Most active commenters
  • (9)
  • foldr(7)
  • rayiner(7)
  • roenxi(7)
  • A4ET8a8uTh0_v2(6)
  • Braxton1980(5)
  • makeitdouble(5)
  • mulmen(4)
  • kristopolous(4)
  • keybored(4)

←back to thread

760 points coloneltcb | 173 comments | | HN request time: 2.762s | source | bottom
1. tzs ◴[] No.43799641[source]
> Before being named U.S. attorney, Martin appeared on Russia-backed media networks more than 150 times, The Washington Post reported last week. In one appearance on RT in 2022, he said there was no evidence of military buildup on Ukraine’s boarders only nine days before Russia invaded the country. He further criticized U.S. officials as warmongering and ignoring Russia security concerns.

This is getting ridiculous. Is there anyone associated with this administration who does not have a record of promoting Russia's positions?

replies(5): >>43799655 #>>43799885 #>>43800099 #>>43800704 #>>43801144 #
2. Fauntleroy ◴[] No.43799655[source]
[flagged]
replies(4): >>43799770 #>>43799787 #>>43799946 #>>43800595 #
3. walrus01 ◴[] No.43799770[source]
Well, considering they have a very high ranking guy in the Putin regime who considers that to be his full time job, google "Vladislav Surkov", they seem to be doing a fairly effective job of it so far.
replies(1): >>43799882 #
4. esseph ◴[] No.43799787[source]
They'd be the exact same.

It's like like Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics was a wish list.

5. hightrix ◴[] No.43799882{3}[source]
Russia has a pretty high ranking guy in the US Government as well, google Krasnov.
6. r053bud ◴[] No.43799885[source]
We voted for this! This is “democracy” at work
replies(10): >>43799926 #>>43800052 #>>43800056 #>>43800515 #>>43800646 #>>43801002 #>>43801436 #>>43801899 #>>43802403 #>>43802632 #
7. ty6853 ◴[] No.43799926[source]
I mean yes? Democracy is a pretty poor model for governance. IMO peak enlightenment happened circa the 17th or 18th century when classical liberalism decided government should be based on individual liberties and anything outside of that is decided democratically not because it is a good system but because votes are roughly a tally of who would win if we all pull knives on each other because we didn't like the vote.
replies(7): >>43800033 #>>43800563 #>>43800678 #>>43800803 #>>43801006 #>>43801356 #>>43802416 #
8. kylecazar ◴[] No.43799946[source]
If they were any good at it there would probably be less overt Russian sympathizing.
replies(1): >>43799983 #
9. yndoendo ◴[] No.43800052[source]
Democracy built lies, decide, and rejection of facts through propaganda.

Really need a viable means to fight it, say allowing an elected official's constitutes being able to sue them for no less than $10,000 for incidence of bearing false witness. Help erode the dark money networks.

Also having a 4th branch of Governments, the people with State and Federal binding resolution, would help. Only way to overrides those in power is to unionize the will.

replies(2): >>43800069 #>>43800372 #
10. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43800056[source]
Less than 30% of voter age Americans voted for this
replies(9): >>43800169 #>>43800250 #>>43800437 #>>43800509 #>>43800785 #>>43800793 #>>43800878 #>>43800929 #>>43801035 #
11. westmeal ◴[] No.43800069{3}[source]
The suing thing would be cool but the court system is slow by design. I can't see it working in practice however I'm also really fed up with the bullshit so i understand.
12. NelsonMinar ◴[] No.43800099[source]
Martin was also at the coup attempt on Jan 6 and on that day said "Like Mardi Gras in DC today: love, faith and joy. Ignore #FakeNews". https://archive.ph/jekzQ
replies(1): >>43800455 #
13. fnordpiglet ◴[] No.43800169{3}[source]
And a minority of those who did vote voted for this.
14. monkeyelite ◴[] No.43800250{3}[source]
What presidential elections are you comparing it to?
15. Ar-Curunir ◴[] No.43800372{3}[source]
Good luck relying on a court of law when the President suspends courts and arrests judges. The latter is happening right now.
16. rchaud ◴[] No.43800437{3}[source]
The majority that did vote, voted for this. The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries. Given the standards of media literacy and civics education, there's no evidence that a higher participation rate would have changed the outcome.
replies(13): >>43800449 #>>43800539 #>>43800545 #>>43800641 #>>43800701 #>>43800849 #>>43800913 #>>43801020 #>>43801047 #>>43801050 #>>43801122 #>>43801344 #>>43801390 #
17. pesus ◴[] No.43800449{4}[source]
Plurality, not majority. It may be pedantic but it's an important difference.
replies(1): >>43800527 #
18. NelsonMinar ◴[] No.43800483{3}[source]
RT is not legit. It is Russian propaganda. When those people participated they were collaborators.
replies(4): >>43800564 #>>43800566 #>>43801307 #>>43801584 #
19. makeitdouble ◴[] No.43800509{3}[source]
"American democracy"
20. rafram ◴[] No.43800527{5}[source]
I was going to say that it was a majority this time, but it seems like the results shifted as more votes were counted after election night, and he ended up with 49.8%. Still, unbelievably, pretty close to a majority.
21. akio ◴[] No.43800539{4}[source]
The majority did not vote for Trump, and I question how many of the minority that did vote for him voted for this, specifically. Almost certainly not all of them, given his approval rating is now well below his popular vote share.
22. Narkov ◴[] No.43800545{4}[source]
> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.

Australia has entered the chat.

replies(2): >>43800845 #>>43800854 #
23. makeitdouble ◴[] No.43800563{3}[source]
Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college.

The US system was never designed to be fair to individuals in the first place, pointing at it as a failure of democracy is IMHO pulling the actual issues under the rug.

replies(1): >>43800843 #
24. ◴[] No.43800564{4}[source]
25. toast0 ◴[] No.43800570{3}[source]
Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I think actual election fraud, big enough to steal an election, would be too big to miss.

Yes, it might only take a small number of votes in the right place, but either you somehow know the right place, or you have to move a lot of votes.

There's a reasonable discussion to be had along the lines of 'these guys seem to be doing everything they whine about', but could they get a big operation done without a) bragging openly about it, b) leaving a big trail, or c) having a falling out with a conspirator who then tells all.

Adding on, certainly gerrymandering and voter supression laws affect voting results, but I have trouble calling that stealing an election.

replies(1): >>43800894 #
26. jfengel ◴[] No.43800582{3}[source]
I know that Harris put up zero fight about it. I infer that she believed it to be legitimate.

