EU Commission demands Google takedown RT and Sputnik from search results(lumendatabase.org)
lumendatabase.org
EU Commission demands Google takedown RT and Sputnik from search results
https://lumendatabase.org/notices/26927483?access_token=w6YC_Vjutt85UvZMLExMag#
46 コメント
Talk principles when others are concerned, protect interests when it concerns them. The hypocrisy, condescension and self-righteousness of the entire western world is on display in this conflict. The relentless onslaught of western propaganda might have worked 20 years ago, but is mostly a self goal now and a bubble for their own populace to bask in moral high ground. From Gulf to Africa and Asia, countries are paying lip service at best to western narrative or downright ignoring it. Everyone acknowledges Putin as a dangerous individual, sympathizes with plight of Ukrainians but knows west lead Ukraine on, refused to listen to Russian concerns (valid or not), all for a defunct military alliance that has lost its purpose and only exists for expansion.
> Everyone ... knows west lead Ukraine on, refused to listen to Russian concerns (valid or not), all for a defunct military alliance that has lost its purpose and only exists for expansion.
This is just propaganda of another kind. NATO exists to protect states from the terror of bully-states like Russia. That's why you see states famously neutral now clamoring to get in.
Russia concern-trolled its way right into an invasion and it looks like its propaganda worked, on you.
This is just propaganda of another kind. NATO exists to protect states from the terror of bully-states like Russia. That's why you see states famously neutral now clamoring to get in.
Russia concern-trolled its way right into an invasion and it looks like its propaganda worked, on you.
There's plenty of concern trolling to go around.
And Poroshenko sending the army and battalions of neo-nazis to attack Ukraine's own citizens wasn't a first punch thrown by a bully ? Why didn't NATO nations or the UN react then to stop the massacre ?
They happily ignored it, which gave Putin the excuse then for Crimea and to send his famous "Green Men" back then. Letting it rot, and worse, enabling the worst elements of Ukranian society gave him an excuse in front ofthe Russian public to start this whole murderous theater piece now.
Similarly, 5.4 million dead in Congo between 1998 - 2008. What did anybody do about it ? Nothing. Most people in the west don't even know it happened. Same as Yemen's 370'000 dead. I'll also conveniently skip Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq's million dead from sanctions, or more recently arming and funding Isis and Al-Quaed against Assad.
So let's pretend this has anything to do with any morals or protection of others from bullies, or democracy - or if you think different I'd say your local propaganda worked on you.
NATO is just the stick to the western lifestyle carrot - while in fact setup for an extractive system centered on dollar surplus recycled by the world's regional elites through Wall Street.
Russia, China, Putin and Xi are trying to create their own opposing version, and will be using the coming economic crisis born of this war to effect it.
It's all just the Great Game of colonial great powers all over again, 2022 Modern Redux.
And Poroshenko sending the army and battalions of neo-nazis to attack Ukraine's own citizens wasn't a first punch thrown by a bully ? Why didn't NATO nations or the UN react then to stop the massacre ?
They happily ignored it, which gave Putin the excuse then for Crimea and to send his famous "Green Men" back then. Letting it rot, and worse, enabling the worst elements of Ukranian society gave him an excuse in front ofthe Russian public to start this whole murderous theater piece now.
Similarly, 5.4 million dead in Congo between 1998 - 2008. What did anybody do about it ? Nothing. Most people in the west don't even know it happened. Same as Yemen's 370'000 dead. I'll also conveniently skip Lybia, Afghanistan, Iraq's million dead from sanctions, or more recently arming and funding Isis and Al-Quaed against Assad.
So let's pretend this has anything to do with any morals or protection of others from bullies, or democracy - or if you think different I'd say your local propaganda worked on you.
NATO is just the stick to the western lifestyle carrot - while in fact setup for an extractive system centered on dollar surplus recycled by the world's regional elites through Wall Street.
Russia, China, Putin and Xi are trying to create their own opposing version, and will be using the coming economic crisis born of this war to effect it.
It's all just the Great Game of colonial great powers all over again, 2022 Modern Redux.
> So let's pretend this has anything to do with any morals or protection of others from bullies, or democracy - or if you think different I'd say your local propaganda worked on you.
Apart from comparisons to what the West did when... insert-your-favorite-conflict-choice-here being more of the whataboutism I expect -- though pointing it out never seems to stop such facile arguments -- as a Danish resident working directly with Ukrainian software developers daily, the war against Ukraine is very close to my heart.
