Slashdot Mirror
The Kremlin Tightens Its Grip on the Internet
reporter writes "According to a report just published by "The Washington Post", the percentage of Russian adults having access to the Internet has risen from 8% in 2002 to 25% in 2007. This growth has attracted the attention of the Kremlin. Its allies are creating pro-Kremlin web sites and are purchasing web sites known for high-quality independent journalism. Pro-Kremlin bloggers have used their skills to bury news about anti-Kremlin demonstrations: at Russian news portals, web links to news about pro-Kremlin rallies consistently rank higher than web links to news about anti-Kremlin demonstrations.
The most disturbing development is that the Kremlin intends to develop a Russian Internet which is separate from the global Internet. Russian officials are studying the techniques that the Chinese use to censor the Internet."
Putin, and more importantly, the team of ex-KGB people around him, will of course seek to control the Internet in Russia.
All the other media, such as newpapers and TV, are firmly pro-Kremlin. Independant journalists are imprisoned or assasinated by - of course - nameless 'enemies of the state'.
It's a shame that the promise of democracy there turned out to be yet another 'false dawn'.
Europe will do nothing, since the bear's paw is firmly on their throat, i.e. the oil and gas supply...
Next up, Google et al 'voluntary censorship'?
In a world where information is power, governments who don't actually represent their people will always try to control the knowledge that their people have access to, lest they loose their grip on them.
~ All comments automatically moderated -1 since 2004 ~
In soviet Russia... the Internet browses you!!
I couldn't help it... sorry.
Pro-Kremlin bloggers have used their skills to bury news about anti-Kremlin demonstrations: at Russian news portals, web links to news about pro-Kremlin rallies consistently rank higher than web links to news about anti-Kremlin demonstrations.
So, the Russians are adopting the tactics of the Bush administration. It's a sad day for Russia.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
After 10 years of research, investigators have discovered that governments are, in fact, manipulative.
If you are, you haven't been paying attention. All independent TV stations have been closed, one way or the other, in Russia. The same is true for newspapers, with few exceptions. And the journalists brave enough to speak up have dire times looking ahead. Remember Anna Politkovskaya?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
You could very well replace the name "Russia" in the article with "United States" and I don't think it would surprise most here. I guess the pro-kremlin bloggers would then be Fox News?
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Fox is a privately owned broadcaster...
Says it all really.
Deleted
...its the Russian mafia network.
So even if the kremlin managed to create their own country internet there would still be the russian mafias world wide internet.
The most disturbing development is that the Kremlin intends to develop a Russian Internet which is separate from the global Internet.
Mr. Putin, by all means, do so, as it would benefit most people here in the EU, and I'm sure most people in the US too. Please do separate your "internet" from the internet. The day you do, there will be 99% less phishing sites on the net.
The thing that I never understood, defense hawks are not really for a strong defense, a cost-effective way of protecting our home soil. Defense hawks are about big contracts and big paychecks. They'd rather pay a billion bucks for the platinum-plated solid gold whiz-bang wonderweapon but don't want to spare a nickel for the soldiers who man them.
So much of the Cold War was snake-oil salesmen from the defense industry peddling their wares and enriching themselves and the generals while also increasing the likelihood that these weapons would be used in a shooting war.
What's the easiest way to cut down a mighty oak tree? When you can pinch the life out of it between two fingers. In other words, just after it's sprouted. But we seem to like the idea of planting the tree in the first place, letting it get plenty of sun and rain, wait until it's grown into an imposing presence, then we get to whip out the chainsaws and dynamite. If Shel Silverstein ever wrote about this, he'd have to call it "the Stupid Tree."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
As Plato said, bad propaganda conditions your people to do stupid things, and they don't have time to figure it out. I'd do the same thing, but I give Russia few chances of success, given how elusive self-governance has been for them since they overthrew their Nordid leaders and replaced them with fields of peasant Slavs.
Anti-Globalism
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/07/130258 Democracy Now!
August 7th, 2007
Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire
John Pilger: One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"
Just to keep this in perspective, Stalin is enormously popular in Russia. About 60% of younger Russians, in a recent poll, said they admire Stalin greatly. The main difference between Russia and the US now in that regard is one of degree - the base for authoritarianism in Russia is that 60% (plus some), whereas the base for authoritarianism in the US is only at the 30% of hard-core Bushies - now leaning towards Rudy - plus a few percent of the Hillary supporters.
