"Sir Nick Clegg, vice-president of global affairs at Meta, said Russian authorities "ordered us to stop the independent fact-checking and labelling" the outlets' content."
Reliable enough to convey what Russians have to say for themselves. Besides, TJ is more of a blogging platform. I wouldn't trust an opinion of a (wannabe) journalist, but this particular article simply provides all the references and the auther doesn't push their opinion.
As for whom you would consider a more reliable source of the regulator's demands: the regulator itself, or a Facebook executive ex-politician -- is obviously entirely up to you.
So a Putin controlled government agency on a website under the control of the same agency and during a war. Yes, obviously the most reliable source of information. Dream on.
Look, this is rediculous. Let's just break down what's happening, I am really curious how your logic works:
1. Bob makes a demand, making a press release
2. Alice reports on the demand
3. You claim that Alice is more trustworthy than Bob himself in relaying Bob's demands -- how is that supposed to work? You realise that this is literaly gaslighting?
> Try some reliable news sources instead of Putin controlled "media" for once
Oh please, stop acting like you are not the one who is in an information bubble.
Your news sources are only "reliable" because you virtually can't (actually, just don't want to) verify any of this.
Your "for once" makes it evident that you are assuming that we don't read your "reliable" news sources, but that's not the case, dude. What you don't realise is that Russian see this clash between Western media, Russian media and an objective reality, which makes us live in an atmosphere of radical skepticism as we can see the post-truth politics from each side.
This actually made me realise that you probably don't even percieve media as we do. You probably just take journalist's opinion at face value, percieving it as a final instance of truth. Where as I couldn't care less for an opinion and am only interested in references and sources (like actual sources, not relays), so that I can research the topic myself.
I will reiterate, your perception of Russian media is unrealistic, as you haven't ever actually interacted with any of it. Otherwise, you just wouldn't be talking of "Putin controlled media" over some blog post. It's just not how it works in real life, dude.
Have you never noticed how the media in democratic countries regularly and robustly criticises their leaders and government? Leaders are even laughed at and publicly ridiculed. They are held to account. Do you never wonder why it is your state media rarely dares criticise Putin? When they do they seem to get raided by your police. A pure coincidence I am sure. Is it perhaps that Putin controls the narrative in your country? Could it be that your media sources are not generally very reliable?
So why do you think looking at an .ru domain, on a Saint Petersburg IP under the influence of Roskomnadzor on any political matter would ever be a good idea? That's before we even get into the problems of identifying who the author is, what their motivations are or whether they fear arrest for saying the wrong thing. It takes balls of steel to write anything remotely politically critical in Russia, so wouldn't you agree that's a serious problem with the neutrality of any Russian influenced source? I think it's an exceptionally odd claim to suggest that the media of every single other democratic country with a free press combined is not perhaps a better place to look.
That's not what Facebook said in their statement:
"Sir Nick Clegg, vice-president of global affairs at Meta, said Russian authorities "ordered us to stop the independent fact-checking and labelling" the outlets' content."
"We refused," he said.