That's not definitive, to be sure. But it's sufficient for me to believe that we did this to ourselves. Now all we can do is figure out how we're going to get through it.

replies(1): >>43800838 #
27. wongarsu ◴[] No.43800591{3}[source]
Trump did thank that "very popular guy. He was very effective. And he knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers, those vote counting computers, and we won Pennsylvania in a landslide." If Biden or Obama had said something like that the nation would be in uproar.

https://www.youtube.com/live/kdvpXxXVyok?si=XALuK7No9-PLQBAr...

replies(1): >>43801049 #
28. jfengel ◴[] No.43800595[source]
Except that's not coming from the top. Tens of millions of people wanted this.

Maybe this is indeed what Russia would do to us. But we're beating them to the punch by doing it to ourselves.

replies(2): >>43800963 #>>43800977 #
29. nntwozz ◴[] No.43800641{4}[source]
> The participation rate has always been low in rich western countries.

The general election in 2022 had 84,2% of eligible voters in Sweden.

replies(2): >>43800753 #>>43800775 #
30. usernomdeguerre ◴[] No.43800660{5}[source]
If NelsonMinar doesn't say it, I will.
31. sapphicsnail ◴[] No.43800678{3}[source]
How can someone talk about democracy peaking when the franchise was extended to a tiny minority of the population. You don't give a damn about individual liberties, you only care that the "right" people have liberty.
replies(1): >>43800695 #
32. ◴[] No.43800685{5}[source]
33. ncallaway ◴[] No.43800691{3}[source]
Ed Martin made 198 TV appearances on RT in 2023 and 2024.

How many RT TV hits did Larry King do? How recently did King appear on RT?

replies(2): >>43801066 #>>43801633 #
34. edgyquant ◴[] No.43800695{4}[source]
That poster is specifically arguing against democracy
replies(1): >>43800741 #
35. mulmen ◴[] No.43800701{4}[source]
There’s also no evidence that increased turnout would have had the same result.

What seems to be overlooked in these conversations is the skill with which American voters have been disenfranchised by partisan forces.

It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

replies(3): >>43800829 #>>43801013 #>>43802251 #
36. intermerda ◴[] No.43800713{3}[source]
> Not defending it, but just saying that being on RT doesn't necessarily imply anything.

I'm not sure who's claiming that here. The RT appearance in question is about him spreading disinformation and Russian propaganda on the eve of Ukraine invasion.

replies(1): >>43800781 #
37. sapphicsnail ◴[] No.43800741{5}[source]
Your right. I stand corrected. They don't give a damn about democracy or individual liberties.
replies(1): >>43802281 #
38. riffraff ◴[] No.43800753{5}[source]
Italy had 64% for the parliamentary elections in 2022, which is the lowest ever but it's pretty far from 30%.
replies(1): >>43800816 #
39. kristopolous ◴[] No.43800781{4}[source]
It's pretty constant on hn. People paint everything from country X, holistically, with some broad and blunt moral brush.

It reads like a cartoon. Everything from China is loaded with secret spyware snooping on you for countless unspecified evils - everything out of Russia by anyone is part of some secret global propaganda network.

I point it out as absurd and reductive whenever I see it and people dogpile on me like I desecrated a sacred cow.

The world is incredibly complex and a simple label doesn't cut it. Wernher von Braun was a Nazi but that doesn't mean his work on rocketry was fictional lies.

You need to assess things based on the merits of the thing, not on any narratives of attributive associations you're choosing to assign.

replies(5): >>43800904 #>>43800922 #>>43801251 #>>43801398 #>>43801459 #
40. thenberlin ◴[] No.43800789{5}[source]
Entirely uncritical state controlled or substantially aligned media masquerading as news is always bad and should be criticized. See also almost anyone called on in White House press briefings these days.

Plus, you are saying it like all propaganda is somehow the same. Rosie the Riveter != "Russia isn't going to do anything...well, it's America's fault...NATO something something...actually, Ukraine basically deserved it."

41. rayiner ◴[] No.43800793{3}[source]
David Schor’s analysis found that if everyone had voted, Trump would have won by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...
42. ◴[] No.43800803{3}[source]
43. pokot0 ◴[] No.43800816{6}[source]
just to note that if “30% voted for this” participation was roughly 60%
replies(1): >>43800873 #
44. rayiner ◴[] No.43800829{5}[source]
In fact there was an extensive analysis of the election by Democrat pollster David Shor, who found that 100% turnout would have resulted in an even larger Trump win, by 4.8 points: https://www.vox.com/politics/403364/tik-tok-young-voters-202...

This has been the pattern for awhile now. The pool of politically unengaged people are especially Trumpy compared to regular voters: https://abcnews.go.com/538/vote-back-trump/story?id=10909062...

replies(1): >>43801472 #
45. ◴[] No.43800838{4}[source]
46. rayiner ◴[] No.43800843{4}[source]
It’s basically impossible to engage in meaningful voter suppression in a country where election results can be cross-checked against high-quality polling.

“Gerrymandering” also has no effect on Presidential elections. And in 2024, Republicans won a larger share of the House popular vote than their share of House seats.

replies(1): >>43801029 #
47. extra88 ◴[] No.43800845{5}[source]
You can't bring them up without including that voting is compulsory there.
replies(1): >>43800861 #
48. bagels ◴[] No.43800849{4}[source]
Not majority, under 50%
49. crabmusket ◴[] No.43800854{5}[source]
For reference, informal votes were around 5% in our last federal election:

https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/website/HouseInformalByStat...

This article contains a fun breakdown of the types of informal votes including a category for "the usual anatomical drawings" (0.7% of informal votes):

https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/04/22/2025-federal-election-p...

50. consumer451 ◴[] No.43800857{5}[source]
Not who you are responding to, but given that as rational humans, we have the capacity to make non-binary comparisons, Kremlin propaganda is indeed far worse than most. I say this as a European who sees clear flaws in the US system, but that does not make the Russian system good, or even a little good. It is objectively horrible. The Russian people, for one, deserve far better.

It is important to point out that Russian propaganda is actually excellent propaganda. However, their message is the at the very bottom:

There is no truth, up is down, nothing matters, the invader is the victim, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_propaganda_in_the_Russia...

51. crabmusket ◴[] No.43800861{6}[source]
See my sibling comment. Getting your name checked off is compulsory but nothing stops you from handing in a blank ballot.
replies(2): >>43802297 #>>43802911 #
52. wahern ◴[] No.43800873{7}[source]
63.9% per https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers Which apparently was quite high. Only 3 presidential elections in the past 100 years exceeded 63%: 1960, 2020, and 2024.
53. jen729w ◴[] No.43800878{3}[source]
And those that stayed at home deserve what they got.
54. Braxton1980 ◴[] No.43800890{5}[source]
It is.

Stop trying to make everything equal.

55. tayo42 ◴[] No.43800894{4}[source]
Points B and C are believable. Constant headlines about screw ups like the signal chats and sloppy handling of data from doge
56. Braxton1980 ◴[] No.43800904{5}[source]
>everything out of Russia by anyone is part of some secret global propaganda network.

