Few questioned Ukraine's decision to ban RT's operations. This doesn't seem terribly different - Al Jazeera has very deep ties to Hamas, the enemy Israel is at war with, and has arguably been acting as their mouthpiece for propaganda.

It should be noted that Ukraine has banned far more than just RT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Ukrain...

i did and do. banning your citizens from reading the 'propaganda' of your enemy reduces them to subjects and foments further armed conflict. it's also a power invariably used to avoid accountability for petty corruption such as beria's garden full of young, beautiful women

Is the fact that you put "propaganda" in quotation marks an indication that you don't consider RT to be that, or that you don't think propaganda even exists?

I think the point is that one side's propaganda is another side's information.

As in "there is no such thing as true or false, only opinion"?

That's completely unrelated. Obviously there exist objective facts, but outlets get to pick and chose which facts they report and which ones to hide under the rug. For example, its common for state news organizations to report enemy losses, but omit their own.

Some propaganda goes beyond selective disclosure of facts, like Al Jazeera uncritically reporting questionable claims as long as they're anti-Israeli, and failing to retract the ones that turn out to be false.

In a post truth society, certainly. If you can't verify it yourself it's all a leap of faith.

"Verifying it yourself" is often if not usually also a leap of faith, because how shall a single mind error check itself in a confirmably reliable manner, especially if it's received no specialized training in the domain?

It comes down to the relative stretch of the leap you take.

And to know that, you need (just for starters) a means of discovering what is True...so you are back to the problem I noted.

Luckily, all of this complexity can be wallpapered over by cultural conditioning, making the problem essentially vanish (depending on the frame of reference one is observing from, or if one even knows what that means).

Yes RT was doing wonderful journalistic work in Ukraine and elsewhere... Lol... Poor Ukrainian subjects not getting to read that shite. It was abject shite 15 years ago, let alone today.

if it was abject shite nobody wanted to read or watch, they wouldn't bother to ban it

Propaganda is still dangerous, and a country at war has no obligation to allow the country it is at war with to continue to openly spread it. Banning RT makes sense in that context.

I don't see the banning of Al Jazeera in the same light, as it's not like it's a Hamas-run outlet.

A country at war has no moral or legal obligation to publish its enemy’s propaganda. This should be very obvious.

And yes RT was always complete shite for gullible morons, though it is rather beside the point in this case actually. The British government had no moral obligation on free speech grounds to allow the spread of nazi propaganda in the United Kingdom during WW2, either. Again, obvious stuff.

Propaganda in war times is very often directed at a domestic audience. Examples are stories like the Ghost of Kyiv on the "western side". There are examples on the Russian side too.

Sure, but it's still lies.

Somehow we act as if our lies are better than their lies.

Yes: A lie to boost the morale of a country fighting a defensive war against a genocidal dictatorship is unambiguously a better lie than the lies of the genocidal dictatorship to rile up its populace to more effectively execute the genocidal war.

My country lied to its populace during WW2 to boost morale in its fight against Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany lied to its populace to more effectively execute the holocaust. They are not the same.

So it's true, not all lies are equally bad, hope that helps. Most learn that as children.

So we should lie that israel is losing hard, so good morale brings more and more people to fight for hamas?

I would love to live in the universe where popularity was a good indicator of quality.

Yes, they should read about how putin has only thre days of supplies left and not worry about the war, because it'll be over by the weekend.

Oh wait, those articles were from 2022:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-food-...

Why not ban Independent too?

It's arguably not propaganda to publish an article quoting a member of the Ukrainian military. It's even in the headline right there: "Ukraine military claims".

If you think the output of RT and the Independent are indistinguishable then yeah I guess we just will never agree. Still, glad my country banned RT nevertheless. If the only downside is the odd anti-west tankie on HN crying about "hypocrisy", then, it's not so bad ;)

So trust the propaganda side, don't verify and publish such propagnda?

I mean... you can still not read RT, I don't know why you feel the need to forbid others from reading it? What if others want to ban something you wish to read? I mean...i'm glad you admit supporting censorship, but you can't complain then when some other country bans lgbt materials, harry potter, books on sexuality, books about satan, etc.

>So trust the propaganda side, don't verify and publish such propagnda?

?

> What if others want to ban something you wish to read?

Somethings things get banned even in democratic societies, that's never not been the case. Given that Russia is attacking Europe and has carried out numerous executions of private citizens on European soil, I struggle to see why we are obliged to let them air their propaganda in our countries. Maybe suck cuckholdery is appealing to you, but not to me or us.

> but you can't complain then when some other country bans lgbt materials, harry potter, books on sexuality, books about satan, etc

I don't complain. Russia is a shithole, we know this, it's established fact at this point, if it wants to cry about Harry Potter and LGBT rather than finally install toilets in peoples houses and help brings its people into the 21st century, then that's their choice. But invading a sovereign country like Ukraine and committing genocide against Ukrainians, that's not really acceptable, sorry.

