I used to believe the United States had the most sophisticated production and mediums for creating and spreading their propaganda and cultural values. But the b

I used to believe the United States had the most sophisticated production and mediums for creating and spreading their propaganda and cultural values. But the ban against Russia Today (Accused of spreading propaganda, RT gets deplatformed - https://www.protocol.com/entertainment/rt-ban-roku-apple-directv https://www.protocol.com/entertainment/rt-ban-roku-apple-dir... ) in both the US and Europe really changed my perspective. It would be really interesting to know the cost-benefit analysis they did before considering such a drastic step because not only does it go against their democratic values it suddenly introduces a very apparent cognitive dissonance to the western idea that Russia is weak and irrelevant as a super power (and isn't even worthy to be called a super power) - if that is the reality then why is it that the US, the most vocal vanguard of free speech, suddenly feels so threatened by the ideas in RT? And why do US and European political leaders suddenly believe that they are no longer in a position to present a strong counter view to the ideas in RT? My regular sources of news includes my country's own local media, and international outlets like BBC, CNN, DW, Arab News, Gulf Times, NYT, NYP, NPR etc. RT wasn't even on the radar. RT is now part of my regular sources of news - when I learnt about the ban, I got curious about it and checked it out (the Streisand effect at work). I found the content to be similar to many of the other public funded media outlets - all of them have similar types of news, views and propaganda (why their own country / culture is great, how their enemies are wrong, and their different perspective about other countries depending on their own country's relationship with them etc.). Yes, when it comes to reporting on the US, I did notice a definite slant towards Republican politics on RT. But then, if one believes in democracy and free speech the way the US does, why should a non-Republican administration feel threatened if RT paints the American Republicans in a better light than the Democrats (or some other politician or party)? It's natural for voters to be swayed but finally it is still an American who is elected by the masses - whether it be a Democrat or a Republican. And representational democracy offers a check and balance in such a democracy - just because Americans who read RT get swayed and elect Republicans, doesn't mean the elected Republicans have to be swayed by the mass (in fact it often is the other way, and like I pointed out, representation can serve as one of the built-in checks and balances of representational democracy against majoritarianism). However, if some Democrats / Americans believe that their own fellow American politicians will not serve their own country's interest, America has an existential issue bigger than Russia. Censoring information just makes the educated suspicious towards an administration. Countering it, or even just presenting an alternate perspective to it is what cultivates democratic value. Else it is a slow slide to authoritarianism, which is what we are all seeing more and more of, around the world.