Who has claimed all Russians are part of a large propaganda network. This is about a government news network.

replies(2): >>43800945 #>>43800979 #
57. rayiner ◴[] No.43800913{4}[source]
Arguments based on voter participation overlook that voting is a statistical sample of the population. The people who don’t vote broadly break down roughly the same way as the people who do vote. And even to the extent they don’t, it’s risky to make assumptions about how they would have voted.

If you can generalize about non-voters, it’s that they’re broadly more anti-institution than voters—which is what causes them to put less stock in the institutional practice of voting. In the U.S. in the Trump era, that has meant that non-voters or infrequent voters support Trump somewhat more strongly than regular voters.

58. ◴[] No.43800918{3}[source]
59. SR2Z ◴[] No.43800922{5}[source]
Yes but in this case, the dude in question was uncritically parroting Russian propaganda - as do most people on RT, since that's its purpose.
60. Braxton1980 ◴[] No.43800929{3}[source]
100% of voter age Americans made a decision. That includes not registering to vote or not voting.

Pretend I want a snack, I can choose between a cookie and an apple. If I dislike both then I also have the option to not get a snack. Neither is selected.

This is different from not voting because a candidate still wins.

replies(2): >>43800965 #>>43801093 #
61. ◴[] No.43800945{6}[source]
62. dd36 ◴[] No.43800963{3}[source]
Or they’re aiding it.
63. Supermancho ◴[] No.43800965{4}[source]
If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it. There is no incentive when there are known costs...at least since the wild inflation of the 80s when it got prohibitive to lose a shift and the slow dissolution of union jobs. This is the result of the tyranny of indifference. Those that benefit continue to promote and benefit, those that do not, are disenfranchised. It's a common theme in history.
replies(2): >>43801087 #>>43803502 #
64. foogazi ◴[] No.43800966{3}[source]
One time sure, 150+ on the Russia propaganda network ? I’m drawing my own adult conclusions about it: “The friend of my enemy is my enemy”
replies(2): >>43801091 #>>43801224 #
65. _aavaa_ ◴[] No.43800977{3}[source]
Why do you assume it has to come from just the top?

The Internet Research Agency explicitly focused on the masses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency

66. fguerraz ◴[] No.43801002[source]
There is no democracy without a free press, or else no one can make an informed decision. I doubt that the press can be called free when it’s owned by oligarchs.
67. tsimionescu ◴[] No.43801006{3}[source]
Ah yes, the wonderful time of enlightenment when all straight white Christian land-owning men's rights became recognized, not just the nobility's. Just a few short centuries from there, the rights of poorer white men, children, women, people of any other skin color, non-Christian, and LGBT people would be recognized too.
replies(1): >>43802292 #
68. sgc ◴[] No.43801013{5}[source]
That an enormous sample size. Statistically a complete participation should be very close, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim it would be different. Regardless of whether Trump would have won or not, that is a clear indication of evenly split public sentiment. So we still get to justly reap the fruits of our collective choices. There is no exoneration by whimsically dreaming of improbable alternatives.

I don't think it is was that hard to vote. That is a straw man to avoid facing the hard truth of American apathy. Now next election, perhaps we can have a conversation on that point. Things a trending rather poorly right now.

replies(2): >>43801434 #>>43803788 #
69. mpesce ◴[] No.43801020{4}[source]
We regularly have 92% - 93% participation in federal elections here in Australia. Having one next weekend, and already record numbers of pre-poll votes.
replies(3): >>43801054 #>>43801124 #>>43801146 #
70. makeitdouble ◴[] No.43801029{5}[source]
Voter suppression is the act of limiting the pool of voters. That includes putting large swaths of the population behind bars or flagged as non eligible to voting, putting barriers to voter registration etc.

It can never be 0 and every country will have a minimum requirement, but the degree to which it is done in the US is far ahead of most western country.

Gerrymandering has an effect on the criteria for voter eligibility, the voting rules in the state etc. It's not direct but who's in power has a sizeable effect on who will have an easier time voting.

replies(1): >>43801070 #
71. KingOfCoders ◴[] No.43801035{3}[source]
Voters who do not vote say "I'm fine with all winners", like "What pizza do you want?" - "I'm fine with every pizza".
72. ◴[] No.43801047{4}[source]
73. Terr_ ◴[] No.43801049{4}[source]
Also consider the circumstantial evidence of Musk illegally promising to pay people (via lottery) to vote, and then using the defense that the lottery was actually rigged.

If nothing else, that establishes a willingness to tamper with elections.

74. Perenti ◴[] No.43801050{4}[source]
Everybody votes in Australia (not sure how rich, but in top 20 for sure). If you don't you have to show cause or pay a AUD$50 fine. I know some think this is anti-freedom, but it does prevent farces like the current USA. Historically there have been problems in the past (30 years ago) but these days the Australian Electoral Commission (Independent from government) revise electoral boundaries to ensure no more gerrymanders.
replies(1): >>43801969 #
75. Perenti ◴[] No.43801054{5}[source]
And those that don't vote have to show a very good reason, or pay a fine, or face gaol.
replies(1): >>43801397 #
76. jjtheblunt ◴[] No.43801066{4}[source]
( Larry King died in Jan 2021.)
77. rayiner ◴[] No.43801070{6}[source]
No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting. Society determining that categories of people shouldn’t vote (children, felons, non-citizens, etc.) isn’t voter suppression, it’s simply establishing qualifications for voting. The goal isn’t to get to 0 or try to get as close to 0 as possible. People who should vote should be able to vote, while people who shouldn’t vote shouldn’t be able to vote.

In the modern era, we should probably narrow the franchise, instituting civics tests and restricting voting to natural born citizens. Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.

replies(2): >>43802948 #>>43804142 #
78. Braxton1980 ◴[] No.43801087{5}[source]
>If the US wanted voting to be more popular, there would be a Federal Holiday to promote it.

I agree but it doesn't actually matter. 97% can vote by mail, early, or another method besides election day according to this article https://www.cbsnews.com/news/map-early-voting-mail-ballot-st...

>There is no incentive when there are known costs... is the result of the tyranny of indifference.

What is the cause of the Indifference in your opinion ?

replies(1): >>43804935 #
79. alephnan ◴[] No.43801091{4}[source]
That’s not how foreign policy and international politics work. Every country would be enemies with every other country in that case.

