In 1971, when the war criminals Nixon and Kissinger tried to STOP India from intervening in the genocide in East Pakistan, it was the USSR which helped us rescue millions and create the country of Bangladesh.
Russia on the other hand never tried to invade India, despite the Russophobic British spreading lies since they got a whooping in the Crimean war in 1856. [0]
As for the famines caused by the British in India, and the utterly vile conversions executed by the portoguese in Goa using industrial tools like breast-rippers, the less said the better. [1]
The USSR had starved millions of Ukrainians to death before the Nazis even rose to power. Mirrors the British hunger games in India.
If you want to excuse and trivialize the suffering caused by Russians in Eastern Europe, then by the same token you trivialize the suffering of Indians under British rule. All the same excuses apply: some Bandera-Ramachandran surely conspired against the British and therefore the Bengal famine is your own fault.
I've read both version of the Holodomor or whatever it's called. I put it down to communist incompetence, Mao was no different than Stalin in this regard.
As for the famines in India, the war criminal Churchill deliberately routed grains to feed his armies during world war 2. Prior to that, it was British policy to trigger famines, not incompetence.
During the Irish famine, again under British rule, the latter were exporting grains and other produce to England. It was not incompetence but malice.
The USSR was also exporting grains as their own people were starving.
Churchill said that the Indian famines were the fault of Indians for "breeding like rabbits" and Stalin said that the Holodomor was the fault of Ukrainians for being "kulak saboteurs". The same dismissive and inhumane attitude shines through. They knew what was happening, they knew that they had the means to stop it, and they chose not to use them.
That is a pretty tiny straw to grasp at considering we are talking about Russia blocking international media because they don't want people to know about homosexuality and SMO casualty numbers.
Wikileaks isn't censored in the US. To say that government employees being instructed to respect the classification of public documents is... certainly one interpretation of censorship.
Libel isn't media that is censored in the US and available internationally.
Did senior figures in the crrent US administration successfully (temporarily) have the entire show pulled?
The US practices censorship - it's not overt, the fish can't see the water, but it's there via manufactured consent.
Returning to the actual question I addressed:
> Could you share an example of some censored media in the US that's available elsewhere?
Wikileaks is a clear example of material censorered by the US Government that was restricted from common US employees despite appearing in newspapers and not being restricted from the eyes of other peer military and goverment personal in many other countries.
There's no doubt the current administration is waging a war of suppression against anything they consider opposed to them. So Kimmel, Perkins Coie, visa holders/applicants... they are the target of mob tactics where censorship via retaliation is but one of the coercive effects.
It might be that our system's reliance on norms has been exposed as a fatal flaw. On the other hand, the executive is only wielding its discretionary powers, so the current campaign of censorship may only last this term. We haven't put up a great firewall. We haven't nationalized news media.
The Wikileaks thing is so minimal that if you wanted to provide examples of US censorship you should have said CSAM and been done with it. The site was not blocked in the US. It didn't affect anyone but federal employees and clearance holders. No one could go to prison for viewing the leaked documents. And wikileaks wasn't arbitrarily targeted, there is a longstanding, opt-in employment policy that classification and need to know apply even to spillages.
Congress passed a law that banned TikTok in its current form. SCOTUS upheld the ban. Trump has used temporary extensions afforded to him in the law, he cannot reverse the court decision.
They’re referring to sanctions - persons/businesses residing in Russia, certain specific individuals and those working for specific Russian entities are locked out of much of the Western economy. I think it’s reasonable personally, but I can understand how a Russian 1000km from the Ukrainian frontline who used to sell jewelry on Etsy would be pissed.
The most affected were not those inside, but the emigrants. MasterCard and Visa blocked Russian banks, and the emigrees couldn't pay with their savings anymore. Some people got shadow banned by banks, their accounts closed, or money transfers rejected.
These people were on the Europe's side politically, yet they were targeted by just the passport.
None of the Russian expats I’ve met had this problem: after 2014 they all saw the writing on the wall and moved their money to western banks. I have sympathy for those that didn’t - normal people shouldn’t have to make this kind of calculus - but there’s no alternative to this while having useful sanctions. It’s not the causeless brutality of breaking someone’s window because of their accent.
Well, every expat I know, including me, had this problem and spent days working around. And the sanctions were very poorly designed, because the drones landing in Ukraine still have fresh American and German parts.
I'm not saying they should be lifted, but they punished the most exactly the pro-European Russians, inside our outside.
Considering the Biden administration pressured Facebook and Twitter to shadownban people/organizations they didn't like, TikTok being forced to sell to a US company, which has a literal shitton of goverment contracts and CIA ties.. the US is not that far away from Russia. Russia is just more open about it.
It is funny that you are comparing the scope of covid misinformation bans to Russia's broad censorship of international media. Ultimately, though, you should evaluate the system rather than the efforts of a single individual. Because the social media bans were litigated.
Wouldn't TikTok being sold to a company that the government trusts be an indication that the concern over access to Americans' data (rather than the message) is a genuine one?
They're both censoring what individuals and organizations are allowed to say online and what their citizens are allowed to read/hear..? Just because they took a different approach and pressured companies without telling the public doesn't change that fact.
So you think the government forced TikTok to sell it's US operations to Oracle, the company with CIA ties, that has been caught spying on it's customers data before, and who's CEO proudly said "Citizens will be on their best behavior,” and “because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.” is about" data privacy"?
If your position is "all censorship is equivalent" then I don't have much to say.
The TikTok legislation was about protecting Americans' data from foreign ownership. Oracle was not named in the legislation. Regardless of how corrupt the subsequent events have been, I don't think anyone on the platform has been censored as a result.
reply