If you choose to block some voices, you inevitably have to draw a line regarding what is allowable versus not. But voices don’t exist on a one-dimensional spectrum where you can simply block everything to one side. Someone has to decide what is allowable, but who gets to decide that? Who decides who gets to decide? Regardless of whoever ends up becoming the decision maker, reasonable people will disagree, creating more conflict.
I wonder why we are not doing like Pyong-Yang. And not just for TV !
Don't know about China, but it's not like people don't go to youtube, reddit, twitter or other social media patfroms.
> Why does this exist at all? Like why does an american company allow that?
Obviously, because the company operates in the said country (at least in Russia), makes money, and even installs their their own hardware in ISPs datacenters. Obviously, they will be forced to comply with local regulations.
Funny thing is that more confrontations between Russian government and these companys boil down to government pressuring them if they block some Russian media for violating some "internal rules", as if they are operating in American jurisdiction and feel like they have a right for "private discrimination".
Note also you can watch dw [1](German) and France 24 news [2](oddly both in in English). I think those are “state sponsored” though right now hardly propaganda. Dw was forced to close its Russia office.
All news media is propaganda, the question is it true or not.
That’s why it’s important to try and find source material. Also look up company ownership and authors