“If you are posting Official Kiev STATE PROPAGANDA, while at the same time saying that RT is illegitimate, that is the very definition of hypocrisy.”
It is very revealing to see you engage in such an egregious example of logical fallacies. I have posted source material directly from the Ukrainian Government websites and directly from the Russian Government websites. You cannot get any closer to STATE PROPAGANDA of both opponents than that. So your accusation of hypocrisy is a logical failure, because your accusation falsely claims the posting of links to news sources at Ukrainian sources of STATE PROPAGANDA is by itself evidence of hypocrisy while you neglect and omit acknowledgement of postings from the Russian websites. This fact is evidence demonstrates you are engaging in an act of hypocrisy by insisting only Ukrainian sources of STATE PROPAGANDA must be censored solely because someone wishes to construe it as a source of STATE PROPAGANDA.
Furthermore, you fail to respect the actual reasons why there it is reasonable to treat sources of STATE PROPAGANDA differently. Your false accusations of hypocrisy assume all official government statements are untrustworthy news sources, whereas in the real world the official statements of some governments are substantially more trustworthy than those of other governments. In other words, you choose to argue the WHO is responsible for making the statements is more important than the WHAT is in those official government statements. For example, when the German NAZI government released official news reports of the discovery of the massacre of the Polish prisoners of war in the Katyn Forest by the Russians of the Soviet Army in 1939, the NAZI source was generally regarded as untrustworthy despite the later proved fact it was the Russians who committed the mass murders of the Poles. In other words, what matters is the actual truth is proven to be and not who was the source of that truth. The question of WHO is the source of the statements becomes relevant only when the source demonstrates a past pattern of untrustworthy statements sufficient to justify denial of a venue for continued dissemination of those falsehoods. Even then the freedom of speech for an untrustworthy source of false statements must be respected at least to some degree to permit the public the opportunity to experience and judge for themselves the untrustworthiness of the source and their statements.
“I don’t care if you are posting from them, but tell people it is STATE PROPAGANDA.”
You say you don’t care about posting from what you want to characterize as the sources of STATE PROPAGANDA, but then you proceed to object to doing so unless a label of STATE PROPAGANDA is applied, perhaps under your censorship control, as an approved source of news. Such comments on your part suggests aa desire to assume readers are too ignorant, lazy, and/or stupid to investigate and judge sources for themselves and require a STAMP OF APPROVAL FOR STATE PROPAGANDA to be applied or not applied by some central office of approved propaganda. Then you have the gall to falsely accuse other people of being hypocrites, LOL.