Reducing our protests and plaintive cries to stop the war to more of the din of the political elites or the heartless machinations of the Great Powers is out of touch with the very real fears of former satellites of the USSR and the very real heartbreak of Europeans for our sisters and brothers in Ukraine.
Apart from comparisons to what the West did when... insert-your-favorite-conflict-choice-here being more of the whataboutism I expect -- though pointing it out never seems to stop such facile arguments -- as a Danish resident working directly with Ukrainian software developers daily, the war against Ukraine is very close to my heart.
Reducing our protests and plaintive cries to stop the war to more of the din of the political elites or the heartless machinations of the Great Powers is out of touch with the very real fears of former satellites of the USSR and the very real heartbreak of Europeans for our sisters and brothers in Ukraine.
If everyone sympathizes why is the west and its close allies the only ones doing anything about it? If you're statement is accurate, doubtful but lets pretend, then if anything that adds more relevance to the reinvigorating of the West's military investments and treaties.
A more reasonable demand would be to have a warning sign for government propaganda websites, without that affecting ranking. Search engines and video hosting platforms like YouTube aren't the same. The first aims to be an index of all the information available on the internet, akin to "the eyes of the internet". When a search engine censors content, we lose sight of our surroundings. The second (e.g YT) hosts the content itself and is more akin to a hotel, in which case there is no expectation that it should host any given content.
Interesting how we point at Russia for not having liberty of information. But at this war we are throwing all the first punches
This is way past ridiculous, not to mention social media allowing violence
Looks like a "all in" from a desperate EU/UK/USA having been handed a losing hand
This is way past ridiculous, not to mention social media allowing violence
Looks like a "all in" from a desperate EU/UK/USA having been handed a losing hand
Nonsense "first punches".
Russia has been censoring media within Russia for many years, and has gone increasingly harsh. The RT ban in Europe came after Russia banned several western and local critical media and disaccredited journalists.
In addition RT and Sputnik have been spreading literal fake news for years to rail up opposition to national governments both with a pro Russia slant but often simply to attack national policy and cause rifts with minority groups or migrants (e.g. [1])
[1] https://observers.france24.com/en/20160128-fake-video-german...
Russia has been censoring media within Russia for many years, and has gone increasingly harsh. The RT ban in Europe came after Russia banned several western and local critical media and disaccredited journalists.
In addition RT and Sputnik have been spreading literal fake news for years to rail up opposition to national governments both with a pro Russia slant but often simply to attack national policy and cause rifts with minority groups or migrants (e.g. [1])
[1] https://observers.france24.com/en/20160128-fake-video-german...
CNN and BBC are also debunked or misreport frequently and Russia didn't rush to ban them
If RT lied it would have gone to due process
It was a clear political decision to ban TV channel, online channels, and now search engine result. Coordinated between EU/UK/US leaders
https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220301-video-debu... Almost all "independent" or not media sources reported the tank being Russian and most still do
If RT lied it would have gone to due process
It was a clear political decision to ban TV channel, online channels, and now search engine result. Coordinated between EU/UK/US leaders
https://observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220301-video-debu... Almost all "independent" or not media sources reported the tank being Russian and most still do
This is whataboutism. BBC might be biased but it is not straight propaganda and lies as RT.
Honestly there is no point in discussing this if you cannot see the difference between a state sponsored channel that pumps out literal lies and fake footage, invents conspiracy theories, and tries to sow hate against e.g. jews and migrants vs one that has a conservative and pro-British bent but is free to criticise the government and often does so. BBC is boring and conservative and I would rarely waste my time on it, but it is an entirely different category of media.
Honestly there is no point in discussing this if you cannot see the difference between a state sponsored channel that pumps out literal lies and fake footage, invents conspiracy theories, and tries to sow hate against e.g. jews and migrants vs one that has a conservative and pro-British bent but is free to criticise the government and often does so. BBC is boring and conservative and I would rarely waste my time on it, but it is an entirely different category of media.
> to sow hate against e.g. jews and migrants
I mean, the BBC is very happy to turn refugees drowning in the English sea into entertainment. And is currently waging a war on trans people.
Sure, the BBC is less bad than RT, but not pumping out doctored footage or blatant antisemitism is a very, very low bar.
I mean, the BBC is very happy to turn refugees drowning in the English sea into entertainment. And is currently waging a war on trans people.
Sure, the BBC is less bad than RT, but not pumping out doctored footage or blatant antisemitism is a very, very low bar.
Waging a war on trans people? What?