All the pro-Palestinian anti-Israel country would be enemies of the US then, including Japan. You’d be supporting Trump’s tariffs and anti-China us or them stance then towards every country that has friendly business relations with China, which is everybody at this point. Heck, even Taiwan and China are friends more than Westerners would like to think. Meanwhile, America is friends with countries like Saudi Arabia and countries that keeps a blind eye to the funding of terrorism in America

There’s a reason the famous saying is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” rather than “the friend of my enemy is my enemy”

replies(2): >>43801180 #>>43801372 #
80. habinero ◴[] No.43801111{7}[source]
Russia interfered with our elections and is actively hostile to us. It's not a meme, it's real.
81. CalRobert ◴[] No.43801122{4}[source]
Under fifty percent for what it’s worth. And there was a lot of disenfranchisement
82. CalRobert ◴[] No.43801124{5}[source]
Must be the sausages
83. Braxton1980 ◴[] No.43801138{7}[source]
The US government is also framed the same way on HN, though I don't like this metrics gathering method.

Most discussions are of the war in Ukraine which also connects to US politics. It's going to be negative and treated extremely suspect because Putin is ex KGB, lied that he wouldn't invade, the war itself, and their influence in US elections.

This is about the Russian government though. If your argument is that it's wrong in these constraints then I disagree but your generalization is valid. My original comment was about Russia as a whole but I think I wrong to try to shift to that as it doesn't come up

84. hjgjhyuhy ◴[] No.43801144[source]
Yeah, everything about this administration makes perfect sense if we assume that Trump is a Russian asset. Of course billionaires like Thiel and Musk have their say as well.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see America sell weapons to Russia, and provide them military support in the future when they launch their next invasion.

85. chaboud ◴[] No.43801146{5}[source]
It’s almost like elections are held on Saturdays and participation is compulsory.

Almost…

86. eVeechu7 ◴[] No.43801180{5}[source]
Comparing the choices of individuals with foreign diplomacy is specious. It is much harder for countries to have principles than individuals.
replies(1): >>43801187 #
87. alephnan ◴[] No.43801187{6}[source]
The same can be said of boardroom politics and board of directors. Or investment circles such as tech venture capital
replies(1): >>43801312 #
88. asveikau ◴[] No.43801216{3}[source]
> Amy Goodman

Source for that? My impression is that Democracy Now!, while it has a clear perspective and set of biases, has been fairly independent. I don't think Goodman herself would be involved with them, but I think some of her sometimes guests have been.

In general I agree with folks replying to you that RT is not trustworthy and someone being involved with it is a red flag.

replies(1): >>43801605 #
89. ncr100 ◴[] No.43801224{4}[source]
Yes. 150+ times is akin to Funding an individual, rather than seeking to add a unique perspective.
replies(1): >>43803447 #
90. j4coh ◴[] No.43801251{5}[source]
Why use a non-example to mention it though?
91. roenxi ◴[] No.43801307{4}[source]
Ex-CIA head Brennan famously remarked in an MSNBC interview [0] that when he says something is a Russian information operation that includes dumping accurate information.

So really it isn't enough to identify something as Russian propaganda - it is necessary to analyse whether it is propaganda of the accurate and informative variety, or the inaccurate variety.

Propaganda really just means someone is arguing a viewpoint. The BBC is classic propaganda, but nonetheless a pretty reliable source of information and a lot of the views are very agreeable.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8Shx2AR_E4

replies(2): >>43801429 #>>43802236 #
92. watwut ◴[] No.43801312{7}[source]
They don't have principles.
replies(1): >>43801431 #
93. ◴[] No.43801344{4}[source]
94. watwut ◴[] No.43801356{3}[source]
Whatbexactly are values you consider enlightened and did you ever bother to read history, specifically the parts about how society functions not just where armies went?

I assure you French prior, dueing and after French revolution was not pinacle of great governance. More like, the low.

95. psychoslave ◴[] No.43801372{5}[source]
"les états n'ont pas d'amis, que des intérêts."

States are very different beasts, unlike human individual which have clear skin borderies as a given, they are able to take parts of each other and assimilate them. Even when they are not in official direct opposition, rampant dirty plots are always going on in the parallel background of any the official sympathy to everyone, be it because even within a state there is a broad variation of contenders.

96. Someone ◴[] No.43801390{4}[source]
> The majority that did vote, voted for this

Nitpick: Trump got less than 50% of the votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...)

More importantly, I think quite a few who voted for Trump didn’t vote for this extreme version of Trump.

97. grues-dinner ◴[] No.43801397{6}[source]
Correction: those that don't enter a polling station. What you do in there is up to you. You can cast a vote, spoil the ballot, cast a "donkey vote" (numbering the options in the order printed), leave the ballot empty, as long as it goes in the box.
98. shermantanktop ◴[] No.43801398{5}[source]
Sometimes focusing on each of the individual puppets distracts you from who is pulling the strings.
99. otherme123 ◴[] No.43801426{3}[source]
It's not too difficult to draw connections between Wikileaks, Assange, RT and Russian government. It's known that the GRU funneled info to Wikileaks many times, and at the same time they never published anything that could seriously affect Putin. Examples: the Dirt on opponents were published by UK newspapers. The Fancy Bear papers were published by hacker groups and online news. Pandora Papers by the ICIJ.

The only leak than contains something barely close to Putin and was published on Wikileaks were the Panama Papers, that names three friends of him, not in the government. The lack of any russian officials in those papers speaks volumes.

Best case scenario, they are tools. Worse case, they are assets.

100. chii ◴[] No.43801429{5}[source]
> a lot of the views are very agreeable

That's why you don't "ignore" propaganda, but consume all, from all sides. Just consuming agreeable propaganda simply means it is working.

replies(1): >>43802501 #
101. psychoslave ◴[] No.43801431{8}[source]
Even "maximize the hegemonic monopolistic power of my claws" can be taken as mindset principles.

Having principles is orthogonal to striving adoption of ethical fair well being for everyone.

replies(2): >>43802476 #>>43803173 #
102. ellen364 ◴[] No.43801434{6}[source]
The electorate self-selected into voters and non-voters, it wasn't a random sample. Some chose to go to the polls and some chose to stay at home. Voter preferences don't say a lot about the preferences of non-voters, who've already shown they choose differently.
replies(2): >>43801467 #>>43804501 #
103. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.43801436[source]
Sure, but you also voted for a system of checks & balances, laws, and separation of powers - whatever happened to all these laws and stuff from the Cold War where even a hint that you may have ties to Russia would get you a Visit?
104. gitremote ◴[] No.43801459{5}[source]
State media in fascist dictatorships don't reflect the diversity of their people. It is untrue that humans of any nationality have free speech and a free press as a check against their government's actions. It is untrue that any country's government is legally obligated to transparency that is required in a democracy.

When people say that Russian and Chinese state media are propaganda, it is not always because they are racists. Many people say this because they make a distinction between a government and the people, and understand the difference democracy makes.

