RT America Ceases Production, Lays Off Staff and Moves To Rumble (nytimes.com) 126
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The Russian state-controlled news network RT said on Thursday that it would start broadcasting on the video site Rumble, two days after YouTube announced that it would be blocking channels connected to RT and another Russian state-backed outlet, Sputnik, across Europe. "After a multitude of platforms have moved to knock out our broadcast and limit social media, you can stay on top of our LIVE broadcast," RT posted on Twitter Thursday.
Rumble, which was founded in 2013 to compete with YouTube, is one of several alternative platforms that have attracted millions of users with the promise of a space untethered by what many on the American right have called a censorship of conservative voices. Prominent voices on the platform include Stephen Bannon, former President Donald J. Trump's onetime chief strategist, and Sean Hannity of Fox News. On Thursday afternoon, Misha Solodovnikov, the general manager of the production company behind RT America, T&R Productions, told staff that RT "will be ceasing production" and "must lay off most of its staff who work at all its locations," according to a company memo seen by The New York Times. RT America has offices in Miami, New York, Los Angeles and Washington. Mr. Solodovnikov cited "unforeseen business interruption events" as a reason for the company's announcement.
Rumble, which was founded in 2013 to compete with YouTube, is one of several alternative platforms that have attracted millions of users with the promise of a space untethered by what many on the American right have called a censorship of conservative voices. Prominent voices on the platform include Stephen Bannon, former President Donald J. Trump's onetime chief strategist, and Sean Hannity of Fox News. On Thursday afternoon, Misha Solodovnikov, the general manager of the production company behind RT America, T&R Productions, told staff that RT "will be ceasing production" and "must lay off most of its staff who work at all its locations," according to a company memo seen by The New York Times. RT America has offices in Miami, New York, Los Angeles and Washington. Mr. Solodovnikov cited "unforeseen business interruption events" as a reason for the company's announcement.
In Good Company (Score:2)
Stephen Bannon, ...
Donald J. Trump,
Sean Hannity,
Russia Today.
This happened to Reddit (Score:3)
The way that r/conservative does it is that they have a list of approved posters and every time anything moderately controversial happens let alone something on the level of January 6th they block everyone but those improved posters from posting or even commenting
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for saying this. We don't agree on much, but you are speaking truth here.
Don't cozy up to shitheads, and you won't have to explain why you are so cozy with shitheads. This used to be well understood. Then grievance politics came on the scene. Don't bother with policy - we can just outrage people and get their votes, and we don't have to actually do anything once elected except act like overgrown assholes any time a microphone is capable of transducing your voice.
I used to identify as a moderat
Re: (Score:2)
Then grievance politics came on the scene. Don't bother with policy - we can just outrage people and get their votes, and we don't have to actually do anything once elected except act like overgrown assholes any time a microphone is capable of transducing your voice.
You literally just described the Republican playbook since Nixon [thenation.com], and what Fox Lies and hatemonger talk radio propaganda stations were designed to do [rollingstone.com].
Don't forget Newt Gingrich (Score:2)
Personally I just call it "smash and grab". Rolls off the tongue better.
I've come to realize (Score:2)
So Medicare for All? Sure, it's a very well understood policy. "Defund the police"? Ok, we can take some money from the public safety budget and give it to social workers, I don't like cops driving around in APCs anyway.
Do away with the police? No. If a crazy guy with a knife is outside my apartment I'd like somebody with a gun and the training to use it to show up. Collective
Re: This happened to Reddit (Score:2)
I don't think actively inciting violence falls under freedom of speech. Like falsely yelling fire in a movie theater.
Reddit could be held legally responsible (party to) if those incitements led to an actual act.
This is why people get procecuted for "incitement to riot" even if they didn't participate in the actual riot.
Re: This happened to Reddit (Score:2)
And Reddit has censorship not because of "feelings", but because there are actual civil and criminal consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
LetsGOPutin !
Re:In Good Company (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, how about this then:
If you do not amplify my voice using your own, then you are stealing my free speech. You must say what I tell you to.
Also, if you do not allow me to use your property as I see fit, then you are deplatforming me.
Finally, if I ban you from my conversational spaces, it is not the same thing at all. When I do it, I am protecting free speech. When you do it, you are abrogating free speech. Same thing if I ban books, I am protecting free speech by banning books on theories I don't like. Someone might read them and then feel scared to say their own opinion, so they should be banned.
