Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Wednesday April 17 2019, @03:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the an-internet-vs-The-Internet dept.

The Russian parliament has approved a law creating a separate, domestic network, separate from the Internet. This Russian network of networks will be fully isolatable and will mean that the country's communications will become autonomous and able to continue functioning even when the plug is pulled on Russia's connections to the Internet at large. Concerns increase that this move will be used more for control of content and even just plain censorship, and make any attempts at circumventing restrictions much more difficult. The law is expected to take effect November 1st. Russia has already banned certain programs, such as Telegram.

One of the law's goals is to keep as much of the data exchanged between Russian internet users within the country's borders as possible. This aim may sound like a move to protect Russian users from external threats, but rights groups have warned that the new measures could ultimately be directed at Kremlin critics rather than international adversaries.

The idea of increasing the government's control over the internet is part of a more long-term national policy trend. In 2017, officials said they wanted 95% of internet traffic to be routed locally by 2020. Since 2016, a law has required social networks to store data about Russian users on servers within the country. The law was officially presented as an anti-terrorism measure — but many criticized it as an attempt to control online platforms that can be used to organize anti-government demonstrations.

Also at Silicon: Russian Parliament Passes Bill To Isolate Internet.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:18PM (7 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @07:18PM (#831249) Journal

    Ilsa, I don't think he's wrong. As much as I hate basically everything about his (utter lack of) morals and personality, he is largely correct about the motives of the elite, and I think he's especially prescient about why there's so much cracking down on the internet itself, as well as why corporations are being allowed to turn it into TV 2.0.

    Never, but never, trust a career politician. They all just want power, and to the deepest depths of Hell with everyone and everything else, especially if any of it stands in their way. A free and open internet scares seven shades of shit out of the RWA types (whom he is of course one of, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day...)

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:04PM

    by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 17 2019, @08:04PM (#831280)

    While he may be correct about individual details, the way he mashes them together into an incoherent mess destroys one's ability to have a sensible discussion about it. He's also contradictory. First he complains about social media clamping down on free speech, then he's worried gov'ts will crack down as well, ignoring the fact that if they do so then social media companies will be required to obey anyway.

    VPNs cannot solve the "censorship issue" when it's the platforms themselves that are doing the censoring. Especially when that censorship is mandated by gov't.

    Putin only give a rats ass about social media insomuch as he can use it to manipulate western countries as he has been doing. He is creating the great firewall of Russia because he wants to, and because he can.

    Putting the blame on social media as the instigators of this global crackdown is just a convenient excuse that masks much larger problems that arn't even tech related. Having social media deplatform people is their attempt to stop the nutjobs from ruining it for everyone else and gives gov't less ammunition to justify a real crackdown (IMO too little too late... soylent is as close as I get to social media now). But as Putin is demonstrating, gov't will do what they want anyway. They'll just find the easiest excuse to justify it. And if they can't find one, they'll make one up, like Bush did to justify the Iraq war.

    We need to look less at the smoke and mirrors that is social media and evaluate the real causes of all this rising hostility.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @09:18PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @09:18PM (#831314)

    Ilsa, I don't think he's wrong. As much as I hate basically everything about his (utter lack of) morals and personality, he is largely correct

    Why was this necessary to add? I'm not trying to start anything here(*) but I am thinking this is some unconcious variation on virtue signalling, and as such, ought to be avoided in order to maintain intellectual honesty. Maybe there is a word for it.

    (*) Not pointing fingers, it was an accident that user 5086 did this when I felt like unlurking. It happens quite often, like e.g. in the Assange reporting where pundits saying that this is bad for journalism but he's a pig . Why is it necessary to add that? Is there a minimal level of belligerence that needs to be maintained? I can't put my words to why it is, but it feels underhanded, and makes me sad.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:09PM (1 child)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:09PM (#831351) Journal

      Go look up J-Mo's post history and you'll see why I don't want to be associated with that son of a bitch at all. THAT is why I typed that.

      There are people on this site who will actually look for cases of me agreeing with someone else and use it to say "Aha! See? SEE?! She AGREED with $THAT_GUY_SHE_ARGUES_WITH, what a hypocrite!" That's the level of discourse this place has sunken to.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:29PM (#831390)

        I am vaguely aware of what he writes. I have made substantial (but polite) mental reservations about both of you. (metameta: now I am guilty too! what!) It seems to me that you both hold "classical" opinions in the sense that there is an establishment that includes both of you, and that is a safe place to be.

        With regards to the hypocrisy, I would expect the opposite, actually. Disagreeing with the person for the sake of disagreeing is the hypocrisy, (or phrased differently, inconsistently displayed opinion, whatever), so if someone made that charge, it would be stupid beyond comprehension. Aside from that formal disagreement, I see what you are trying to say.

        But the thing is, the three of us appear to have things in common that should not be dismissed (actually, dismiss it; I don't want to be blackbagged, I just like to vent truth); namely, we have opinions that have been shaped by our environments, that goes hand in hand with the inculcation of a very special kind of lie, namely that of the existence of a free press. (That lie also should make us interrogate ourselves about all beliefs that are reinforced by MSM.) I suspect, all three of us feel deeply betrayed. There was no rite of passage, and ... little free press to validate this knowledge, with remaining publication outlets now being suppressed in a tyrannical but non-violent manner. What I am getting at, is that the people who are actually in charge would see value of a people in disarray.

  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:20PM (2 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @10:20PM (#831356)

    Just to chime in with my $0.02 worth.

    The bit I took out of jmorris' comment was

    We won't be permitted a real wall to stop hordes of invaders of course...

    which shows to me that despite everything, his fears are still that weird combination of "small government" right-wing nonsense, and wanting to make that "small government" even bigger.

    In one breath he goes on about government control, and in the next he wants to build the wall, despite all the evidence being that people arrive in the US by airplane (what with it being 2019 and all).

    I wonder what he would argue if someone advocated for reducing the military budget by $200 billion or so and spending that money on healthcare or education?

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:15PM (1 child)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:15PM (#831381) Journal

      Well, yeah, anyone expecting the alt-right not to contradict itself at every turn is going to be disappointed. They think with the lizard brain, their giant overactivated amygdala, and that pesky cerebral cortex is only there for the use it has in making supporting arguments...

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...