It's great that you're trying to emphasize with people in other countries. Empathize deeper and think through how it must be like to live in such a political environment to their full conclusions.

replies(1): >>43802627 #
105. mulmen ◴[] No.43801467{7}[source]
There’s also one party that disproportionately targets specific voter demographics for suppression.
106. mulmen ◴[] No.43801472{6}[source]
This is very interesting but how would turnout and choice change if historically disenfranchised and suppressed communities had equal access to the polls?
replies(1): >>43802427 #
107. rolandog ◴[] No.43801576{3}[source]
> That's more relevant. RT has had some fairly legitimate people on it such as Larry King, Julian Assange, John Pilger, Amy Goodman... Many Pulitzer prize and Peabody winners ... It's a mixed bag, people can't be so reductive about it.

Can you back up your accusations with facts? I can state that I have not seen any reprehensible reporting from Amy Goodman; but rather the opposite, backed up by facts (e.g. about mass graves on Russian-occupied areas [0]).

[0]: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/9/29/ukraine_russia_mass_g...

replies(1): >>43801640 #
108. SanjayMehta ◴[] No.43801584{4}[source]
This applies to all state owned media. The US is unique that even privately held corporations push propaganda.

The most gratuitous example is NYT, as documented by Ashley Rindsberg in his book “The Gray Lady Winked.”

replies(1): >>43801901 #
109. kristopolous ◴[] No.43801605{4}[source]
Here's two: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x61wly8 or https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvxx8j

Chris Hedges had a show as well.

replies(1): >>43801686 #
110. kristopolous ◴[] No.43801633{4}[source]
approximately 1,000 over 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_King_Now
111. kristopolous ◴[] No.43801640{4}[source]
Yeah, like 10 seconds of google search. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x61wly8 and https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xvxx8j
112. asveikau ◴[] No.43801686{5}[source]
Thanks for the first two. So she was a guest on panelist/talking head shows about her antiwar positions.

I know about Chris Hedges. I wasn't asking about him.

113. kzrdude ◴[] No.43801899[source]
Do you think it's legitimate when the administration transgresses constitutional limits? With legal eyes nobody voted for that, you can't vote inside the system to break the system, office holders are expected to follow the law once elected.
114. spacechild1 ◴[] No.43801901{5}[source]
> The US is unique that even privately held corporations push propaganda.

How is that unique to the US?

115. tmtvl ◴[] No.43801969{5}[source]
In Belgium attendance is mandatory as well. I think it's a positive as it means complacency ("my side has already won, no reason to go out and vote") is never a factor in the outcome.
replies(1): >>43805977 #
116. foldr ◴[] No.43802236{5}[source]
The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint. It’s good to be aware of media bias, but it’s reductive and cynical to view all media as propaganda.
replies(2): >>43802354 #>>43802559 #
117. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.43802251{5}[source]
<< It’s easy to blame people for not voting if you ignore the real difficulties in actually casting a vote for many Americans.

I hesitated while reading this part, because I wholly agreed with the first 2 sentences. Do you mean physically difficult in terms of barriers to voting or making a less direct comment about the usefulness of that vote? If the former, I think I disagree compared to other countries ( and the levels of paperwork needed ). If the latter, I would be interested to hear some specifics.

replies(1): >>43804125 #
118. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.43802281{6}[source]
Hmm. What if I told you that the parent was clearly in favor of the republic? Would that change your disposition? If not, why not.
119. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.43802292{4}[source]
You jest, but skin in the game is argument is not irrelevant. It is called a franchise for a reason after all. You want a slice of the pie, you should be able to prove that you know what you are doing. Owning land was a good enough proxy then. We can argue what would be a good proxy now.
replies(2): >>43802644 #>>43803655 #
120. swat535 ◴[] No.43802297{7}[source]
Why would you hand blank ballot at. That point? You might as well vote.
replies(1): >>43802529 #
121. paganel ◴[] No.43802354{6}[source]
> but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.

Id does exactly that, as does all State-supported media (such as RFI in France or Deutsche Welle in Germany).

replies(1): >>43802444 #
122. timeon ◴[] No.43802403[source]
> We voted

Depends if your “democracy” have one person = one vote. Or if the land is included somewhere in the vote.

123. timeon ◴[] No.43802416{3}[source]
Seems like US-centric view. Many countries had several iterations since then.
124. rayiner ◴[] No.43802427{7}[source]
Such as?
125. foldr ◴[] No.43802444{7}[source]
The BBC’s editorial line isn’t determined by the government of the day. I’m not familiar with the output of examples you mention, but there’s no comparison with RT, which is simply a propaganda arm of the Russian state.
replies(1): >>43803834 #
126. exceptione ◴[] No.43802501{6}[source]
Nope, you shouldn't. Because propaganda is effective.

Humans are by default not influenced by logic, but rather respond on beliefs and emotions. This is one of the hardest thing to swallow for us people, we do see ourself as independent rational thinkers. We are sometimes able to, with effort.

To understand it better, you should know that Russian propaganda is not designed to instill a certain belief, but rather to make you not belief the truth. The Kremlin is happy to push different, conflicting stories. You end up with a society of nihilists.

replies(1): >>43802751 #
127. aloha2436 ◴[] No.43802529{8}[source]
"I don't like any of the rat-bastards." "I don't care." "I think it's funnier to draw a dick. (And I don't care.)" "I trust other people to make the right choice." "I refuse to participate in this bourgeois sham election." ...are all reasons I've heard, even if I don't actually understand any of them.
128. roenxi ◴[] No.43802559{6}[source]
> The BBC isn’t propaganda. It has its biases for sure, but it doesn’t exist for the purpose of spreading a particular viewpoint.

If it isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down? Why would they be funding something that was pushing viewpoints that undermined Britain? This is simple incentive analysis stuff, this organisation isn't being funded for billions of dollars because the Brits happen to just be uniquely dedicated to the cause of the truth even if it hurts their interests. They're British! They're one step removed from the people who invented espionage, there is a long history of information warfare here.

RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda. The US has been running this experiment for centuries now, it has been well established that the government-sponsored perspective isn't any more legitimate than anyone else's.

replies(3): >>43802625 #>>43802825 #>>43803698 #
129. foldr ◴[] No.43802625{7}[source]
Every news organisation reports its own point of view and could potentially be shut down by whoever controls the purse strings. Your logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda. That might be technically true in some very broad sense, but it tends to lead to absurd comparisons like your comparison between the BBC and RT.

Incidentally, various British governments have tried quite hard to shut down (or at least neuter) the BBC and failed. You're failing to take into account the fact that the BBC is a popular institution and that there would be domestic political consequences for a government that attacked it too strongly. If you think that your average British government minister goes around thinking "thank goodness for the BBC's news coverage!" then you may be a little out of touch with British politics.

replies(1): >>43802785 #
130. keybored ◴[] No.43802627{6}[source]
The media in liberal democracies don’t reflect the diversity of their people.
replies(1): >>43803814 #
131. keybored ◴[] No.43802632[source]
It’s interesting that people who claim Americans live in a democracy will slam-dunk any topic based on a completely binary decision made every four years.

