SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17 2019, @11:29PM
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.