communist position: rabid, uncritical in-group loyalty divorced from facts.
Stitch0815@feddit.org · -1 pts · 51d
lmao
I just realized (at least I think so) that I missinterpreted your original comment
I thought you were a provoking tankie but it might have been a (somewhat) genuine question
If you think I am pro russia just check my comment history :D
However I stand by what I said, thinking that any sufficiently large governing body is not influencing news is just naive.
I don't think the EU has anything comparable to RT, but that does not mean they are not influencing news and narratives
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 51d
What's your issue with communists? Why do you think communists are incapable of being genuine? Either way, BBC is easily an analogue to RT, both spread state-friendly messaging for either side, and both have been caught spreading disinformation (the BBC for example lies about China, Russia, and other western adversaries all the time).
Denixen@feddit.nu · -10 pts · 52d
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · -11 pts · 52d
i've been saying it for years.
obviously, nobody likes a violent neighbor, and nobody likes russia invading ukraine. so much should be clear.
but, the fact that the EU just literally doesn't allow russia to speak or to give any kind of explanatory statement, makes me thing that russia actually has good reason and EU does not want us to see that.
snowfal@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 52d
Are you starting to notice the contradictions? Check this documentary out.
Takios@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 52d
You say that Russia is not allowed to speak in the EU and state it as a fact. However I am living in the EU and still get to hear or read about e.g. what Lawrow has to say.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org · 5 pts · 51d
do you mean, what Tagesschau and other western newspapers report that lawrow says? because i'd rather hear it from themselves personally. otherwise it's just a game of chinese whispers
eleijeep@piefed.social · -27 pts · 52d
Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes the truth is amplified unnaturally by foreign intelligence services to divide and destabilise western democracies.
It's not so much about what's true, but more about the agenda of the person who is speaking it.
Let us have our own discussion of what matters in our societies, instead of letting our enemy dictate the agenda of our public discourse.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 34 pts · 52d
"Our enemy"? Our enemy is the rich pedophiles who have given weapons to nazis, destroyed Ukrainian sovereignty, made opposing Palestinian genocide illegal and are hellbent on cooking the planet to death for oil money. That's who the enemy is, not other proles who speak a different language than you.
eleijeep@piefed.social · -15 pts · 52d
Are you unable to differentiate between Russia the state that is waging an illegal war in Ukraine, and the Russian people?
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 52d
If the amount of "fuck the orcs", "shithole country", and even "glass Russia" shit I've seen from The Good Guysâą in the past four years is any indicator, it is not the communists who have this problem.
Most of you are still either denying or justifying the Ukrainian puppet government's drone swarm attack on that boarding school that killed all those kids a few weeks ago. Most of you still outright deny the ethnic cleansing campaign in the Donbas region that kicked off this war in the first place.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 51d
The Russian people support the war. The narrative that the war is exclusively supported by Russian capitalists is wrong, even the CPRF supports the war.
narr1@lemmy.ml · 26 pts · 52d
"our enemy", you sound like a fascist
eleijeep@piefed.social · -24 pts · 52d
Do you think that Russia is not the enemy of the EU?
narr1@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 52d
Yeah, Russia is EU's enemy but only because EU, with US and Israeli help, keeps antagonizing Russia all the while criminalizing dissent and enforcing private surveillance panopticon and maintaining support to genocidal and openly fascist entities, eg. Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan. Through Ukraine EU and NATO engage in proxy war with Russia, and EU leaders seem intent on taking us all down with them in open war against Russia. Russia is not my enemy, Russia is the capitalists' enemy!
snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 51d
Israel I can understand but what did Ukraine and Taiwan do? Not sure if I'm going to regret even asking given where this post is but I'm curious now.
narr1@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 51d
Taiwan is the place where the fascist KMT fled after being beaten by the CPC in the civil war. They remained independent because as the PLA was preparing to liberate the island's population the Korean War broke out, leading (eventually) to the creation of both ROK (South-Korea) and ROC (Taiwan). The PLA lacked strength to to do both I guess. Which is understandable ater fighting both the Japanese (though the KMT fought them also) and the KMT and remaining independent. On the KMT's treatment of the local you can take a look at things like the February 28 Incident and the period of suppression by governmental forces known as White Terror and accompanied martial law that lasted from 19 May 1949 to 15 July 1987.
Ukraine seems to be the latest in a long list of regimes that the NATO-countries (with full UN backing usually) have either created or armed to serve their capitalist class' purposes in proxy wars meant to destabilize regions and topple enemy states. The methods of war may have evolved along the years, but they always achieve this locally by arming and enabling the local fascist and conservative elements, often in armed coup d'Ă©tat, as was Ukraine's case in 2014 with what is known as Euromaidan.
My support for Russia is critical, as in I support it in the fight against imperialism but realize the state or its leaders are not socialist. I could support Ukraine if the people kicked out the fucking nazis in charge, but then again they'd need help doing it. I don't believe that the people of Ukraine need any more war right now, though.
Edit: for more on Ukraine
narr1@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 51d
Edit: for more on Ukraine
yogthos@lemmy.ml · 21 pts · 52d
the least brainwashed piefed user has logged on
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 52d
And this is the person calling you an "authoritarian".