No discussion beyond that point is needed.

132. keybored ◴[] No.43802644{5}[source]
You’re saying that people who owned land (and humans) as property had skin in the game while everyone else did not. Just stop.
replies(1): >>43803073 #
133. chii ◴[] No.43802751{7}[source]
> We are sometimes able to, with effort.

and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort, because otherwise, people and democracy gets taken over. It's one's civic duty to ensure that you are not making choices based on lies or manipulations.

replies(1): >>43803666 #
134. roenxi ◴[] No.43802785{8}[source]
> This logic will lead you to the conclusion that all news is propaganda.

A lot of media groups are pretty transparently in existence for propaganda purposes, but the logic doesn't imply that. It could be a media organisation exists to make their owners money while meeting an under-served need in the community. That is why most businesses exist. It obviously isn't why the BBC exists because there are a whole bunch of laws and public funding propping it up and it isn't independently profitable.

> ...absurd comparisons like your comparison between the BBC and RT.

The BBC had a policy for 60 years [0] of vetting applicants through MI5 based on their politics. And realistically it took 60 years to find that out we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s. Any media organisation with that sort of historic tie to intelligence can be safely compared to RT.

> Incidentally, various British governments have tried quite hard to shut down (or at least neuter) the BBC and failed. You're failing to take into account the fact that the BBC is a popular institution and that there would be domestic political consequences for a government that attacked it too strongly.

That seems to be largely irrelevant. I'm sure there are factions in the Russian government that see RT as a waste of money on any given day and I'm happy to accept that British propaganda is popular in Britain.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#MI5_vetting_policy

replies(1): >>43802909 #
135. shakna ◴[] No.43802825{7}[source]
The British government has repeatedly tried and failed to shutdown the BBC. They have repeatedly withdrawn funding. MI5 have had agents deployed inside the BBC to try and subvert it.

As of 2017, it runs by royal assent, and there is just about bukpus that the Parliament can do about it. Because at the same time, funding was moved to a trust, to prevent political interference - a trust that both main parties attempted to shutdown, and control, at different times, but were told that they could only operate within the rights granted by the royal charter.

> The BBC shall be independent in all matters concerning the content of its output, the times and manner in which this is supplied, and in the management of its affairs.

Its not a perfect system. But it is very far removed from the daily pressures of propaganda and an angry government. The BBC is not really "state backed". They are independent.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_independence

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Board

replies(1): >>43803341 #
136. foldr ◴[] No.43802909{9}[source]
It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.

>we'll probably find out what the current vetting arrangements are in the 2040s

We'll find out because the BBC is subject to public scrutiny. Good luck finding out about the historical vetting arrangements of CNN or Fox news! Or indeed, those of Russia Today.

You only have to look at actual examples of BBC news coverage from the period you mention to see that it wasn't government propaganda with the goal of making the British government look good or expressing some nebulous "British point of view":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gbms5

Margret Thatcher, the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century, hated the BBC. She had 11 years to get rid of it. She couldn't because it's an independent institution and the UK has (imperfectly) a system of democratic norms. Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.

replies(1): >>43803205 #
137. extra88 ◴[] No.43802911{7}[source]
For the purposes of this comparison, those "informal" votes still count in the typically used participation statistics. Voters intentionally case "wasted" ballots in other countries too.
138. makeitdouble ◴[] No.43802948{7}[source]
Voter suppression is suppressing voters one way or the other. Your idea of restricting by birth rights is of course another form of it.

It's fascinating to look at that proposition for a country that mostly got rid of its indigenous population.

replies(1): >>43803992 #
139. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.43803073{6}[source]
There is no reason to conflate the two. To be frank, I explicitly stated land ( and not property as a more generic term ), which makes me question how much of a good faith of a conversation this is. My point stands on its own merits, but you seem to want to rely on cheap rhetorical theatrics a good chunk of the audience here can see through.
replies(1): >>43803536 #
140. watwut ◴[] No.43803173{9}[source]
Yeah, but they don't really seem to have that either.
141. roenxi ◴[] No.43803205{10}[source]
> It's mere cynicism to argue that the BBC must exist for propaganda purposes simply because the British government (very indirectly) pays for it.

So what's your complaint about RT? Because I'm seeing arguments here that suggest if it were subject to public scrutiny it isn't propaganda, if factions of the Russian government want to shut it down it isn't propaganda, if it says something critical of the Russian government it isn't propaganda. If it is funded by the Russians it isn't necessarily propaganda.

None of those arguments in defence of the BBC really get to the root of the issues, RT could sit on any pole of all those observations and it'd still be Russian propaganda. We don't need any of those details on how the sausage is being made. The issue is that the reason it exists is to push the Overton window in directions that are favourable to the state known as Russia - and the BBC serves the same purpose for Britain and hits the same triggers as RT for identifying propaganda.

> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them.

I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.

replies(1): >>43803352 #
142. roenxi ◴[] No.43803341{8}[source]
My eye is drawn to the section:

> The various foreign services of the BBC have always been tied, in some manner, to the national interest. In the 2017 Agreement, that means the Foreign Secretary. Article 33.6 (right) is subject to the Mission and the Public Purposes of the BBC as defined in the Charter, but it supersedes Article 3 (independence).

> Taking account of the strategy and the budget it has set, the BBC will agree with the Foreign Secretary-

> (a) objectives, priorities and targets for the World Service;

> (b) the languages in which the World Service is to be provided

replies(1): >>43803647 #
143. foldr ◴[] No.43803352{11}[source]
Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years. Do you really think RT would still be here if Putin had wanted it gone for the past 11 years? People and institutions that Putin wants rid of don’t tend to hang around quite that long. And what sort of effective public scrutiny can you possibly think that RT’s journalism is subject to?

But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference. Perhaps your theory of the world tells you that the BBC must be British propaganda because it depends to some extent on the British government for its existence. Ok then — so much the worse for your theory of the world. Believe it or not, there is actually such a thing as public service broadcasting as distinct from state propaganda. The BBC is really the obvious counterexample to any claim to the contrary.

> Contrary to what you suggest, the government of the day cannot simply direct the BBC's editorial output or defund the BBC if it displeases them. >> I never put either of those things. They are both obviously untrue.

You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.

Thatcher certainly wanted to put the BBC in its place after the clip I linked above. Her husband memorably complained that she’d been “stitched up by bloody BBC poofs and Trots [Trotsykists]”.

replies(1): >>43803529 #
144. Agraillo ◴[] No.43803447{5}[source]
I'd argue that there's another perspective, more complimentary to US politics. There's obviously a list of "experts" aligned with RT narrative which they use depending on the topic. No media like RT wants someone from this list to be too visible and appear too often, whether they are pay-rolled shadowy or not. So it looks like not so many "experts" are eager to be on alert on this list.
replies(1): >>43805710 #
145. HDThoreaun ◴[] No.43803502{5}[source]
stop. Voting is incredibly easy. Voting by mail is incredibly easy. Theres no reason you cant vote by mail. The reason people arent voting is because they dont want to/cant be assed
replies(1): >>43805443 #
146. roenxi ◴[] No.43803529{12}[source]
> Margret Thatcher wasn’t a “faction of the British Government”. She was Prime Minister for 11 years.

