what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Ellestar]

No one has said "it's just a 'fashion propaganda'". You are lying about that... you liar!

You dismissed my entire statement as a "fashion propaganda", so the "just" part is implied. Also, a cite quote was "fashion propaganda", so i didn't try to change your original words, or something like that.

In any case, the facts are that USA corporation is controlling a russian news media with a 28.5 million auidence.

And noone is banning it, like it happens in your pet "democratic" Ukraine

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/19/us-ukraine-crisis-television-idUSKBN0GJ1QM20140819

http://rt.com/news/261393-ukraine-bans-rt-journalist/

etc

[Aeson]

I made a joke about the nature of the websites you were bringing up. You're just too hyper-sensitive and lack the English comprehension and/or logic to understand what was said. Noting one aspect of something is not denying other aspects of it.

As for a serious analysis of your argument, you fail to understand what the internet is, what websites actually are, what is important when determining impact, how business operates, and what censorship is and what impact it can have on foreign owned entities.

Out of all those sites listed, 2 are slightly important. Nothing in the top 100 websites in Russia. The majority of them are about as important as Apolyton (not even in the top 1000 in Russia, several not even in the top 10000 Russian websites). I have websites with millions of readers ... doesn't make me an important news outlet. Without being able to read the content of those 2 more important websites I can't comment on their political (if any) bent or how it differs from before the buyout. Are they actual news sources, or are they just reprinting/plagiarizing news stories from other providers? Given the quality of the network in general, I'd guess the later.

But most importantly, they are websites. Anyone can get a RU domain (register or buy). It doesn't mean the content will be based on the person who is buying the domain or their nationality. In most cases, it will be people looking to profit off of Russian internet traffic, meaning they will pander to Russians. That's really the only reason for a foreigner to get a RU domain. Especially in the case of established sites that are bought for large amounts of money. Changing the tone of the content after purchasing such a site is financial suicide. You buy the site to monetize the traffic, the traffic has been built up by the content. So you don't **** with the content unless you have a really good idea of how the visitors can be better served. In which case it's still just pandering to the traffic. That the 2 sites that do get good traffic actually still get good traffic means that their Russians viewership think the content is worthwhile.

As for what state coercion (or not) is there, ownership doesn't mean squat. Business has to observe the regulations of the country they are doing business in. American businesses demonstrably do cow to censorship in some countries, so simply pointing out American ownership of a business doesn't mean it's not being censored. Even the mightiest corporations in the world like Apple and Google have to do it ... certainly some piddling network of sites with 29 million viewership would also have to.

[Dinner]

It is amazing someone can get to adulthood and not understand such simple things.

[Ellestar]

Speaking of Russian media, here is Russian news being offended at WWE for messing with the Russian flag.



Also this seems to be part of sports news.

Actually, it's an unlawful action in Russia

http://www.zakonrf.info/uk/329/

http://rfuk.ru/comment_329.html

Technically you can even go to jail if you do it in Russia. Though i guess just throwing it to a ground will incur the lowest possible punishment, if any.

[Ellestar]

I made a joke about the nature of the websites you were bringing up. You're just too hyper-sensitive and lack the English comprehension and/or logic to understand what was said.

Once again, the problem is that your media doesn't joke - after all, if you see an "argument" like that in a newspaper, it's a lie, not a joke.

So you picked the wrong thing to "joke" about. Your (westerner's) political image is created by your press, so even if you really joke about a political things involving Russia, it's impossible to tell if it's really a joke or you continue after your press.

Noting one aspect of something is not denying other aspects of it.

Again, i agree with it in principle. But specifically on forums it's a common fallacy used to rebuke someone's statement as a whole.

As for a serious analysis of your argument, you fail to understand what the internet is, what websites actually are, what is important when determining impact, how business operates, and what censorship is and what impact it can have on foreign owned entities.

Out of all those sites listed, 2 are slightly important. Nothing in the top 100 websites in Russia. The majority of them are about as important as Apolyton (not even in the top 1000 in Russia, several not even in the top 10000 Russian websites). I have websites with millions of readers ... doesn't make me an important news outlet. Without being able to read the content of those 2 more important websites I can't comment on their political (if any) bent or how it differs from before the buyout. Are they actual news sources, or are they just reprinting/plagiarizing news stories from other providers? Given the quality of the network in general, I'd guess the later.

Well, i think a most popular local Yekaterinburg site is important, even if it's not popular in Russia overall. Right now the most important internet site of a city is more important than a newspaper of that city.

As for what state coercion (or not) is there, ownership doesn't mean squat. Business has to observe the regulations of the country they are doing business in. American businesses demonstrably do cow to censorship in some countries, so simply pointing out American ownership of a business doesn't mean it's not being censored. Even the mightiest corporations in the world like Apple and Google have to do it ... certainly some piddling network of sites with 29 million viewership would also have to.