This is how y'all sound. Hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is what happens when private companies own the public square.
Censorship is wrong when governments do it, and it's wrong when private companies do it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're ok with that I presume.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the bottom earners are usually unskilled laborers. The same people whose wages are kept low by unskilled illegal labor.
Who, exactly, keeps their wages low?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's reframe that to reality. When everyone was getting paid to sit at home during COVID lockdowns and there was a labor shortage... who called the shots on wages? It was workers.
Either you paid enough to attract workers, or your store stayed closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor Americans aren't net tax payers. They benefit from tax subsidies. In the above example only the richest 39% were net payers of taxes.
If they're getting so much benefit from all those wonderful philanthropic rich people, why is it such a shit state of affairs to be poor in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing someone to publish things they don't agree with is the opposite of free speech. You are proposing to steal someone's free speech and property, and give it to someone else.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, YOU should say everything I tell you to, or you are censoring me. Does that sound fair? No?!
Explain your position to me. Make it make sense. Because right now, it just seems like a typical case of right wing "rules for thee and not for me" syndrome.
So, who gets to decide? Maybe a nice big governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so private entities should be forced to publish things they fundamentally disagree with using their own resources and property?
That sounds suspiciously like "state-run media" to me, which everyone knows is a euphemism for "propaganda mouthpiece".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so private entities should be forced to publish things they fundamentally disagree with using their own resources and property?
Hang on a minute - they earn ad revenue from RT. That's let the market decide right there. No one is being forced to listen to what they have to say.
That sounds suspiciously like "state-run media" to me, which everyone knows is a euphemism for "propaganda mouthpiece".
What's the difference between that and "Corporate-run media"?
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations do not need to follow free speech rules. they should do what gives them more revenue.
Re: In Good Company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever heard of not enforcing laws and regulations that don't exist? Social media is not a common carrier service.
Want it to be? Convince your Congressperson. Bitching about it on Slashdot does nothing, and "someone oughtta pass a law" is useless rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the law hasn't passed yet doesn't mean something doesn't follow the pattern of a common carrier.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Unicode is of course essential for an English-language only platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so you're in favor of enforcing laws that don't exist. Awesome.
I heard that there might be a law that says you need to give me all your money, so hand it over.
See how that works?
Unicode is of course essential for a modern website that accepts text input to not be horribly fucking broken when a modern device uses unicode character replacement as part of its standard input. Or have you been sleeping for the last 10 years? Rip Van Winkle, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two parts to the 1st Amendment:
1. The government can’t ban you from saying things it doesn’t want you to say
2. The government can’t force you to say things you don’t want to say
If you force YouTube to stream Russia Today content, that violates Google’s 1st Amendment rights.
Re: (Score:2)
The public square is still there. GO OUTSIDE and see it for yourself.
I passed two actual public squares in my city this morning:
One large grassy square bound on 3 sides by: the city hall, police station, fire department -across the street from the public library.
Another near the wharf, in front of the customs house called "Customs house plaza".
Both are popular places for people to hang out and relax. Both are commonly used by people with actual megaphones, and groups waving signs.
The public square is stil
Re: (Score:2)
The public square is still there. GO OUTSIDE and see it for yourself.
I was at the park today, which is considered a public square. There were some Korean Jesus people with a booth, and a bunch of signs. Confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is what happens when private companies own the public square.
They flog the man and hang the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But lets the greater villain loose
That steals the common from the goose
Re: (Score:2)
No, censorship is not wrong when you're censoring a "news" outlet that is under complete control of a hostile, dictatorship and that has been shown time and again to spread disinformation and propaganda intended to damage and divide western democracies.
Democracies need to be more offensive in their defense of our principles. Free speech is great, but not when it is obviously used against democracy and free speech. Now people say, "oh, were do you draw the line...?" Sometimes the line is crystal clear. It is
Re: (Score:3)
Before 2014 or so, I generally believed the average American and, by extension, the average American corporation, was essentially on board with the basic tenants of the Marketplace of Ideas. And, who knows, maybe they actually were and it all changed. The left used to carry "Free Speech" signs after all.
