The points I made weren't directed at the particular criticisms being made in this post, they were just general points.
It just seems that anyone who questions the content of a post relating to Russia is immediately identified as being somehow part of Putin's troll army and any information they provide is dismissed as propaganda.
Another point that I notice is that there is a tendency to criticise "Russia" when you really mean "a particular agency of the Russian government or a specific politician" (and to make, for example, Putin and Russia synonomous) whereas when the USA is attacked it is almost never described as "the USA" but almost always the particular TLA or politician in question.
Every time an article appears criticizing Russia's online propaganda efforts, we see bunches of comments from people who are obviously part of Russia's online propaganda army,
Actually not everyone who takes Russia's side in these debates is part of some kind of propaganda army. Many of us are just regular Techdirt commenters who happen to know a bit more about Russia than the rest of you appear to do. - ie we may have visited the country, we may know some ordinary Russians who regularly take trips home etc etc. This extra knowledge seems to be identified by the rest of you as evidence of being part of the propaganda army.
Russia now is a very different place from forty years ago (and from 20 years ago). This is a point which seems to be ignored (deliberately) by the US.
And yes - in many ways Russia now is a better place than the US. Here are two:
Russia doesn't execute people any more - whereas the US is identified by Amnesty international as one of the worst five countries in the world.
Russia doesn't imprison as many people as the US. The Russian prison population per 100,000 , although high at 470 compared to typical European states is still only a bit over half of the US (707 per 100,000).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: regarding publication freedom and varied media
but he didn't need to imagine how he would feel if his family died in a car crash to do that.
Yes - and beyond that it brings in an emotional reaction which is seldom a good basis for rational thought. IN particular it is more likely to result is laws to penalise the driver who is deemed responsible (even though there will ALWAYS be some who make mistakes) rather than technical solutions that would actually avert the accident.
For example Princess Diana's death had one cause that the authorities could do something about - not the paparazzi, not the drunken/drugged chauffeur, (and certainly not some ridiculous conspiracy by the Duke of Edinburgh) not even her own failure to wear a seat belt - but the failure of the French highways agency to install a crash barrier in the tunnel.
The press - by concentrating on emotionally charged reasons has obscured the important one (which AFAIK has still not been done).