The same can be said about US, EU,China... Where social polarization already so close to the red line so it could bring the states into ungovernable, militarized, chsotic formations...
The US has seen far worse periods of social polarization. And not even that far in the distant past: the red scare(s), the Civil Rights Movement(s) and the anti-war movement during Vietnam were periods of far worse internal strife. And to be frank, even Russia today doesn't have anything near the level of internal dissent the US had during the height of anti-Vietnam protests.
> Russia today doesn't have anything near the level of internal dissent
Today's Maxim Katz video argues that "the war party" exists only in Kremlin, and with fall of Putin and his closest allies, everybody else in Russia won't be interested in war, which is good.
Propaganda is a general definition for the dessemination of politically biased messages. All the news is covered by this definition. Especially during the war time. I don't understand why DuckDuckGo decides for their users whose propaganda is better.
Everyone has a bias, yes. But there’s a huge difference between the Western perspective of a free press or independent journalist and state run propaganda.
Judges make decisions about ambiguous cases all the time. Rarely are things absolute in life.
In 1962, Kuba has been blocked from determining it's own destiny. US didn't like the Soviet missiles placed by Soviets right on their border. The peace has been saved only because USSR took a step back.
Todays Ukraine is "Kuba" for Russia. The presence of NATO near its borders is threatening its security. What America should do? Maybe revenue its aggressive military presence? Think about Ukrainian people not only on its interest across the ocean.
Cuba was run by a corrupt dictatorship that worked with a mafia and oligarchs.
When Castro wanted to overthrow them, he went to his neighbour America and asked them for help.
Unfortunately, the dictator, mafia and oligarchs were seen as more useful allies by the US government than the people of Cuba, so they took their side.
Cuba then had to look further for help in what many observers saw as a just cause.
Possibly the USSR only got involved to annoy the US, but I'd like to hope they at least partly were motivated by some sense of justice abd it wasnt totally black and white.
And on the American side, JFK, generally positively reviewed by the American people but hated by some, was elected in part due to his father's mafia ties. The same mafia that ran Cuba.
(In this very stretched metaphor, Haiti could be Cechnya?)
Dictatorship / democracy is a business of the people and ONLY people who populate a territory. Nobody can use this kind of argument to justify war. Neither Russians, neither Americans, nobody!
As the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, you basically have the power to do nothing. You can't order anyone to do anything . "NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations but their individual sovereignty is unaffected by participation in the alliance. NATO has no parliaments, no laws, no enforcement, and no power to punish individual citizens. As a consequence of this lack of sovereignty the power and authority of a NATO commander are limited. NATO commanders cannot punish offences such as: failure to obey a lawful order; dereliction of duty; or disrespect to a senior officer.[155] NATO commanders expect obeisance but sometimes need to subordinate their desires or plans to the operators who are themselves subject to sovereign codes of conduct like the UCMJ. A case in point was the clash between General Sir Mike Jackson and General Wesley Clark over KFOR actions at Pristina Airport.[156]" from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO
Basically everyone just does whatever they want, quite similar to what they would do if they weren't in NATO.
In 1962 rockets were vulnerable and could be preemptively destroyed as they were above ground. Therefore MAD was affected by very close rocket location.
These days Russia has rockets in Siberia silos, in submarines all over the world, and in trains moving around ready to fire. No meaningful change to MAD doctrine can be brought from Europe.
Install your own mastodon instance or join an existing one. That would be much more better than naive complains on centralized social networks driven by venture capitals.
There's an argument for it to become a right if the social network intentionally tries to displace other channels of communication and forbids interoperability.
Actually I wonder if that would not fall under Article 27 of UN's Universal declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits."
The human right to basic fairness and reason is generic and applies to everything.
There is nothing magical about social media web services that means it's ok to abuse and discriminate there vs anywhere else.
It also doesn't require a "human right" to say "hey this sucks". That is a valid thing to observe and discuss regardless if the complainer has any special legal rights being violated.
This kind of political wars are very harmful for vacination process. Of course there is a chance of the fraud but the same chance is for other vaccines as well and we need to talk about it. But is it a good time for such a fight?
