The United States on September 13 said the Russian news outlet RT is taking orders directly from the Kremlin and working with Russian military intelligence to spread disinformation around the world to undermine democracies.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the United States has gathered new evidence that exposes cooperation between RT and four other subsidiaries of the Rossia Segodnya media group, and it intends to warn other countries of the threat of the disinformation.
In addition to RT, Rossia Segodnya operates RIA Novosti, TV-Novosti, Ruptly, and Sputnik, but the announcement on September 13 focused largely on RT. The outlet, formerly known as Russia Today, has previously been sanctioned for its work to allegedly spread Kremlin propaganda and disinformation.
I’d point out that you’re asking of me solutions you’re unable or unwilling to deliver, but that’s whataboutery, and off limits, so I myself should just “shut up.”
Asking someone if they have any good ideas when I can’t think of any is not some sort of foul play. I don’t know how you get such a basic “can anyone think of something?” idea so twisted up.
And whataboutism is this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
And I gave you ideas. You gave* me nothing of value. You wasted my time, because you’re more invested in “winning” the argument, rather than working out viable solutions. Silencing RT doesn’t give any pushback on anything our own propagandists feed us.
All I did was point out your idea was illegal, knowing an idea would not work is not “nothing of value”. Perhaps I should have clarified, are there any legal ideas that might move us forward in a positive direction? Knowing that it is illegal to violate:
The key is working out viable solutions. We can’t just magic up unviable ones and get upset when someone points out they’re not viable.
I’m not upset, and I’m not upset at pushback on it own propaganda machine, either.
That’s fair. I’m just pointing out it’s a really difficult situation for us to address in any way. If anyone has any ideas on productive steps forward beyond just not doing it in the future, I remain interested.
Btw, yelling fire in a crowded theatre isn’t protected speech, any more than fighting words. I don’t believe saying it softly in eloquent words with ever redefined terms should be, either.
Yeah I’m inclined to agree. The “press” gets a double dose, frustratingly. Protected speech, but also freedom of the press, where they can publish fighting words or make up news about fires if they want. If we look at groups like OAN they can just blanketly make up whatever lies they find convenient while avoiding any criminal penalties. Nothing stops the National Enquirer from just writing about any alien abduction they feel like, regardless of factuality.
So far civil lawsuits asking for compensation for harm done have been the only thing that even slowed them down, like the Dominion defamation suits, or the Sandy Hook families suing Alex Jones. I don’t think tort law is enough though, not even close. Especially since it waits until after the harm is already done.
Were I a lawyer, I would argue that the fifth estate has a duty to uphold a stricter standard, since public opinion largely relies on them. I would include “leftist” news organizations, too.