But those figures are for what we might call "hard" authoritarianism. There's "soft" authoritarianism that's another large block in the US: the sort that enforces "conventional wisdom" across our corporate media. It's not the stuff that FOX is the outlier on that's the key that locks the American mind, but the stuff that FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS/Time/Newsweek and often even the NY Times share as common stances and assumptions. That's what took us into the Iraq disaster in such stupid form, not that "Bush lied us into it." It's a kinder, gentler authoritarianism - that lets us believe we're a "free" people while jailing a larger proportion of our population than any other industrialized country, and ignoring the clear majority will in favor of universal health care, large-scale restructuring of energy use, and the end of corporate domination of our politics.
I'm sure Putin would agree that Russia should only have it so good.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
During the 50's, 60's, and 70's, America, and then the whole of the free world lead the planet. The reason is that we had a capitalism helping us move things alone. In particular, we developed our resources VERY quickly. Neither China nor USSR was not able to do that, because they were totalitarian states combined with command economics. Now, Russia is heading to what China is, but the difference is that China has the lead in manufacturing and Russia now has the resources, all of which America was the leader in before. The point being unless the free world quickly develops alternative and nuclear energy, we are probably going to be in the same place that we were in before, only with us on the losing end. The truth is that totalitarian govs. are VERY efficient (do not like the result? shoot it). It was the command economy that was not. If we have a low cost energy again, then the free world can expand rapidly into automated manufacturing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I interpret your remark as: "all you people condemning censorship in Russia better line up behind US foreign policy in the middle east, or I'll call you hypocrites for opposing dictatorship in one case and supporting it in the other." Is that about right?
whereas the base for authoritarianism in the US is only at the 30% of hard-core Bushies - now leaning towards Rudy - plus a few percent of the Hillary supporters.
I really don't think you can honestly categorize the hard core Bushie supporter as someone who is authoritarian, when, Bush's hallmark has been tax cuts, environmental deregulation, and a solid endorsement of the individual right to keep and bear arms. By contrast, ALL of Hillary's supporters demand higher taxes on everyone but themselves, a strong federal commitment, loss of sovereignty (and hence freedom), to combat various environmental issues, federal regulation of guns and increased federal powers on any number of issues.
Really, if anyone is authoritarian in the United States, it is the American left wing. We right wingers are just a bunch of rednecks that would just as soon not have a federal government at all.
This is my sig.
Bloggers actually think they have the least bit of influence on the political landscape. Especially this one from the article, in such strong words "it forces Putin's allies to respond to criticism rather than simply ignore it." Right.
---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
Everything you write is just a rationalization of your authoritarianism. Basically, you have this vision of society as perfect, you can't see how anyone else could disagree with your values, but recognize there are those that do, and you want the jackbooted thugs of the federal government to impose their views on everyone else.
Plain and simple.
If you were really interested in freedom, you would support those who would curtail federal power significantly. Anything else, is just more b.s.
This is my sig.
IMHO the issue is not how much a government is in control of things: the issue is if the government is expression of the people vs. expression of other interests.
Post-soviet but pre-Putin Russia has been for a while a completely deregulated country. Yet it was not a free country because the power was held by people with big capital or mafiosi (not exclusive or) and the ordinary citizen stood not a chance against them.
Since the late eighties in Italy we have a wave of privatization of formerly state owned infrastructure. Electricity, gas, telephony, university, railways, highways. Nothing was done to ensure competition. Ask my fellow countrymen: bills are up, service sucks more (luckily with some exceptions). Theoretically we are in a less authoritarian state, in practice authority has just shifted hands - away from the control of the citizen.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Get a grip people. The article is from the Washington Post - they have a terrible reputation for the quality of their overseas coverage, connected to the long-term reduction in journalistic resources in overseas bureaus - like Moscow.
If you want to read news from Moscow, track Bloomberg or Reuters instead, both of which actually have substantial teams on the ground there. Or even better - read the excellent English language editions of independent Moscow newspapers like Kommersant http://www.kommersant.com/. You don't need the Washington Post hawkish journos mangling the facts for you on Russia.
The Internet is almost completely unfettered in Russia and quite simply there is little indication that that is going to change in the future. The WashPost article is a beat-up and a joke.
The rights of an individual and in turn the collective rights of all individuals can be shared across all humanity. Nationalism has been and always will be seen as destructive. It is nothing but self serving camouflage for the failings of a society which the power 'elite'(those crazy, fucked up, psychopaths) hide behind to gain and maintain control over the ignorant masses. That is the real threat and power of the Internet, turning the ignorant masses into the informed masses and the power elite into convicts.
Not that democracies are always working to the benefit of individuals. In fact at the moment, there is a clear cut example of the abuse of the collective rights of individuals by the current US administration working in conjunction with major corporations and mass media, all based upon typical nationalistic lies. So no society is immune from the threat imposed by autocratic sociopaths, screaming nationalistic propaganda whilst they line their own pockets with the profits and blood of their fellow country men. A free and open internet is the best way by which to put those lies to a final well deserved end and put some of the worst criminal behind bars.