Fair enough, faction of British politics. She didn't have the power to shut down the BBC, so she obviously didn't represent the consensus position. Again, the argument seems like it would be that the BBC isn't propaganda because the British PM is relatively weak. That doesn't hold together. Besides, Putin isn't the PM of Russia, Wikipedia tells me that is Mikhail Mishustin.

> But more broadly, you’re arguing at a level of abstraction that rises above actually looking at the content produced by the BBC in comparison to the content produced by RT. You only have to watch each for 15 minutes to see the very clear difference.

So if RT was better written then it wouldn't be propaganda? Because the fact that the BBC has better journalists and targets the middle and upper class in style doesn't particularly mean much except they're better at their jobs than the RT people. You're mistaking propaganda for low quality writing with that one. Good propaganda relies on truth and being mostly credible (see also - the model pioneered by the BBC with enormous success).

> You asked “If [the BBC] isn't pushing a British viewpoint, wouldn't it be incumbent on the British government to shut it down?” That clearly suggests that the government of the day could defund the BBC if it displeased them.

"displeased" is a bit vague but yes if there was a consensus in the Houses of Lords and Commons that the BBC wasn't advancing the interests of Britain I imagine it'd not last long. The parliament is quite powerful when it unites on a question of policy. That doesn't mean a PM can just snap their fingers and the BBC disappears, it'd be a long process.

replies(1): >>43803759 #
147. keybored ◴[] No.43803536{7}[source]
Okay, owning land then. My bad. All humans existing in the nation have skin in the game by the fact that they exist there. How do landowners have more of a stake?
replies(1): >>43804055 #
148. shakna ◴[] No.43803647{9}[source]
> (9) In addition to the specific provisions of paragraphs (4) to (8), the relationship between the Foreign Secretary and the BBC for the provision of the World Service is based on the following principles-

> (a) the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence and integrity in the provision of the World Service, within the structure of the Charter and this Framework Agreement;

> (b) in particular, the BBC will decide the most effective and efficient way of delivering the World Service; and

> (c) subject to compliance with the Charter and this Framework Agreement the BBC may generate other sources of income for the World Service.

149. tsimionescu ◴[] No.43803655{5}[source]
Having the laws of the nation apply to you means you have skin in the game when it comes to deciding what those laws are. Owning something, land or whatever else, doesn't give you even one iota more "skin the game" than those that don't.
replies(1): >>43804848 #
150. exceptione ◴[] No.43803666{8}[source]
> and i'm saying everyone should expend this effort,

Agreed. But I would add that one shouldn't stick their head into stuff that is deliberately trying to steer you away from the truth and seeks to undermine your moral compass.

I think it would help people immensely if they first could filter their sources on intent and principles. The Guardian is a better source than the newspapers from North Korea.

151. ripe ◴[] No.43803698{7}[source]
> RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda.

False equivalence.

By your logic, any government support automatically makes an outlet propaganda. So, NPR and PBS would also be propaganda, since they get a small grant.

RT and other Russian-sponsored outlets, in case you didn't know, try to both push the state narrative, and push conflicting conspiracy theories in different markets to convince people that there is no objective truth.

Like, for example, claiming that reliable Western news sources are government propaganda...

152. foldr ◴[] No.43803759{13}[source]
The BBC certainly serves the interests of Britain, but it does so precisely because it is not merely a state propaganda service. You mention the limits on the PM's power. More generally, there are reasonably effective democratic norms and institutions that prevent the BBC's independence from being subverted by the government. Independent journalism isn't unbiased or uncolored by its political environment, but it's distinct from propaganda.

If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point. By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda.

Some of your other points here are transparently not serious, such as the suggestion that I can't compare the British PM to the Russian President because the latter has a different title.

replies(1): >>43804161 #
153. jzb ◴[] No.43803788{6}[source]
"I don't think it is that hard to vote"

Says a person commenting on HN that almost certainly isn't in a demographic that it has been made intentionally difficult to register, stay registered, and get time off an hourly job to stand in line for hours to vote.

replies(1): >>43804549 #
154. gitremote ◴[] No.43803814{7}[source]
The media in liberal democracies reflect the diversity of their people more than state media in a fascist dictatorship that jails dissenters, critics, and oppresses ethnic and/or gender and sexual minorities. Human rights, free speech, and a free press are the bare minimum before you tackle other problems like affinity bias in hiring.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy and propaganda tactic called whataboutism.* If people genuinely care about diversity and challenging bias, they wouldn't uncritically view an unelected president (or an elected president chosen in a country without free elections) as the spokesperson for their ethnic group.

* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

155. paganel ◴[] No.43803834{8}[source]
Then how come it lines up pretty closely with the British government’s views? See Covid, Ukraine and especially the genocide in Gaza.
replies(1): >>43804272 #
156. rayiner ◴[] No.43803992{8}[source]
Words have meaning. Setting qualifications is different than “suppression.” The former determines who are legitimate voters. The latter is an effort to keep legitimate voters from voting. Conflating legitimate qualification rules with “suppression” is fuzzy thinking in service of propaganda.

Restricting by birth right is simply an extension of the universal practice of restricting voting by citizenship. Every democracy decides who has sufficient stake in and familiarity with the society to be able to vote.

replies(1): >>43804300 #
157. ty6853 ◴[] No.43804055{8}[source]
They have land that can be taken or voted away. I don't think only land owners should be able to vote, but it's worth noting worldwide having significant property is one of the most common ways for immigrants to qualify for a resident visa (other two common ways is job or business investment). Right or not it signifies enough skin in the game to many if not most societies to reflect reciprocated integration the community.

Remember in the early days there was almost no immigration control as well, so finding proxies for skin in the game might have been more challenging than today, when emigrating is almost impossible for the poor so they are stuck with their skin in America whether they like it or not.

158. mulmen ◴[] No.43804125{6}[source]
Physically more difficult. Purging voter rolls. Moving polling locations. Voter ID requirements. Restrictions on mail in ballots. Etc.
replies(1): >>43804910 #
159. myvoiceismypass ◴[] No.43804142{7}[source]
> No, “voter suppression” is the act of preventing legitimate voters from voting.

Next you will tell us all how easy it is for all Americans to get drivers ids / similar licensing right?

> Statistically, both of these would have hurt my party in 2024, so this isn’t self-interest speaking.

