So when faced with facts you just turn away. I mean, I’ll even concede that some of the member states didn’t hold elections and therefore, we have no statistics on them. Not every facet of your enemy can be unreasonably demonized. Not every element of Soviet life was as bad as you think, and it’s totally fair to say that the lower socioeconomic class was harmed by the dissolution.

In the aftermath of the dissolution oligarchs did dismantle a lot of the social security nets that existed and concentrated a lot of wealth.

I can just as easily shit on how Norwegian social security has been harmed by for-profit initiatives on the back of 8 years of Høyre and Frp rule.

It’s not revisionist what do you mean? It’s a very normal fact that is literally even easy to wiki.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum

I mean… the Soviet Union was illegally dissolved and as far as I remember, the people didn’t want the dissolution to happen. A lot of tomfooleries happened after that and many former soviet countries did lose protections for their least economically safe population.

This is not a defense of the Soviet Union, but dealing with the first statement you wrote.

Totally right. Tbh this OP guy is kinda whack. I’d take his posts with a grain of salt.

Fuck telekom, i can’t wait to switch to fiber

I think there is a case to be made that false statements in the public made with the explicit of driving public or political discourse or to drive verifiably unproven sentiments should be considered fraudulent or anti-democratic, or at the very least that the burden falls on the media to brand the information as verifiably misleading.

Allowing bad faith actors to exist seems to be a major issue strictly because their information is spread without context.