I would have never guessed I could be so wrong. Even in this very thread, we see someone calling for the IRS to destroy Rumble [slashdot.org]. Given the Obama administration IRS scandal, I wouldn't be the least bit surpris
Re: (Score:2)
That the IRS or someone goes after Rumble to force it to close if they give ad revenue to an entity under sanction. I do feel sort of bad for the people based in the US who are now out of a job, but a few dozen people being on unemployment vs a country of millions being shelled and shot at... not really a difficult calculation to make.
Also, random slashdotters are a poor sample of Americans (even when they are American.)
In other news Florida Republicans are passing laws restricting free speech (re gays and minority experiences).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In Good Company (Score:5, Insightful)
You just going to ignore how conservatives have censored shit throughout the ages, and continue to do so? Pornography, history they don't like, rock music, homosexuality, there is nothing the conservatives won't try to censor. In their own safe spaces, they will block you in a heartbeat. Go to any right wing web site and say critical race theory is a good thing. See how long that "marketplace of ideas" stays open.
Yeah, sad, sad world, where people decry the very things they themselves are doing to others. Sad world, full of hypocrites who only care about power, and license, not rights or freedom.
Conservatives don't want a free market of ideas, they want subsidies for their ideas, and censorship for others. Typical.
Fuck all hypocrites who want freedom only for themselves, and regulation for everyone else. Know anyone like that? Tell them I said to fuck themselves. And if you don't, then you are censoring me.
Re: (Score:2)
You just going to ignore how conservatives have censored shit throughout the ages, and continue to do so?
I'm not ignoring anything. It's wrong when the Left does it, it's wrong when the Right does it. Your shitty behavior isn't justified by other's shitty behavior. Be the better person/company.
Re:In Good Company (Score:4, Insightful)
But they are two different things. You still haven't addressed why you think taking free speech away from one person, by forcing them to amplify the speech of another person, is good, let alone "free speech."
Censorship is when people, like Republicans, in government ban speech. Not agreeing with someone, or refusing to repeat what they say, or refusing to publish their works, is not, and has never been censorship.
Your move. Show me how forcing private companies to reprint what you say is a good idea. Show me how that won't lead to worse government tyranny. Who will enforce it? You WANT government to regulate speech. You just want them to do it in your favor.
Re: (Score:3)
Your move.
My move? My move is that the enormous tech companies that are acting as the public square actually act in the interest of the public. That's what I want. That's it. I don't want them censoring anybody. Baring that, if they can't do it because their values are not consistent with those of the America, they can have all of their public funding cut off. They might hate American values but they certainly love American tax dollars. And no, to be clear, I don't actually want the government to do that either.
Go ah
Re: (Score:2)
Baring that, if they can't do it because their values are not consistent with those of the America, they can have all of their public funding cut off.
Genuine question here: how much public funding does go to Google, Facebook, or Twitter (to arbitrarily pick 3 tech giants recently accused of censorship)? Personally, I don't think they should be getting any, regardless of how much censorship they do or how much I agree with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want anyone in government to force any private entity to say or publish anything they don't want to. Full stop.
How about you? Do you want to use government powers to force people to say and publish things they don't want to? yes or no.
Re: In Good Company (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make them common carriers? That will destroy their business model. I'm okay with that, but it sets a precedent. The thing is, most people don't want to hang out in a sewer. They won't use social media that just lets any random asshole scream bullshit at them. People want a curated experience, free of trolls. They don't want to hear uncensored thoughts of their fellow man, and if people try to force social media to act like a common carrier, then most people will leave.
I think that's a good thing, but it won
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So sites would need to either vet all posts, and remove any post that looks like it might be bad for business, or a potential liability, or they would need to never remove any post at all?
This still leads to a similar situation as we have now. So Facebook creates a non profit, "Facebook family curators." They are private Facebook users. They rate posts. All new users get FFC as a default curator group. They can pick others, and drop FFC, but it needs manual attention. The groups that are currently being bl
Re: (Score:2)
both-sidesism
gaslighting
shit human being
Assuming you're not a troll, the fact that you could consider my position to be anything less than 100% sincere means you need to take a hard look at your own values. That is, if you have any to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I'll be sure to let the boys know at the next rally. They're going to be pretty surprised about my sudden lack of sincerity though.
I personally have an "exit only" policy for my anus. I imagine some day I'll have to relax that a bit for cancer-screening colonoscopies but for the time-being, I'm good.