Ah. There it is.

replies(1): >>43805089 #
160. roenxi ◴[] No.43804161{14}[source]
> If you want to say that the BBC is British propaganda just because the journalists are British and present a British point of view (rather than, say, a Surinamese point of view), then ok, but I don't think that's a very interesting point.

So if you were to focus in on RT, are you of the opinion that it isn't Russians pushing mainstream Russian viewpoints? That is the major complaint most people have - it is representing an unabashed Russian perspective and choosing issues that powerful Russians think are important.

The issue with the BBC is it is government funding, with historic links to British intelligence vetting to make sure that the journalists had appropriate views and a long history of running British propaganda globally with no obvious reason as to why they'd stop. The UK is supporting a particular bias and pushing it out for global broadcasting - that is the essence of propaganda. Plus as a comment pointed out further upthread, according to Wikipedia their Charter links them to objectives set out by the Foreign Secretary. This is more or less where RT will be sitting - there isn't much else they can do.

If I were to somehow end up running RT as their head of propaganda, I'd do two things: first, learn to speak Russian. Second, sit all the managers down and use my new language skills to call them idiots and tell them that standards were going up and they need to do things more like the BBC. No compromising factual accuracy and there's going to be high quality articles out on every topic from a staunchly Russian perspective. That's how competent people run their propaganda missions. The real mistake RT has been making for years (hilariously on stereotype for the Russians) is it is far too direct and straightforward about executing its mission. It'd be more effective if they were a few notches more subtle - the BBC sits at a much neater optimum.

> By that definition, every American news service is American propaganda.

A lot of them are. One of the interesting things about the so-called Twitter Files was how quickly Twitter was integrated into US state propaganda, presumably similar linkages are kept with other US media companies.

But I wouldn't say that all US media outlets are US State propaganda. Many of them are independent propaganda for their own reasons, with independent funding and goals.

161. foldr ◴[] No.43804272{9}[source]
It doesn’t. You can find people of all political stripes complaining about BBC journalism, including government ministers.
162. makeitdouble ◴[] No.43804300{9}[source]
> Words have meaning

Well, yes. At this point we could as well get back to Wikipedia for at least a common interpretation of the concept:

> The disenfranchisement of voters due to age, residence, citizenship, or criminal record are among the more recent examples of ways that elections can be subverted by changing who is allowed to vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression

> universal practice of restricting voting by citizenship

Citizenship restriction is not universal BTW, and going from a civil status (can be acquired) to a physical one is an incredibly huge leap that is nothing simple.

replies(1): >>43805039 #
163. sgc ◴[] No.43804501{7}[source]
It shouldn't be that hard for you to show some evidence things would be different then. There is nothing indicating a stronger preference to vote has anything at all to do with which direction you lean. More and less does not equal right and left, so the burden of proof is on those who claim it is relevant. Yet polling indicates things would have gone pretty much just as they went.
replies(1): >>43805646 #
164. sgc ◴[] No.43804549{7}[source]
I did not say 'is', I said 'was'. I have not seen studies or even many anecdotal stories indicating people think it was too hard for they themselves to vote. I have seen a lot of people saying that about other people, but as of 2024, attempts to disenfranchise voters had not been very well done. I also don't think having ID is a high bar, which is what a large amount of the noise has been about. Many, many democratic countries have this requirement [1]. Coupled with other things it can become a problem, but when anybody says voter id itself is a problem, I can't take them very seriously.

I however repeat, that was last year. Things could very well take a dramatic turn for the worse.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws

165. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.43804848{6}[source]
I disagree, but lets for the sake of argument assume that I buy into your premise. In terms of degrees, do people who own land and have the laws of the nation apply to you ( which is a fascinating distinction by the way, which you may have not fully thought through, but I will leave it as a tangent unless you want to explore it further here ) have more skin in the game than those who only have laws of the nation apply to them?
166. A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 ◴[] No.43804910{7}[source]
I willing to give you moving polling locations, but with that minor concession.

Can you explain to me like I am 5 why those are bad things? For a simple person like myself, one would think, data accuracy, voting system integrity, and verifiability would be of use and value to everyone.

replies(1): >>43805732 #
167. psychoslave ◴[] No.43804935{6}[source]
Who said people are indifferent?

They can still actively engage in civil life with a variety of actions that look more relevant and meaningful to them.

If people are not given opportunity to actively engage in meaningful way like contributing to the creation of the laws they will have to follow, then sure they sooner than later they won't bother signing the blank check of void promises.

168. xyzzyz ◴[] No.43805039{10}[source]
Look, if you insist on using this term like this, it will make conversation and mutual understanding more difficult. If banning toddlers from voting is "voter suppression", then now we must distinguish between "good voter suppression", like banning votes from toddlers, and "bad voter suppression", like for example tactics to mendaciously make it harder to vote for people who are otherwise eligible.

The result is that "voter suppression" is no longer understood to be a bad thing. You lose the ability to drop this phrase and expect people to pick up that the implication is negative. For example, you said above:

> Democracy is not 2 parties doing voter suppression and gerrymandering as a filter to pass the result to an electoral college.

If "voter suppression" as a term now include things that are universally understood as good, like banning toddlers from voting, this sounds incoherent. Democracy very much is about doing voter suppression, and everybody agrees it to be a good thing!

If you don't like how it sounds, you need to stop including good and proper things under the "voter suppression" label. Rayiner tried to help you with that, by distinguishing between mendacious voter suppression, and good and proper setting of voter qualifications, but you rejected that.

169. xyzzyz ◴[] No.43805089{8}[source]
This "IDs are hard to get by in US" narrative is really funny to anyone who lived in Europe, where IDs are harder to get by than in US, while being required for more purposes and activities. I have yet to see anyone saying that voter ID requirements are voter suppression to also bite the bullet and say that Europe is a totalitarian hellhole compared to the US, the land of the free.
170. Supermancho ◴[] No.43805443{6}[source]
> stop

No.

> Voting by mail is incredibly easy.

This missed the point entirely.

This is about changing behavior and making it "easier" isn't the blocker. People often do not behave the way you expect them to due to simple socialization. Regardless of the specifics, making it more of a celebration (because that's how the vast majority of PTO is perceived) will make it seem like it's more important beyond the lipservice that, frankly, has been ineffective.

171. ellen364 ◴[] No.43805646{8}[source]
I don't know if voters and non-voters have the same political leanings. It isn't something I've ever looked into. My observation was merely that measures of statical confidence assume random samples. Extrapolating from a non-random sample can give odd results. But this isn't a research paper, so it doesn't much matter.
172. ◴[] No.43805710{6}[source]
173. drowsspa ◴[] No.43805977{6}[source]
In Brazil as well. I think a good side effect, or perhaps the main intended one, is that governments aren't allowed to supress voters and have to make sure everyone has easy access to the voting booths. Every election there are mandatory pieces on TV about how people are voting even in the most remote of places.