> Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are blocked in Russia because they only allow pro-Ukraine narrative.

This is demonstrably not true and easily disproved. All the official Russian accounts are on twitter and keep posting lies after lies, lately main topic is denial of massacre in Bucha. For example: https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1510649349482635265

With the fog of war there has been more embellishments coming out of Ukraine than Russia. The tank running over, Ghost of kiev, shopping mall fiasco, snake island deaths, russian death squad (turned out to be ukranian border guards) , ukraine claiming russians bombed babi yar....

Even with maternity hospital bombing, the women in photographs said that the Ukranian army had occupied the hospital and forced them out of the maternity wing.

Like the other poster said: it's fake news on fake news. Two different bubbles.

What is all this random stuff you have written here has to do with the fact that the other poster lied about twitter not allowing russian propaganda?

It doesn't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30664769

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30763209

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30763216

Look at the author.

Amazing retort. You got me. Hand in the cookie jar.

Currently Russia doesn't have a singe reliable news source. We all have seen the pro-Russian narrative - there's no war, we're not murdering the civilians, all Ukrainians are nazis developing bioweapons targeting "slav DNA" and to be delivered across the border by birds, etc. Those are not news. Needless to say that this propaganda also targets people in other countries with large ethnical Russian population, specifically the Baltic states and incites those people to riot and hate the land they live on creating a bridgehead for possible Russian invasion.

What is your standard for "reliable news source"?

Does it look something like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

However "unreliable" these news sources are, they present a different opinion that is being censored. And since there are just two sides in this war, you can only see just one side of a story.

The Russian statements are easily available. Starting from special military operation, actually west forced us to do it, Ukraine is not real country, the calls for denazification, ultimately towards de-Ukrainiation. Continuing by saying civilians in Bucha were actually killed by Ukrainians and including that Marinopol is actually bombed by Ukraine itself. It is super easy to find what Russian embassies and politicians are saying. Full statements are available on their twitter accounts, Facebook pages or general websites. It is super easy to find Russians writing in English complaining about sanctions or voicing their opinions about Russia.

Full history of changing official Russian narrative is available.

There is no problem to find Russian official statements at all. The issue here is that you ignore what they are saying in order to pretend it is not available or that it was somewhat convincing.

Russians doing what they have been doing for a hundred years: lying, blaming, spreading clearly false propaganda, stealing, murdering and raping people.

Meanwhile people in the west, or at least outside of the conflict zone, discussing about free speech.

Nothing has changed.

You can be proud of yourself and your principles.

meduza.io is one of a few you can use to get alternative view. They may be somewhat biased towards Russian opposition but way, way more objective compared to state media.

https://www.rbc.ru/ and RBC tv channel maybe called somewhat like independent source... But reliable news source on tv does not existed at all on almost all TV channels in all countries, they all promote profitable to them point of view... Only if you watch different sources you may try to imagine something close to reality.

Given russian media is legally only allowed to spout government-approved propaganda, it really makes sense to ban them from social media. This does not equal to only allowing pro-Ukrainian media.

Why don't you call pro-Ukrainian media "propaganda"? They did recently ban all but a few pro-gov political parties, and all their media is equally under total government control

The goal is not a media free of bias because it's generally agreed that's simply not a possibility. So instead, the goal is a media that attempts to limit and acknowledge its biases. Western media usually attempts this (with mixed success). Russian media does not attempt this. That is the difference.

What do you consider pro-Ukrainian media? The BBC?

If you consider that the Ukrainian conflict is a war between US and Russia, then yes all western media are pro-Ukrainian (it serves US interests at the moment).

It's not though, so your point is irrelevant.

Next you tell me that NATO hasn't moved East despite promises.

so what's your response to Ukraine banning all left wing parties even the ones that won popular votes?

What about panama papers proving zelensky and ukrainian politicians having twice as many illegal activities as whole or russia?

and ghost of kiev or the snake island bombing or the tank dude or the other million of fake news being peddled

You can't use "What about", because that makes people shut their already extremely underutilized brains off ... even more so when it comes to all the far worse shit the US have done over the course of decades. Generally, though, you simply can not disagree with the content the masses consume, because obviously you must be wrong.

People are stupid.

In the same breathe you can, in fact, never ever bring up how genuinely worse the US is compared to any other country on this planet, while actually sparking a useful discussion. You do not find such conversations on the top, be it here, on reddit or on any level where it is actually both useful and spreading.

Whatabout?