Did you know the 1995 Ig Nobel Prize in literature was awarded to David B. Busch and James R. Starling for their 1986 research report, "Rectal foreign bodies: Case Reports and a Comprehensive Review of the W
Re: (Score:2)
No, you were both-sidesing, gaslighting, and you're a shit human being, just like your sugar-daddy Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't a person. Google is a corporation. And if you think Google aren't under immense pressure from both the government and US oligarchs to deplatform undesirable voices, you're naive. They're under pressure from all sides, and until recently we defended media institutions under pressure of this sort (whether from anti-obscenity activism or overtly political activism) when they said "we're not going to make ourselves arbiters of what deserves to be heard or not, as long as it's legal".
Let's try to br
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever, authoritarian. TL;DR. Your side will lose this conflict. Freedom will win.
Re: (Score:2)
Them durty libs do somethings conservatives can't manage, like getting ad
Re: (Score:2)
"Go to any right wing web site and say critical race theory is a good thing. See how long that "marketplace of ideas" stays open."
Try it and show us what happens. I think you'll find that you're ridiculed, mocked, and generally laughed at. Nobody wants to deplatform you there - they really want you to keep talking because in doing so you prove their point.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, got banned from four such sites already. Any place specific you think I should try, that you think won't ban me in an instant?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See above. I'm not a "leftist." Certainly not a liberal, who I despise almost as much as you authoritarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals are, yes. I dislike them. Because they are what you used to be. Which is terrible.
Yes, I also dislike your side much more. I'm a social anarchist, not a liberal or an authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, you need a good ass-fucking? I'll ask what services they provide for your type of person.
Okay, sorry, they said no. Just ass beatings. You want one or nah?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of the “free exchange of ideas” last night. You know, it’s not like a market, it’s like a potluck. Everyone brings their own ideas and you sample others and some are familiar with a twist, some are interesting but not to your taste, some are bad, some are lifechanging. You can get into a discussion about recipes or technique, or what have you as people talk about the good.
If someone brings mashed potatoes, you can debate the appropriateness for a potluck: is it too b
Re: (Score:2)
You're a fucking idiot though, you think calling on the IRS to enforce sanctions on Russia is hippies not supporting the "marketplace of idea."
I mean, no, just fuck yourself, asshole. Shut the fuck up with that shit. That's my offering to the marketplace of ideas, BTW.
If you violate sanctions, you can go to federal prison. That's got fucking nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
If you do not amplify my voice using your own, then you are stealing my free speech. You must say what I tell you to.
Nicely put. A gag is a gag, we don't have to like what RT is saying but silencing them goes against a fundamental value of western democracy, freedom of speech.
Let's hear what RT has to say, even if it is lies and evaluate it on it's merits - or don't listen at all, it makes little sense to shoot the messenger. Choice the is power freedom of speech delivers.
Re: (Score:2)
RT can go hang. Fuck a bunch of Russian propaganda. Because they lie, all the time. But let them talk, since no one is listening.
I mean, have you noticed? Suddenly its cool to hate Russia with a passion again! Nice, right? Americans hating on authoritarian assholes is... well it's as American as apple pie!
Together at last (Score:2)
"Prominent voices on [Rumble] include Stephen Bannon, former President Donald J. Trump's onetime chief strategist, and Sean Hannity of Fox News."
Isn't that just the sweetest thing...Putin and his besties all together on the same social media platform. It almost brings a tear to your eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're too busy shitting the bed because they can't scale. Turns out that when you piss off every large tech company, it's hard to find help with large tech. Also, when you have a history of stiffing contractors on the bill, it's pretty hard to find competent contractors to help you.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't help when you launch your platform by get caught trying to steal from the open source software movement [theverge.com] and make an enemy of virtually every non-neonazi coder out there in the process, either...
Re: Together at last (Score:2)
Birds of a feather take a big nasty shit together.
William Shatner I don't understand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I firmly believe China has been whispering in Putin's ear, urging him to invade Ukraine. Because if it works, they destabilize and demoralize the west, and they can proceed to invade Taiwan with impunity.
But if it fails, Russia is cut off from the rest of the world. And who will Russia come crawling to then? The only ones who will have them: China.