All, no thanks to those money grubbing slimy executives hiding behind their corporate façades, like the googlites, the microsofties and the yahoos et al corporate profits over the future of humanity.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Tell you what. I'm Russian, born here in Russia and living here since birth. And I consider myself a European, and so do the majority of people who I know. The acceptance of Western ideals such as individual freedom and liberalism varies, naturally, but it's nowhere near unanimous acceptance or rejection. Our present-day "patriotic" nationalists are mostly braindead "Greater Russia" style, bent on restoring the border to the original USSR one, introducing Eastern Orthodoxy as a state religion, and advocating historical revisionism bordering on Holocaust denial (ever heard of Holodomor, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, or the Katyn massacre? these people did, and they claim all those historical events for lies and "Western plots to undermine Russia"). Our politicians, including the President, breed nationalistic fervor where it suits them, but are otherwise busy splitting the country riches between themselves. Meanwhile, Russia is steadily falling in the various politic/economic freedom and corruption indices ever since Putin came to power, at the same time that number of government bureaucrats grows.
So, do tell, why do you feel you have any more right to teach us than the West? At least they have the examples of their own countries, which are faring rather well last I checked, to back their words. But I don't think there's anything Asian countries have worth learning in political sphere, judging from how the ones that have most freedom and strongest economies have heavily copied the West before (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan...). And no, thank you, I do not want my country to be like the PRC or Burma.
It's good to see the Russians regaining their natural strength after having it sapped by carpetbaggers from abroad.
Come on, Russian strength have been sapped by their Communist leaders much more than by foreign "carpetbaggers". The only really huge recent "sapping" of foreign origin was the German Nazi invasion in WW2. The rest -- especially since then -- the hundreds of thousands dead in labor camps, the near destruction of their economy caused by inefficient economic policies, their environmental and demographic problems etc. etc. is purely a doing of their ruling class.
Also, it is very questionable if Russia would have regained much strength just by itself, without the huge spike in oil prices Mr. Bush brought about with his Middle East policies. Just 5 years ago Russia was virtually broke, and the only significant increase in government revenue since then has been the windfall of oil profits.
Don't assume that what Russian government does is beneficial to the majority of Russian people. Little in their history suggest it has ever been so, and little in what Putin has done so far suggest a break with tradition.
Beside the very obvious fact that the average salary and life expectancy in Russia is still at third-world levels while they spend money on more weaponry, there is the interesting issue of how Putin government manages their oil production capacity.
Even in that super-important area the record of Putin's government is far from stellar according to many people in the know, and the recent developments of nationalizing the industry have seemingly resulted in gas shortages at home. (Look up for example what Vladimir Milov's has to say on the matter -- he ought to know as he is the chair of the _Russian_ energy policy institute).
Of course, you may hear little in terms of dissent from Russia. I'll let you guess why.
So you're saying that calling a court that is run by a theocracy based on religion X an "X court" is a blanket label? In what way? The OP only called one court Muslim, and it was one that IS Muslim. He linked to a court decision that was entirely based on Islamic law. The term "blanket label" is only applicable (at least in a pejorative sense) if the label is being misapplied to something it doesn't apply to. If you say that all dogs are mutts, that's a blanket label and untrue. If you point to a single labradoodle and call it a mutt, that's a statement of fact. Furthermore, if you say that ALL labradoodles are mutts, it is still a statement of fact, because they all, by definition, fit the definition of mutt.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
This difference between catholics and protestants does in NO way constitute a difference in the interpretation of the bible. 99.9% of the difference is basically "who runs the church ?". The bible doesn't help since it explicitly states that NOONE runs the church. Even the vatican itself claims only to be a source of advice, not an organization to run governments.
They do not differ in interpretation of canon law, just in who is the judge and what organizational decisions have been made.
Same for anglican church btw.
Just as the difference between sunni and shi'a is a difference about "who runs islam ?". You probably don't know their answers, so let me give them to you. Sunni : loosely coupled "church". Boss is basically the regime of saudi arabia in cooperation with 4 islamic universities (cairo and three others). Shi'a answer to who runs islam is a hierarchical system, with an Iraqi ayatollah (who is a nice guy btw) on top. The iranian government "partially" disputes this, because it considers itself part of this hierarchy and refuses to listen in a number of ways to this guy (guess what, mostly on, let's call it "foreign policy").
Note that both sects are together 99,9% of muslim, and both "sects" (islam as a whole is a sect, by any reasonable definition) support "imposing" sharia. Authority cannot come from humans, so democracy is evil, again for both sects.
Why don't you inform yourself ?