The media trusted someone that said the "three days" story, didn't verify and published the lie as propaganda, so more people died because they believed that they'll win after the three days of supplies are used up.

> Somethings things get banned even in democratic societies, that's life

Yeah sure, sometimes innocent people die, sometimes a piano falls from a crane and kills a person. Some people like you even support such stuff.

> Given that Russia is attacking Europe and has carried out numerous executions of private citizens on European soil, I struggle to see why we are obliged to let them air their propaganda in our countries. Maybe suck cuckholdery is appealing to you, but not to me or us.

Russia is attacking ukraine, the same way as a bunch of european and american countries were attacking afghanistan, syria, libya, iraq, twice, etc. Why do you care now? Because you're not the one on the attacking side?

> I don't complain. Russia is a shithole, we know this, it's established fact at this point, if it wants to cry about Harry Potter and LGBT rather than finally install toilets in peoples houses and help brings its people into the 21st century, then that's their choice. But invading a sovereign country like Ukraine and committing genocide against Ukrainians, that's not really acceptable, sorry.

I was refering to this: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/harry-potter-series-tops... And more and more books are added to the list in recent time.

> But invading a sovereign country like Ukraine and committing genocide against Ukrainians, that's not really acceptable, sorry.

Why not? I mean... why is attacking iraq for nonexisting WMDs acceptable, but attacking ukraine for killing minorities in it's own country isn't? I mean.. didn't nato bomb yugoslavia for that same reason?

>Why not? I mean... why is attacking iraq for nonexisting WMDs acceptable, but attacking ukraine for killing minorities in it's own country isn't? I mean.. didn't nato bomb yugoslavia for that same reason?

I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or acceptable.

But you very clearly seem to think the invasion and genocide in Ukraine is acceptable.

We are not the same.

Anyway you've let your mask slip, you're pro war and pro genocide. I'm glad you're seething on Hacker News about so-called "western hypocrisy". It means my countries are doing something to piss yours off. Good. Have a nice life and carry on seething. Good luck in getting toilet installed in beautiful hut/house/shack. Hopefully it is your turn on waiting list.

> I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a good thing or acceptable.

But it was. Nothing happened to anyone, no courts, trials, no jail time for any of the politicians, no nothing. So we, as a "western society" (or whatever you might call us) deem such invasions acceptable. Not just that, but we conduct new ones after that. So yeah, if you do something, officially, with documentation, public money, public employees, and nothing happens, how is it not acceptable?

I mean... if it's not acceptable, why did WE do it then? Assuming you're old enough, you literally financed people getting killed there with your taxes.

> But you very clearly seem to think the invasion and genocide in Ukraine is acceptable.

In the same way as iraq was. But we're not the ones attacking now, and we're bothered by that, so we're using even more money to get more people killed in this war.

I have a toilet, and my taxes are going to ukraine to prolong this war, as they went to helping the occupiers of iraq, and are still going to syria (we have soldiers there too). We had to run away from afghanistan a few years ago though... it just cost us and our 'friends' a trillion to replace the taliban with the taliban there, and kill a lot of locals. Apparently, that's acceptable too, since noone is in jail for that war.

Seems like a good deal to me if you're worried about money rather than lives: give money to Ukraine, keep Russian dictatorship at bay, before it invades other parts of Europe.

So cheer up, your taxes are not being wasted, they are saving you money in the long run by keeping Russia from invading Europe even more.

But ukraine is using that money to kill their own men who don't want to fight. Why don't you go and fight instead, and risk your own life instead of forcing them to do it?

Considering the sitation in ukraine, we've wasted a lot of money and a lot of ukranian men for what exactly?

> Considering the sitation in ukraine, we've wasted a lot of money and a lot of ukranian men for what exactly?

The alternative is that Russia rolls over Ukraine, murders between few hundred thousand and few million people to enforce the occupation, and then decimates Ukrainian male population by using them as cannon fodder against Poland and other European countries. Please explain me how this is any better.

I mean sure... it's their choice. If they want to fight against that, sure, let them volounteer and fight. If you can't get any more people to fight without literally forcing them, then you obviously don't have enough "democractic" support for a fight anymore (at least not from the ones whose opinions should matter), and should start looking at the negotiating table.

This is only going to get more people killed.

If you believe that, then put your life where your mouth is, and go fight. If you want to live, let others live too.

Even during the WW2, a few countries capitulated with the germans and survived, even eg. france. On the other hand, a bunch of those countries (even france), no go half a planet away to kill people over there, and there is no support to those countries to fight harder against the french. And france is far from the only country that does that in europe, not to even mention the USA.

I don't have to volunteer anywhere; I already face rising odds that I'll be conscripted even before this year is out.

