... I wouldn't really call RT a foreign propaganda site. Frankly, and perhaps I'm myself biased, they provide less propagandic of an assessment of Western events than nearly every one of our mainstream media outlets that I can think of.
Regarding what the article is referring to, things like the Washington Post allowing China to buy ads or China funding lobbyists who speak to congressman who likely have no idea, I can't see anybody justifying that, unless they hate the US, which okay, that's your prerogative.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that the average person is at least two orders of magnitude less endowed with information than the people you might speak with on HN, whether or not any of our opinions are correct, so even a tiny bit of propaganda reaching enough people can change minds against the interest of the country.
I think this should've been illegal 50 years ago, and I think the people abetting this should be tried for treason, almost by the very definition.
Regarding what the article is referring to, things like the Washington Post allowing China to buy ads or China funding lobbyists who speak to congressman who likely have no idea, I can't see anybody justifying that, unless they hate the US, which okay, that's your prerogative.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that the average person is at least two orders of magnitude less endowed with information than the people you might speak with on HN, whether or not any of our opinions are correct, so even a tiny bit of propaganda reaching enough people can change minds against the interest of the country.
I think this should've been illegal 50 years ago, and I think the people abetting this should be tried for treason, almost by the very definition.