So China either gets a demoralized, splintered western world and a green light on invading Taiwan, or they get an enfeebled client state who still owns nuclear we
Re: William Shatner I don't understand (Score:2)
Based on the response from the greater world, even beyond what we would consider the "west" it should be clear that China has everything to lose with a war against Taiwan.
It owes it's rapid economic rise to becoming a global trading partner and exporter, it would be a huge gamble to try an amphibious invasion of a nation that would be defended by the US, Japan, Australia etc. It would also have to deal with a grueling occupation against a hostile populace.
Basically the only upside they have is the historica
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. But authoritarians aren't smart. They can't be, surrounded by Yes Men who are afraid to criticize them. So who knows what China will do?
Re: William Shatner I don't understand (Score:2)
That is absolutely true but the impression I get from China is a bit more like the USSR where yes there's an authoritarian leader but things are still underpinned by "the party". I don't think Xi could move on Taiwan just by himself the way Putin seemingly has acted. As memey as it is China probably has an actual "deep state".
But like you said, rationality certainly isn't assured these days...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this war does do quite bit of damage to China's belt and road initiative to sell stuff to Eastern Europe. Huawei for example is behind much of Ukraine's cell network and currently giving Ukraine free network equipment. Ukraine also sells (sold) a lot of wheat to China. Likewise China has been involved in much of Eastern Europe and now the trade route using the Siberian railway is broken.
They're probably pretty conflicted at this point, originally happy at the idea of Russia invading Ukraine thinking
Russia today had a lot of reasonable content (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to listen to his podcast and I think he was under the RT umbrella. Either way, I think this is a practice for China, the CCP and their elites. If they try to invade Taiwan, they know what to look forward to.
Funny-cute cat videos?
I half hope (Score:2)
That the IRS or someone goes after Rumble to force it to close if they give ad revenue to an entity under sanction. I do feel sort of bad for the people based in the US who are now out of a job, but a few dozen people being on unemployment vs a country of millions being shelled and shot at... not really a difficult calculation to make.
Re: (Score:2)
> That the IRS or someone goes after Rumble to force it to close if they give ad revenue to an entity under sanction.
Rumble doesn't host any illegal content (by policy). If RT's content is deemed illegal then they won't host it. But it's a high bar for the US Government to ban speech, especially press speech (unless it's Wikileaks and you're Trump, apparently). RT is partially state-funded, like CBC, BBC, NPR, VoA, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not have checked the news the past week, but state-funded Russian stuff is almost guaranteed to be under sanctions. If it isn't now, it probably will be in a few days.
Re: (Score:2)
I do feel sort of bad for the people based in the US who are now out of a job...
I mean, it's kind of like shutting down an Indian scam-call center and having their "Money Mules" in the USA put out of a job. They chose to work for a criminal entity...
And nothing of value was lost (Score:4, Interesting)
So is it censorship of conservative voices, or is there just a large overlap in the venn diagram depicting the relationship between conservative voices and pro-authoritarian lying fraud-cunts?
Seems to me that it's authoritarian lying fraud-cunts that are getting banned. There's still plenty of actual conservatives that have no problems whatsoever still posting shit to YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. Or are we saying that the ten most conservative voting records in the Senate aren't "conservatives" anymore? They're all still posting just fine. As are most of the "conservative media" that aren't full-blown authoritarian boot-licking lying fraud-cunts themselves.
Re: And nothing of value was lost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When RT was just a viewpoint from the other side of the world, like Al Jazeera, it was just fine. But now there are sanctions on Russia and the situation is different. Also it was clear from the start that RT was just an official state mouthpiece, and not just partially state funded. They lie more often than Steve Bannon which is quite an accomplishment as that takes tremendous breath control.
Re: (Score:2)
https://medium.com/discourse/h... [medium.com]
Re: (Score:2)
^ Oh look, bullshit fucking lying propaganda from a Russian posting as Anonymous KremlinKoward.
Fuck off back to your shit country, "Tovarisch."
Re: (Score:2)
So is it censorship of conservative voices, or is there just a large overlap in the venn diagram depicting the relationship between conservative voices and pro-authoritarian lying fraud-cunts?
Lol, if you destroy free speech, you are going to create a lot of strange bedfellows, at least in where people try to go to speak.
Pro tip: if you are trying to stamp out all speech that you don't like, you are the authoritarian. (Or one of them, anyway.)