I'm really struggling to find the war being waged on trans people here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=trans
There are numerous programmes on the lives of trans people covering a variety of topics (relationships, culture, health), some news stories reporting facts (mainly people and organisations getting 'cancelled' for being anti-trans) and articles based on public comments from well known people regretting decisions.
I assume you are referring to the controversy around a single article by a single journalist [1]. A journalist who previously wrote a sympathetic history of trans people in the modelling industry... for the BBC[2].
Out of curiosity, I tried to find any other evidence. All other descriptions of this anti-trans agenda ultimately just reference this single article e.g. [3]. One 'article' becomes 'articles' and then slips into being an 'agenda'[4]. I found one other reference - an article about an internal meeting which some attendees complained about, but that wasn't even public facing and was only called because of that single article [5]. (There were also some vague references to two individual news stories, which were considered by some to not be balanced - there are complaints like this about news coverage from either side of any argument every single week on the programme Feedback.)
If the BBC is trying to promote an anti-trans agenda across their massive output involving tens of thousands of people, they are doing a spectacularly bad job of it.
I get fed up of people bashing the BBC over individual incidents - it just feeds into the right wing narrative that it needs to be de-funded [6]. Be careful what you wish for, privately owned media tends not to be great for marginalised groups...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59074096
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49578690
[3] http://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/2022/united_k...
[4] https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/drag-race-uks-bimini-calls-o...
[5] https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/11/11/bbc-trans-lgbt-staff-s...
[6] https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/mps-and-trans-campaigner...
There are numerous programmes on the lives of trans people covering a variety of topics (relationships, culture, health), some news stories reporting facts (mainly people and organisations getting 'cancelled' for being anti-trans) and articles based on public comments from well known people regretting decisions.
I assume you are referring to the controversy around a single article by a single journalist [1]. A journalist who previously wrote a sympathetic history of trans people in the modelling industry... for the BBC[2].
Out of curiosity, I tried to find any other evidence. All other descriptions of this anti-trans agenda ultimately just reference this single article e.g. [3]. One 'article' becomes 'articles' and then slips into being an 'agenda'[4]. I found one other reference - an article about an internal meeting which some attendees complained about, but that wasn't even public facing and was only called because of that single article [5]. (There were also some vague references to two individual news stories, which were considered by some to not be balanced - there are complaints like this about news coverage from either side of any argument every single week on the programme Feedback.)
If the BBC is trying to promote an anti-trans agenda across their massive output involving tens of thousands of people, they are doing a spectacularly bad job of it.
I get fed up of people bashing the BBC over individual incidents - it just feeds into the right wing narrative that it needs to be de-funded [6]. Be careful what you wish for, privately owned media tends not to be great for marginalised groups...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59074096
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-49578690
[3] http://www.ilga-europe.org/sites/default/files/2022/united_k...
[4] https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/drag-race-uks-bimini-calls-o...
[5] https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/11/11/bbc-trans-lgbt-staff-s...
[6] https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/mps-and-trans-campaigner...
I wrote about just one example here. The BBC spent years on a hit piece equating trans people with sex offenders, meanwhile uncritically platforming an extremist trans-eliminist sex offender. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30565403#30567568
Before that, staff were told that attending Pride was no longer allowed.
This week the BBC Woman’s Hour platformed Maya Forstater as a feminist hero. They didn't critically mention the real reason she was dismissed from her contract was for handing out leaflets at work that said trans people are a danger to children.
Before that, staff were told that attending Pride was no longer allowed.
This week the BBC Woman’s Hour platformed Maya Forstater as a feminist hero. They didn't critically mention the real reason she was dismissed from her contract was for handing out leaflets at work that said trans people are a danger to children.
You've ignored the strong positive message set across a variety of output currently visible to everyone with access to bbc.co.uk and countered it with a an unreferenced description of an article (the HN comment has no title or link) and a potential factual omission from an interview (with no external reference to confirm).
(I don't work for the BBC and internal matters are somewhat opaque to the outside world, but even the Pride issue seems to have been some poor interpretation of a brand new guideline by someone internally that was spun into a bigger story and dealt with within a few days - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54749024)
I'm still struggling to see the evidence for a war.
(I don't work for the BBC and internal matters are somewhat opaque to the outside world, but even the Pride issue seems to have been some poor interpretation of a brand new guideline by someone internally that was spun into a bigger story and dealt with within a few days - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54749024)
I'm still struggling to see the evidence for a war.
It wasn't a hit piece though, it was a balanced look at a contentious issue. The author of article did actually interview two transwomen who agreed that what the article describes - lesbians being socially pressured to have sex with males - is indeed a problem.
