it’s like you believe you can tariff them expecting they won’t do the same. Why do you believe the rest of the world is not going to retaliate and why do you believe America can prosper without the rest of the world?
What’s the point of having a military alliance with countries you puts tariffs on? That’s unfriendly to say the least.
Yes, I’m aware that Russia makes attempts to influence American public opinion. But you’re vastly overstating the scope and effectiveness of these efforts.
You can’t be serious with this. First of all, the US did recently move to ban TikTok because it had too much pro-Palestine content, when it was unbanned, it sent out a message praising the Trump administration, clearly having come to an understanding with the government. Twitter was bought out by Musk who censors left-wing content and is deeply involved in the government. Zuckerberg suddenly unveiled a bunch of anti-woke policies as soon as Trump was taking office. So, censorship of platforms is an issue in the US.
But secondly, and much more importantly, you’re talking about Russia propagandizing Americans, who have access to YouTube and Wikipedia! If the reason that Russian propaganda is so effective is that they censor those platforms, then how can it be that it’s still so effective when people have access to them? It’s complete nonsense.
Again, you’re doing that thing of getting distracted reaffirming that Russia is bad and losing sight of reality.
First, TikTok isn’t banned and the push for it wasn’t because of “pro-palestinian” content. There’s no lack of that on every platform available.
Second, Musk and Zuckerberg aren’t foreign states, try to stay on topic.
None of this made any sense. What don’t you understand? Westerners see the charlatan grifters that Russians fund on YouTube/Rumble etc because it isn’t blocked, meanwhile the Russian population has no access to Wikipedia and wouldn’t be able to see “western propaganda” on YouTube because it is blocked. Duh
I’m super confused by what chain of reasoning would lead you to say this. First, it doesn’t matter at all that they’re not foreign states, they still have interests directly opposed to the vast majority of Americans. Second, we’re talking about whether the American government has the ability to influence Americans’ media diet in a way comparable to what Russia does, so the point that they’re “not foreign governments” is doubly confusing.
Your argument is that Russian propaganda is effective because they’re able to censor platforms with conflicting views, but they aren’t able to control what media Americans have access to, meaning that your position makes absolutely zero sense.
Also, I’m not talking about the US government using propaganda to influence Russian citizens, I’m talking about the US government using propaganda to influence US citizens. Which seems to be a fully alien concept to you. But US citizens have access to the same set of media that could be used to host either Russian or American propaganda, it’s an even playing field. Except the US has more money and a major home field advantage, so why would Russian propaganda be so much more effective? It’s nonsense, and there are much simpler, more logical explanations.
I see, we’re talking past eachother because you fail to follow the topic. As a reminder, the topic was USA/Russia influencing eachothers population. That should help you finally understand why it works better in one direction and not the other, and why internal bad actors aren’t relevant to the conversation.
No, that wasn’t the topic at all. How does America influencing Russia’s population relate to anything we were talking about at all?
That was the topic, you’re the one who started mixing in state actors like Musk and Zuckerberg after implying that Western propaganda directed at Russia should be just as effective as theirs towards us. Go and improve your reading comprehension and then read everything again.
I never said that. Please cite the line where you think I did.
The implication being doing the same to their country, obviously.
Why would that be the implication? There’s nothing in that statement that suggests it would be the case, calling it “obvious” doesn’t make it so.