As to France and other countries occupied by Nazis, capitulation meant a ride to death camp for some, slave labor to others, starvation and oppression for all. France was used as a staging ground for the Battle of Britain and for the aborted invasion of British Isles, and served as a base of operations for submarines attacking allied convoys in the Atlantic ocean. France didn't regain freedom until massive landings on Normandy beaches and fierce fighting through the country by soldiers who were mostly conscripts and not there on their own will, so I don't understand what it was meant to prove.

> We are not the same.

> Anyway you've let your mask slip, you're pro war and pro genocide.

You should consider the the site guidelines. This is completely unacceptable. How can you be so comfortable seeing the world in black and white?

That person is literally defending the invasion of Ukraine, justifying it in terms of "protecting Russian minorities being killed".

How can you be so comfortable casting everything as exactly the same shade of grey, even when it is not always the same shade of grey?

How about you consider the site guidelines, if you're defending that person?

Don't troll by acting like a neutral observer when you clearly agree with him. Thanks. That's bad faith, and goes against side guidelines.

Explanation isn't excuse. You're confounding the two.

Carry on trying to hit me over the head with the Hacker News rule book whilst turning a blind eye and saying literally nothing to that guy's genocide apologism. You have beclowned yourself.

Speak for yourself. The conclusion was reasonable.

An important distinction must be drawn between suppressing distribution, and "banning your citizens from reading". In fact it is not illegal to possess or read RT content, nor even for that matter to share it on social media. It is not secret. All that has been done is to remove a propagandist with a megaphone from the town square.

I don’t say that the truth should be this or that, all I say is that information flow is part of the warfare and the parties at war will want to control it for their advantage. After all, they are literally killing people.

Sure, but why should we be subjected to only our own propagandists lies and not be able to hear the other side? Why are our lies better?

RT is not truth though. When a country is fighting for its very survival against a genocidal foe, I'm not about to start clutching my pearls that they've banned their genocidal foe's propaganda. Seems reasonable to me.

It's no worse than CNNs take on iraq and weapons of mass destruction, or (to go to the ru-ukr war), all the "putin has 3 days of supplies left" articles from 2022, 2023 and this year.

You just prefer your own propaganda.

I don't think that "putin has 3 days of supplies left" propaganda is just as bad as the kind of genocidal propaganda pumped out by the Russian media, no, sorry.

Not all propaganda is born equal. Antisemitic propaganda pumped out by the Nazis in WW2 was absolutely worse than "keep calm and carry on" propaganda pumped out by the Brits during WW2. Hope that helps.

But if you truly believe that putin is losing due to propaganda, you'll go and fight a war you believe you'll win... and then die, because the media lied to you. How is this good for you?

I mean sure... you, as an outside observer want more "other" people to die for a cause you believe in, but for an individual it's better to know the truth and decide according to that, than to be mislead by lies and propaganda.

Ukraine seems pretty intent on continuing to fight, I'm not forcing them to do anything, indeed I have no power over Ukrainian policy whatsoever. If Ukraine wants to fight then I believe we should support them. Hope that helps.

> fight a war you believe you'll win... and then die

I can't imagine any sane person is going to blame the Ukrainian media for Russia invading Ukraine, killing Ukrainian soldiers and committing genocide in Ukraine. I imagine they would, you know, blame Russia itself. Lol.

Thanks for the hot takes though, amusing, if not also a little bit sad.

> Ukraine seems pretty intent on continuing to fight

Yeah, i saw the videos of men being kidnapped from the streets, and the articles about european countries trying to forcibly sending men (who managed to escape) back to ukraine, to die for zelensky. Once you're out of volounteers ready to fight, you're not "intent on" anything anymore, but are forcing young (and a bit less young) men to die for politics. And ukraine hasn't had any volounteers for quite a lot of time now.

> I can't imagine any sane person is going to blame the Ukrainian media for Russia invading Ukraine, killing Ukrainian soldiers and committing genocide in Ukraine. I imagine they would, you know, blame Russia itself. Lol.

Ukranian media can be a cause for uninformed men to die in a way, that they would never fight in, if they knew the truth.

Yeah that's why war sucks bro. People end up getting conscripted when the war is for the very existence of the country itself. It sucks.

So Russia should withdraw.

Anyway seethe more. And keep acting all shocked and outraged that countries produce propaganda during war time when they are attacked. Lol.

But if people prefer their own life to some lines on the map... why should we force them to fight? I mean.. shouldn't ukranian individuals have a choice? Are we really supporting forcefully sending them to die? Is this "democracy"? "western way of life"?

If you prefer lines on the map, why not help with the fighting, instead of being a keyboard warrior?

North Korea is a line on a map.

