> I was under the impression that the above entities already have the largest megaphone of all through the uncritical mainstream press.
Where do you get this impression that the mainstream press/media is uncritical of the EU? The EU is a large body, obviously they would have a large megaphone, what's your actual issue with the EU governing bodies creating their federated platform to share their statements? And how exactly is that showing their want to control the Internet discourse? Just by participating in it are they trying to control it, in your worldview?
Again, abstain from this soapboxing (at least on HN), it's definitely low-quality comment.
In general, opinions about the mainstream press come from reading it for decades. No one can provide a "proof" that can be captured in a comment box. It seems to me that the issue is calling the platform "EU Voice", which should probably be for all people.
It's also easy to escape through a throwaway account while using my history against me, instead of answering the aforementioned "self-righteous" questions :)
Please, don't come with the tiresome "CENSORED!" call out, if people flagged/downvoted it then you should look at that as a signal.
> It seems to me that the issue is calling the platform "EU Voice", which should probably be for all people.
This is exactly the pedantry I call out in my comment, if that wasn't absolutely clear...
You are interpreting the name "EU Voice" to have the meaning you want and then beating this strawman.
> In general, opinions about the mainstream press come from reading it for decades. No one can provide a "proof" that can be captured in a comment box.
So you are stating it's... Just a feeling?
Ones who aren't being actively censored by the EU that is.
Show me a mainstream media based in the EU actively supporting Russia in the Ukraine conflict then.
It's "Russian invasion of Ukraine", not "Ukraine conflict", first.
What point do you want to make with this though? I don't need to find a contrarian to every point to prove anything, that's also just being a contrarian and usually mainstream media avoids being a contrarian. If you live in Fox News-world that might seem alien but MSM is not in the job of being a contrarian.
Burdening me to prove my point by forcing me into an impossible situation won't change much, I could also tell you that support for Ukraine is so unanimous that no MSM in the EU holds the contrarian position you want them to. That's not wrong or the EU silencing it, it's simply a position that almost no business in the EU would dare to hold because they'd suffer a massive hit from public opinion, most EU citizens do not support Russia (as it should be), why should a MSM vehicle take the contrarian point of view?
Show me proof for your statements, please, I can't prove you a negative, I believe you should be quite well aware of that.
Yes, approximately all the time. For a time in England, you couldn’t open a newspaper without finding an article critical of - sometimes imaginary - EU policies.
You will be hard pressed to find an article supportive of Russia outside RT but you can find plenty questioning the timing and amount of weapons given, how we track where the money we give go and especially the idea of allowing Ukraine into the EU.
I think that media very often call out bullshit takes of the government, EU or national. But being against russia just isn't a bullshit take. That said, Media do cover also when Ukraine does things wrong, but those things are just not as common. You can't report 50/50% when the situation is 99/1%.
How do you even support the attacker in this war and remain true to the facts is beyond me. So it's really difficult to understand what do you even mean.
Not every view point is equally valid.