Firefox would be able to survive without Google, even though it currently chooses not to. Mozilla is not Firefox any more than Linux Foundation is Linux.
Though even if there is a way to circumvent, if there is no audience or ad revenues, there is no motivation. Look at Twitch streamers or YouTubers who are banned:
-> No revenue
-> No audience
-> No reason to continue
-> "Problem" solved
That is unfortunately the truth of it. There are distressingly few people in the US these days who actually have a principled belief in freedom of speech. Both the left and the right talk up freedom of speech when they are out of power, but are quite willing to destroy it when they are in power. I would give my left proverbial for a political party that actually protects freedom of speech.
Believe it or not, removal of content is mandated on the basis of laws that have been passed by the majority of representatives elected by the people. For example, it is a crime in Germany to publicly glorify wars of aggression and use Nazi symbols or deny the Holocaust. It's also a crime to publish child abuse material.
On a side note, setting up a website deliberately designed to circumvent such laws will itself likely violate the law and might lead to criminal prosecution. While the US government will certainly be protected by diplomatic immunity, other people involved probably won't be protected.
www.rt.com is blocked in a couple of countries in Europe, so it's not about football, rather to curb "disinformation" for the next elections or whatever.
No — it's not and I've just verified that. The RT website is accessible: people can visit it, create accounts, log in, and use all its features without restrictions.
What’s changed about the RT is public perception. It’s widely recognized and labeled as a Kremlin propaganda outlet — which is precisely what it is — so audiences can approach its content with appropriate awareness.
If someone can't access the page, it's likely caused by a particular ISP and not by "European censorship".
reply