Re: (Score:2)
So is it censorship of conservative voices, or is there just a large overlap in the venn diagram depicting the relationship between conservative voices and pro-authoritarian lying fraud-cunts?
Seems to me that it's authoritarian lying fraud-cunts that are getting banned. There's still plenty of actual conservatives that have no problems whatsoever still posting shit to YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. Or are we saying that the ten most conservative voting records in the Senate aren't "conservatives" anymore? They're all still posting just fine. As are most of the "conservative media" that aren't full-blown authoritarian boot-licking lying fraud-cunts themselves.
I'm pretty sure that no form of free speech has explicitly protected deliberate falsehoods. They're usually the exception to the rule.
Nowhere, does free speech protect deliberate falsehoods against criticism. That really is the opposite of free speech... Kind of like what Russia is doing by making it a criminal offence to call the "war in Ukraine" an invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
RT was Russian propaganda disguised as news and I think did a better job than Faux News at hiding their true purpose. They'd do some decent reporting when they just repeated 3rd party reports because why waste Putin's money on real journalists? Got to mix in some truth with the lies and spin.
It's about as much "news" as Scientology is religion... because we let anybody self-declare what they want to present as...
Re: (Score:2)
The Klanservatives are adept at gaslighting about their motives. They've been doing it in the RepugnantKlan Party since Nixon's Southern Strategy welcomed the Klan Shits into the GOP... [thenation.com]
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigg-r, nigg-r, nigg-r.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigg-r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, an
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring an ID to vote isn't restricting anyone except those wish to vote fraudulently
The same KKK pissbrains who ran to the RepugnantKlan Party under Nixon's Southern Strategy are the ones who came up with this bullshit. [time.com]
They're the same ones who came up with the idea of "Felon Disenfranchisement" for the express purpose of disenfranchising black voters. [themarshallproject.org]
They're the same ones who refused to issue birth certificates to black children for decades - birth certificates now required to get that "ID to v [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He probably wasn't talking about voter ID. There are other measures being used that absolutely restrict voting. Such as restricting or rolling back vote-by-mail, attempting to reduce or completely remove ballot drop boxes, criminalizing handing out water to people waiting in line without saying a word about the election whatsoever, restricting polling place hours and outlawing early voting on Sundays, and increasing the number of days before an election that you must be registered to vote.
All of these thi
Censorship required (Score:2)
When you can't win an argument, just censor the other side. It works perfectly, especially in the US where no one wants to hear the other side of the argument.
Re: (Score:3)
What argument are you talking about? The argument that Putin is a good guy fighting the supervillains in Ukraine, or the argument that the government sanctions are not legal, or the argument about what to have for lunch?
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't agree with everything I say, AND repeat it to everyone you know, you are censoring me.
That's how you sound. Forcing people to say things they don't agree with is NOT censorship. Quite the opposite. Funny old world but under the Capitalist system, freedom of press only applies if you own a press. No press? Go stand on a street corner and shout. Or pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and buy your own press, you freeloader.
Saying you want to regulate private companies so that conservatives can f
Re: (Score:2)
When you can't win an argument, just censor the other side. It works perfectly, especially in the US where no one wants to hear the other side of the argument.
Censorship isn't used to stop arguments, it's used to stop disinformation. Specifically, people push invented narratives that lack a factual basis even after they have been rebutted and debunked. If people were only making good faith arguments and accepted empirical evidence then there would be no need for censorship.
Right now, we have people claiming climate change isn't real despite damning evidence to the contrary. We also have people claiming the former president won re-election despite all evidence
"Uncensored" (Score:4, Interesting)
with the promise of a space untethered by what many on the American right have called a censorship of conservative voices.
I can guarantee if I put up a post outlining all the lies and crimes committed by the con artist and his cabal, it would be removed before the end of the day. Guaranteed. No way facts and truthful information like that would be allowed to stand.
Re: (Score:2)
In the company of Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore (Score:2)
And lots of others who understand that YouTube and Twitter will shamelessly censor anyone if its convenient to do so.
Twitter's head even apologized to the NY Post for knocking them out over their revelation of Hunter Biden's laptop.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/1... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Donald's choice. We know which way he'll go.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the old Russian Pravda news? Interesting name Trump picked for his social media "news"... Translate Pravda to English [duckduckgo.com].
Re: (Score:2)