Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I agree with this as well. History has shown us that the smallest sliver of 'interpretation' is likely to eventually be twisted and exploited for a reason completely antithetical to the original intended purpose , given enough time. On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 10:26 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
In my view, there is a core problematic statement in this document:
“Military and propaganda agencies and their information infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.”
What is a “propaganda agency”. A political party? An incumbent candidate for re-election? The IRS? Anyone the “majority” disagrees with?
Propaganda is in the eye of the beholder, and we’ve seen both sides of the political aisle sling this term in recent elections and legislative debates.
I think it is a colossal mistake to weaponize the Internet. The potential for unintended consequences is huge, as is the potential for intended, politically-driven consequences
-mel beckman
On Mar 10, 2022, at 5:03 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
maybe it is just that i am sufficiently anti-authoritarian that i try not to have the hubris to set myself up as the authority. maybe that in itself is hubris.
as i was raised by someone who was a conscious objector in ww2, i can not bring myself to contribute to weapons etc. so i have donated to folk such as https://razomforukraine.org/ which is focused on medical support.
randy