> Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest.

but you had no say in the matter; so if a future ban is not in your interest, what will you do?

no, the government should not stifle the market of ideas. that is not in our interest in the long run.

> the government should not stifle the market of ideas

America is uniquely individualistic, our First Amendment uniquely strong. I believe in it. But it's not clear it's the only optimum.

"Banning them from the EU was certainly in our interest."

It is not in my interest, to become more like authorian russia for the sake of fighting them.

Exactly. It’s undemocratic. It’s also unwise strategically.

I know the whole radical free speech theory where everyone should be able to see all discourses and make their own informed opinion. The thing is, the facts are that propaganda and fake news are super effective. Probably a failure of western democracies to develop critical sense of their citizens, or the lake of preparation to the quick rise of social networks. And now far right are rising in Europe too, of course driven - in part - by Russian propaganda and fake news (and funding too).

So I'm not sure what is the good solution now. I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work. But this is long term. Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France.

"Short term I think I'm okay if we don't have RT in France."

You do. On the internet. An increasing amount of people are getting their (fake) news now exclusivly online via "alternative" news sources like RT. Banning one of those sources on television will just mean further entrenching of those people. ("see, they don't want the truth to spread" ...)

" I'd be happy if there were more money to fund school and lessons for children to understand how those fake news work."

And aside to lots and lots of crap in the curriculum, there would be enough school time avaiable to teach more of criticial information analysis and media skills. But partial banning of one source seems like the more comfortable solution. Except that this might really hurt us in the long run, if the next source that will be banned, won't be enemy propaganda source, but just a legitimate critical newspaper for example. But secret service will say the enemy funded and influenced them, so off they go.

RT France was still available online after the broadcast ban, but it was forced to move out of France in 2023 after the French government froze its bank accounts. From what I've read, the rt website is also unavailable in France without using a VPN with a proxy outside of the France and a number of other EU countries.

DNS over HTTPS also works.

Some people sees TV as a more serious or reliable source of information than internet, so I think it's fair to avoid having the official propaganda of an hostile country there.

Of course there is always a risk of censorship of real information. As citizens we must be vigilant to what is banned. And our reaction as citizens should absolutely be different depending of wether the ban targets RT or Le Monde (for example).

> The thing is, the facts are that propaganda and fake news are super effective. Probably a failure of western democracies to develop critical sense of their citizens,

Something about thermodynamics. Random noise is free. Exposing lies and ascertaining the truth requires structure, observation, flexibility, organization, introspection, correlation, adaptation— a lot of things that take a lot of effort in multiple different ways, that is physically and socially both difficult/expensive and fragile/vulnerable.

Propaganda and fake news are not really different from a sleazy salesman, or an abusive relationship. In the time it takes you to fly a journalist to the scene, speak with and hear the experiences of people on the ground, find patterns and write accurate, digestable descriptions and cite precedents, consult with experts­, then with dissenters— So on— In the time it takes you to move just one single step closer to the truth, for an answer that still leaves complex questions and won't satisfy anybody, the liar will already have invented a thousand completely new ways to lie (as well as a couple hundred reasons why you must be the lying one, for disputing them, of course). …Or hired some guy to drive a meat cleaver in your back…

Plus, lies are often directly predatory towards some of the best parts of ourselves too… The desire to trust, and assume good faith, about what other people tell you…

> or the lake of preparation to the quick rise of social networks.

Our mental and social faculties for ascertaining and communicating realities are ultimately encoded in physical structures which tend towards chaos and collapse.

…I suppose it is to be expected that vastly increasing the rate at which information can be "generated" and transmitted would cause the equilibrium to be dominated by r-strategists. ..Ah, fuck.

It's disinformation according to the Government though, which is the same thing happening here with Israel, isn't it?

Do you believe Al Jazeera is spreading misinformation? Even if Israel says so? Even if the USA starts saying so as well?

I don't know where we can draw a line here.

We can draw the line when they report proven false information and never apologize for reporting so.

We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera.

We can draw the line when their reporters were (since then eliminated) active member of Hamas rocket teams.

> We can draw the line when they say one thing on English Al Jazeera and another on Arabic Al Jazeera.

The vast majority of media companies that own media in different languages are on Al Jazeera's side of the line then, including most companies that have social media channels in different languages.

Can you back up the implied claims with some references?

1. https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/17/photos-an-israe..., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNLvL_8SeY this was proven false by many sources other than Israel

2. You can just google Al Jazeera Arabic anti Israel propaganda and you will find more content to read and watch than you can do in your life time

3. https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in... https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israel-accuses-al-jazeera-jo...

You can search for Israeli war crimes and you'll have more to read and watch than you can do in your entire lifetime.

Not parent, but:

1. False report about IDF rape https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf...

2. Arabic vs English Al Jazeera, conflicting messages

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2017/10/01/Al-Jazeer...

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/aljazeer...

3. Al Jazeera reporters doubling as Hamas members

https://www.timesofisrael.com/wounded-al-jazeera-reporter-in...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-journalist-is-also-...

https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921

Times of Israel is the media of a different belligerent in this conflict, why on earth should I trust them to debunk AJ anymore than I should trust AJ to truthfully report on Israel?

The difference is that Times of Israel is privately owned, while Al Jazeera is operated by an authoritarian government. also the information I posted can be found in other places. However, if you think a government that promotes modern slavery is probably a good source for journalism, that's your choice to make.

about which part? The IDF rape claim was later denied by the same woman claiming it happened as well as an Al Jazeera journalist. https://twitter.com/abuhilalah/status/1771996521312973088

However, Al Jazeera never corrected the story, just took it down, which is just as OP reported: "We can draw the line when they report proven false information and never apologize for reporting so."

Al Jazeera is biased. Source: my biased side.

It's possible to make a fair judgement about what a government is doing, and in many places people trust their government and accept their actions.

But it's notable that the Israeli government refuses to submit itself to an election, especially in the face of widespread popular demands.

If we had to ban every media that has said a half truth, we'd have no media at all.

It wasn't in the interest of freedom. Everyone reading it would know it was the russian spin. But now we are not allowed to know what the russians think. After all thinking of them as humans like us is not something we want right?