This is the BBC doing its job admirably, presenting different points of view and perspectives, to educate and inform the reader in as neutral a manner as is possible in journalism.
This is the BBC doing its job admirably, presenting different points of view and perspectives, to educate and inform the reader in as neutral a manner as is possible in journalism.
> BBC might be biased but it is not straight propaganda and lies as RT.
How do you know that ?
How do you know that ?
What “due process” exists to rectify a lie on the internet? I’m not aware of any. A teeny tiny percentage of the audience who consumes a lie might happen upon the correction at a later point in time but by then it’s too late. The first lie wins. Overwhelmingly. And we (as individuals and as a society) have almost no recourse whatsoever.
I believe Putin invading his sovereign neighbor was the first punch. After that it's no hold bar, all Russian corporate entities should be harassed and dragged into irrelevance with targeted sanctions and bans. Let Putin have his vassal state bent over for Chinese resource extraction and turn them into a hermit kingdom.
The hints were there during this pandemic. Now it is clear... We are all doomed...
I found it somewhat funny that a few weeks ago, there was a discussion in Germany about banning Telegram for spreading Coronavirus misinformation and giving covid deniers a space to organise. (Though to admit, it was never banned in the end)
Feed forward to last week and Telegram is hailed as a beacon of free speech in Russia and as one of the last options for Russians to find out the truth...
Feed forward to last week and Telegram is hailed as a beacon of free speech in Russia and as one of the last options for Russians to find out the truth...
One German minister suggested it be banned. A few NGOs agreed. And a couple officials thought it might be against the App Stores' EULAs and should be discussed with Google/Apple.
Let's not overstate the support for it.
Let's not overstate the support for it.
Those statements were moves in a bargaining game where the real goal was to get telegram to take down certain channels. Telegram ended up doing just that.
Germany's Interior minister, who threatened to shut telegram down, explained that "the pressure is working"
https://www.dw.com/en/telegram-blocks-over-60-channels-in-ge...
Germany's Interior minister, who threatened to shut telegram down, explained that "the pressure is working"
https://www.dw.com/en/telegram-blocks-over-60-channels-in-ge...
Can this be verified or is this misinformation?
[deleted]
Quick search shows that this is not misinformation, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/09/eu-goog...
Will they also censor western professional misinformation sites then?
Like DLF, Zeit, Welt, BBC, NyTimes, WaPo just for the biggest.
It's a joke
Are you really comparing state-owned agencies to independent media companies?
How about Radio Free X/Radio Liberty?
BBC is state owned.
If the state controls funding it might as well be state-owned. Makes zero difference.
It is not. The BBC is public owned.
The chairman of the board, and several other members, is appointed by the UK head of state (the monarch), on recommendation of government ministers. There is also a revolving door between high up positions in the Tory party (the party of government), and high up positions in the BBC.
That screams more "state" than "public" control.
That screams more "state" than "public" control.
neither is RT. It's owned by a company named ANO tv novosti
Sure: RT (formerly Russia Today or Rossiya Segodnya)[10] is a Russian state-controlled[1] international television network funded by the tax budget of the Russian government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
Exactly like the BBC, yes.
Wikipedia portrays it differently, I wonder why.
Wikipedia portrays it differently, I wonder why.
> Exactly like the BBC, yes.
No, not really: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee.
No, not really: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/licencefee.
"Independent" is a relative term
> Independent
They're not state-owned but they are certainly not independent. All mainstream media is tightly bound to a political party or another. Fox and MSNBC are mirrors of misinformation.
They're not state-owned but they are certainly not independent. All mainstream media is tightly bound to a political party or another. Fox and MSNBC are mirrors of misinformation.
>Bound to a political party or another
That's the difference between Fox News and RT. Even though the US president is a democrat now, Fox News is still broadcasting Republican views. But as soon as Russia replaces its president, RT is going to broadcast exactly his or her views.
This is true, but more of a problem than you're making it out to be. In my country all channels are clearly on the payroll of a certain party. For example, if there is a political debate, they'll have pre and post debate interviews with only one of the candidates, make claims of his victory no matter how badly he screwed up, and always allow him to interrupt the other guy. This sort of stuff really undermines democracy.
Imagine comparing those media to RT haha
Even floating this idea in an informal not binding way will do damage to the reputation of who is criticizing an authoritarian state. How can any benefit offset an own goal of this magnitude?
If they are doing something wrong, file a formal lawsuit etc, but removing from search results? Seriously?