Regardless, in a democracy, internet censorship is a slippery slope, and for that reason, I am against it in most cases.
Of course it does? Most people are not going to go out of their way for it unless they have specific reasons to do so. What's on/available by default matters. (Ask any UX specialist.)
Making it slightly more difficult to consume outright propaganda by not having it front and center; that seems to me to be a very much acceptable move for democratic and free states to make in the context of information warfare.
Al Jazeera has more journalists on the ground in Gaza than anyone else. They're some of the only independent media there (because Israel has blocked international media from entering, but Al Jazeera already has people there). If you want to know what's going on in Gaza, you watch Al Jazeera.
See e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/11/middleeast/qatar-hamas-fu...
However, this does not change the fact that now there is an active war between Hamas and Israel most Israelis dislike Al Jazeera because they perceive to be part of the propaganda wing of Hamas with Qatar's support.
I wouldn't call that a moral high ground.
And in the case of RT, they had left even the pretence of journalism a long time ago. But I agree with those that say we should not have banned them. When we try to defend our liberal world order with censorship, we are certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.
> And in the case of RT, they had left even the pretence of journalism a long time ago.
What is RT doing that is not found in FOX, NBC, CNews.fr, Hayom?
> liberal world order based on law, not might.
This is a facade. The talking point the NATO/US/west uses, while they violate every such rule when they see fit. You may be interested in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
I can't take someone (like Mearsheimer) who warns that Germany again is likely to try to invade Europe even a little bit serious. He clearly knows nothing about contemporary German politics, culture, or how well they are doing manufacturing and trading.
Where did you get the "are equally bad" part from?
> He clearly...
"Clearly", eh? Well, let's wait to see how you do with the question.
> This is a facade. The talking point the NATO/US/west uses, while they violate every such rule when they see fit.
Which expresses that exact sentiment
Calling something a "Russian talking point" does not make it less true. Russia would not have invaded if (combination of factors): Ukraine did not have ethnic Russians that were being oppressed (see the Odessa union house massacre), Ukraine did not want to go NATO, Ukraine was not a safe haven of anti-Russia fascists (see the enormous statue for Bandera in Lvov -- bizarre how that's allowed in an "EU ally"). Minks agreements were "just to give Ukraine time to build military" said Merkel (a guarantor of the agreement). Russia was cheated by the west, and behaves accordingly, if you ask me.
> who warns that Germany again is likely to try to invade Europe
Lol. Where did he say that?
> Ukraine did not have ethnic Russians that were being oppressed (see the Odessa union house massacre)
This has ceased being a valid casus belli in the developed world since 1945.
Annexation of a neighboring state's territory isn't justified by purported ethnic persecution.
Not least, because it's historically been the most common manufactured lie to justify war.
> Ukraine did not want to go NATO
Since when does Russia get a say in other sovereign countries' decisions?
Last I checked at the UN, Russia (and China) were big supporters of countries' ability to do whatever they wanted within their own borders (external complaints be damned).
> Ukraine was not a safe haven of anti-Russia fascists
> anti-Russia
Hard to forget the 4 million Ukrainians the USSR purposefully killed during the Holodomor. [0]
When a country does something to an ethnic group that ranks with the Holocaust, it shouldn't be surprised when people are anti-it.
>> fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [1]
> exalts nation and often race above the individual
How's the glorification of Russkiy Mir going? Or the vilification of non-Russian ethnic minorities?
> stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader
How long has Putin been president or prime minister?
> severe economic and social regimentation
How many state-owned enterprises are there in Russia?
And what inalienable freedom of speech and association rights do Russian citizen have?
> forcible suppression of opposition
How many opposition candidates ran in the last election?
If Russia is looking for fascism, it might want to start with a mirror.
Monopolizing discourse.
How many independent news channels are there inside Russia today?
I agree with that - freedom of speech is one of the few things I think worth fighting for. We cannot fight for it while rejecting it.
How long has it been since all had equal access to speech? The mostly-literate + printing press era?
Do we still have free speech if I can turn an algorithmic knob that causes 10% fewer people to see your opinion than those arguing against you?
Today, anyone can make a website. If they say enough interesting things, they'll get eyeballs. Even if those things are false, and even if the algorithms of the walled gardens want to suppress them, they'll still get out.
The internet / web has never been a platform where all had equal access to share their views. The ability to speak doesn't matter if few can hear you.
When it was more democratic in the early days, the masses weren't part of it.
When the masses came online, promotion and discoverability had already been centralized by large platforms.
F.ex. if I shower a town with 250 physical leaflets + I post on all the major platforms, and immediately people of power attempt to suppress them, which do you think results in more people seeing them?
You're missing the third option however. Start your own blog, then just post links on all of the major social medias, and especially on some of the minor ones. Once your link hits the right Signal groups or Truth Social followers or whatever, it will fly around way faster than any samizdat ever could.
NATO wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for Russia. The only reason Russia’s neighbours strive to join NATO is because Russia’s habit of invading them when they don’t behave exactly as Russia wants them too.
Sure, if you believe your own (or more accurately: most liberal democracies') propaganda. But it really depends on how invested that enemy is in convincing your citizens to side with it. It turns out that "freedom of speech" ultimately is a losing strategy against an enemy that's excellent at abusing speech (which is another way of saying they have a good understanding of psychology, rhetorics and deception).
The successful way to engage with propaganda is not to let it sit alongside reality[0] but to contextualize it with reality. A widely known example in US news coverage for the former is showing "both sides of the debate" on issues like global warming or evolution: merely giving it an equal weight gives it equal presence in public perception and legitimizes it. Contextualizing means being explicit about which side you agree with and explaining why the given argument by the other side is wrong.
Of course the problem with effective propaganda is that it's not simply misinformation which can be contrasted and dissected easily but disinformation that not only shields itself against analysis but actively disrupts any attempt at analysis. Russian propaganda legitimizing the invasion of Ukraine for example (and this isn't new, this is literally a continuation of Soviet Union psychological warfare) used multiple mutually contradictory conflicting narratives which effectively drown out any other narrative by not only giving a manufactured alternative equal weight but giving equal weight to multiple alternatives, like a DDoS attack on information.
[0]: Of course we can debate what "reality" means but no matter the overarching narrative or the individual justifications, it's nearly impossible to avoid agreeing on things like "Russia sent ground troops in the direction of Kyiv within Ukranian borders" even if you might have different explanations of why that happened or what the intention behind that was or whether it constitutes a military attack.
Of course the irony is that in this case the side most heavily relying on disinformation seems to be Israel given its various contradictory official claims on social media. But arguably their application of it is nowhere near as effective. It's also worth mentioning that not only did the EU kick out Russian state-owned media but Russian television is also heavily censored and legal access to foreign news sources very limited. So the answer to "Who's engaging in censorship?" in this case seems to be "Everyone, to varying degrees". That implies this has never been a meaningful moral distinction, no matter what bleeding heart liberals and free speech libertarians may claim.
Side note: I though being able to read the news of the enemy was testimony to the moral high ground of a "modern free and democratic society". No more moral high ground if you are trying to shape the perception of the public with censorship.