Russia’s RT network working directly with Kremlin to spread disinformation, U.S. says
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.
Nobody is pretending we didn't. The articles linked were all in our news, right? And you and I are talking openly about it right now on the internet, yes? So, who is pretending it never happened?
It's about what next? What should we do concerning RT in your opinion then? Because I haven't personally had any good ideas asides avoid overseas propaganda efforts in the future. But that's not an idea about RT, and it won't make RT go away.
So we can enact criminal and financial penalties on untrue articles, and stop redefining terms when what is untrue when it becomes inconvenient for us, especially businesses and politicians. And redirect institutions away from retribution to rehabilitation. If a behavior is repeated, by domestic or foreign entities, they don't get to operate here.
So, we have a first amendment, we actually cannot prohibit or penalize someone for distributing propaganda to our citizens, that law would be illegal to make. We can make them register as foreign agents, that's how the tenet media people got in trouble, that and being shady with where their money was coming from. We have no charges for propaganda distribution though, despite the very clear evidence of the behavior.
To your other question, like I said, I have no real good ideas on concrete steps we can take that might prove useful. Unless we want to repeal the first amendment or something, which I don't think is a good idea.
So your idea is rules for foreign entities, not our own?
Who will serve as a check for what's true and when terms are *redefined, if it's our darlings, whether media moguls or politicians, doing the redefining?
For the third time, I don't have any good ideas. I don't have a "my idea" and haven't presented one. That's why I asked for yours, since maybe you, as a human that is not me, thought of or read something that I haven't.
This sentence:
is something you concocted in your head somehow.
I just pointed out that your idea is illegal, that's all.
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.