>why not help with the fighting

This is a really common refrain from paid Russian trolls. It means that someone cannot argue against an injust invasion unless they fight themselves - which is ridiculous. So you are either a troll, or just stupid. Based on the rest of your comments I'm certain you are a troll. What is really sick is that you claim to be concerned about Ukrainian lives when you are actively supporting their daily massacre.

You can argue all you want, but you shouldn't be able to force people to die for your arguments. And ukranian men don't want to die.

Instead of arguing, you come with the "paid troll" accusations and personal attacks.. come on.

It's one thing to argue about injustness (especially if you're from one of the coutries that is currently invading some other country, or recently has been, like syria or afghanistan.. like my country did), but you canot argue about ukranians having to die for whatever you consider to be right. If you support any kind of democracy, and if there is noone left who wants to volounteer and fight, the democractic opinion is already known (at least the opinion of those whose opinion should matter). If you believe that dying in this war is worth it, for whatever reason, you can replace a ukranian guy who doesn't believe that.

I'm not willing to fight for Ukraine but I am willing to support them. If my country was at risk of being ruled by the thugs in the Kremlin, I would fight for it and I would welcome support from anyone.

Your line of argument (idiotic though it is ) is used frequently by trolls because it is very effective at shutting down conversation. You can't threaten violence directly but you would if you could. You are supporting a regime that kills, rapes and kidnaps children (you will deny this because you are a paid troll but it's absolutely clear from your arguments that you do)

Anyway, you are clearly delighted to get more opportunities to repeat it so I will shut up now.

You've made it so deep into this discussion and now is when you pull out the "paid troll" comment? Speak directly and don't imply things you're not confident enough to say outright. And frankly, 99% of claims of paid trolls sound like conspiracy theories to my ears.

>If you prefer lines on the map, why not help with the fighting, instead of being a keyboard warrior?

If you are so desperate for Russia to win, why don't you go and join the Russian army and join a meat wave?

> shouldn't ukranian individuals have a choice

Conscription in its various forms is as old as warfare itself. I cannot believe you think Ukraine invented conscription lmao.

I'm not desparate for russia to win, I just support people to have a chance to not die for the lines on the map. It's not just ukraine forcing them to do so (and us helping them), but there are actual movements within EU to forcibly send the ones who escaped back.

If you want to fight russia, you're free to do so, but you shouldn't be able to force others to do so.

> Conscription in its various forms is as old as warfare itself. I cannot believe you think Ukraine invented conscription lmao.

Sure, and it's wrong and should be abolished. Aren't we the ones supporting democracy here? At least you're acting as if you are, as long as ukranian men have no choice but to die in a war you support more than them.

Nothing necessarily antidemocratic about conscription. Finland is a democracy and has conscription.

You need to focus your outrage on Russia for invading Ukraine

instead of Ukraine for defending itself.

Do you believe it's possible to support Ukraine, criticize and blame Russia for the conflict, and still think there's much to criticize about the Ukrainian response? It seems like you're not comfortable with that level of nuance, and you're being very disrespectful as a result.

Of course, but they very clearly support Russia, so that does not apply here.

They explicitly state that Ukraine should stop fighting, i.e., let Russia win.

They state The Independent and Russia Today are two equally trustworthy news sources. That is not serious.

Anyone who says we should support Ukraine is told that we should go and join the Ukrainian army, also ridiculous.

I do not respect such people, so I am being disrespectful, indeed. I do not care, either.

If you think I am being an arsehole, that's fine, you're probably right, but if you cannot see that the other guy is also at least as much of an arsehole as I am, then you presumably have very interesting opinions on the Russian attack on Ukraine, just like he does.

Conscription is undemocratic by design.

If the democratic majority wants to fight, you have more than enough volunteer soldiers to either win (or lose ~1/2 of your population...). If you can't get any volunteers any more, their opinion on if they want to fight or not is already known, even without a democratic referendum.

...at least if you only count the votes of people whose opinion actually matters here.

You need to focus your outrage on Russia for invading Ukraine

instead of Ukraine for defending itself.

What good will that do? 1 outrage = one prayer? Or whatever that faceook boomer meme was?

Now is the time to prevent forciful conscription in other countries, because our politicians are steering us towards war, and I don't want to die for them. If someone volunteers, sure, if not, then sit down and negotiate.

I don't live in neither russia not ukraine... my outrage went to my (small, eu) country occupying afghanistan and still having soldiers in syria. Sadly noone gave so much weapons and money to afghanistan/syria/libya/... to help them win the war.

What good does your seething on HN do?

My point is if you're going to rage about the war in Ukraine, you should probably rage and seethe about the invader, not criticise Ukraine for defending itself lmao.

If your only problem is that Ukraine has conscription, well so too does Russia, but you only criticise Ukraine, and repeat Russian imperialist/fascist talking points about defending Russians in Ukraine.. so it is very transparent where your sympathies really lie.