>

Russian "new" Websites, which actually are just propaganda machineries, should ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE be blocked.
It does make sense to block Russian "news" channels but its easily open to abuse >

Baltics and lot of EU countries have banned russian propoganda chanels. I agree with this. Russian propoganda is no joke and i would not recomend it for uninitiated. >

One the one hand not too good depending on Implementation. One the other hand the legal framework to go against russian propaganda, misinformation and other Media based attenpts against ukraine. >

Here in Adelaide, Australia, we did that. In the days before websites so he wasn't blocked, but a certain editor knew he wasn't welcome and had to leave town. He was an awful liar and very divisive. Inherited a newspaper from his dad called 'The News'.
After he left town he started a company named after the Adelaide paper, NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch was the name he went by (though his first name is really Keith, not Rupert). Wonder whatever happened to him? >

Fox News has certainly fucked up the US. Pure, unadulterated, fascist propoganda. Old white people can't get enough. >

CNN and MSNBC? They’re all the same peddling their same leaning nonsense to their viewers >

Yeah exactly basically every news network has bias for an agenda >

Anyone else remember the older folks warning us not to fall things when computers became popular? Now we got old folks being radicalized by the news. >

“Could” is probably doing a lot of work here. >

The problem with that is that it shouldn’t. Laws need to be scoped heavily, or they will be rife with abuse. >

“Could” ranges from “clear path” all the way to “I heard the words ‘media law’ and that’s often what censorship gets called”. >

Totally agreed. It’s an interesting choice of wording but there could also be measures in place. Todays media is not unbiased or trustworthy so, I too, hold baited breath on this. War is a bitch. >

It should only be valid as long as the war against Russia.