Even english wikipedia is censored.
Just look at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29 RT has been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy, by former Russian officials, and by news reporters, including former RT reporters. It has also been accused of spreading disinformation. The United Kingdom media regulator Ofcom has threatened RT with sanctions because of repeated violations of its rules on impartiality. The network states that it offers a Russian perspective on global events.

Does english wikipedia look like an impartial source of information to you when the only worldwide russian news agency is bashed like that on a very first page, in a short description of an agency? Face it, it's censored through and through.

So, while local russian press has to respect russian laws, even if it's owned by USA, it isn't a big deal compared to a problem that even supposedly freest of the free english media (wikipedia) can't stay unbiased.

[Aeson]

Wikipedia is user edited. Any censorship is done by members in the community. You could literally go edit that page right now, and if you were active enough for long enough, you would probably be able to get your own bias to stick there. (Though it's always a battle when dealing with controversial subjects.)

[Aeson]

Once again, the problem is that your media doesn't joke - after all, if you see an "argument" like that in a newspaper, it's a lie, not a joke.

So you picked the wrong thing to "joke" about. Your (westerner's) political image is created by your press, so even if you really joke about a political things involving Russia, it's impossible to tell if it's really a joke or you continue after your press.


Again, i agree with it in principle. But specifically on forums it's a common fallacy used to rebuke someone's statement as a whole.

There is no wrong thing to joke about. Making fun of your argument was warranted on a number of levels. Get the stick out of your butt and stop being so hyper-sensitive about your country. Then maybe you won't be promoting the stereotype of the Russian brainwashed by propaganda.

(I'd say the same for any "USA USA #1" who are incapable of being critical of the US.)

[Ellestar]

Wikipedia is user edited. Any censorship is done by members in the community. You could literally go edit that page right now, and if you were active enough for long enough, you would probably be able to get your own bias to stick there. (Though it's always a battle when dealing with controversial subjects.)

Yeah, exactly, and that self-censorship by western population is even bigger problem than a government censorship. Government censorship, as any other government issue, is bulky and inefficient. When population as a whole is so brainwashed by propaganda that it starts to self-censor things and be ok with obviously biased articles even in a free encyclopedia that strives to be unbiased, that's where a real problem starts. You're manipulated through your lives so well that you don't even notice the results of this manipulation, you think that everything is fine and you're truly free and democratic.

[Ellestar]

There is no wrong thing to joke about. Making fun of your argument was warranted on a number of levels. Get the stick out of your butt and stop being so hyper-sensitive about your country. Then maybe you won't be promoting the stereotype of the Russian brainwashed by propaganda.

(I'd say the same for any "USA USA #1" who are incapable of being critical of the US.)

Fine, fine, though i still don't think i had a way to notice that it actually was a joke.

[Aeson]

Yeah, exactly, and that self-censorship by western population is even bigger problem than a government censorship. Government censorship, as any other government issue, is bulky and inefficient. When population as a whole is so brainwashed by propaganda that it starts to self-censor things and be ok with obviously biased articles even in a free encyclopedia that strives to be unbiased, that's where a real problem starts. You're manipulated through your lives so well that you don't even notice the results of this manipulation, you think that everything is fine and you're truly free and democratic.

Given that I am critical of close to 100% of US internal politics and a majority of US foreign policy ... as well as critical of the way globalization has been treating poor people around the world ... and you're 100% in support of everything Russian and can be counted on to knee-jerk respond to any criticism of Russia ... it's pretty funny for you to be calling me manipulated.

[Aeson]

Fine, fine, though i still don't think i had a way to notice that it actually was a joke.

You really think "fashion propaganda" is serious?

[Bereta_Eder]

I've noticed differences among the 3 free international chanels we get here

TV5: lovely. full of in depth analysis with minimum bias, cool "intellectual" films, great documentaries etc great talks shows especially on weekends.

BBC: war, bombs, poverty, poor countries, more bombs, catastrophies, mayhem, killing, islamists

Deutsche Welle: boobs, design shows, news that try to be "correct" and not have "edges"

in short

Tv5: culture
BBC: war
DW: boobs

[Bereta_Eder]

So if you watch TV5, you think the world is full of cultured people and you drink your tea in your luxurious get away wooden cabin in the forest.
Relax and enjoy the humming birds, the world is a suave, interesting place

BBC: the world is ****ed up and you're lucky to be alive, forget about being payed and stop wanting anything. You are veeeery lucky to be alive and living where bombs don't fall

deutsche welle: the world has boobs and there's this perfect magical land called germany (that had a small mishap recently) but now it's heaven

[N35t0r]

boobs

[Bereta_Eder]

I try to find that TV presenter that DW has. I think she's from ireland though not germany.
She has the most perfect face and body one can witness.

But it's TV, so she can very well be just 1.60 and you wouldn't even give her a second look on the street