“The logical step would be to ban curtains in the apartment”: expert opinions on the ban on VPNs and anonymizers. How VPN services work in different countries and why anonymizers are difficult to ban
The Internet Ombudsman calls the bill “madness,” Yandex criticizes “excessive” measures, and the first anonymizer refused to cooperate with the authorities in advance.
To bookmarks
Yandex company office. Photo by Alexander Weinstein, Kommersant
On June 8, deputies of three factions submitted a bill to the State Duma prohibiting bypassing blocking using TOR, VPN services and anonymizers, as well as fines for search engines for links to sites with relevant methods and means.
TJ collected the opinions of experts and industry representatives who were the first to respond to the introduction of a high-profile bill.
Author of the bill and deputy
The adoption of the law will help close additional channels accessing prohibited links by removing them from the core network of search engine operators.
We will not block any services. We insist on more intensive and high-quality implementation of the bill, we are closing additional exit channels.
Maxim Kudryavtsev, deputy
A similar position is shared by Kudryavtsev’s colleague, head of the State Duma Committee on information policy, information technology and communications Leonid Levin. In his opinion, the law only restricts access to already prohibited information, and does not “introduce new bans or censorship.”
German Klimenko from criticizing the bill, noting that it does not imply a complete ban on VPN services and anonymizers. The Russian Presidential Advisor on Internet Issues recalled that they plan to ban means of bypassing blocking only in relation to sites blocked in the Russian Federation.
At the same time, Klimenko still doubted whether the law would work flawlessly.
Good question The question is whether this law will be effective, since most of the services providing such services are located outside of Russia.
German Klimenko, Presidential Internet Advisor
Internet Ombudsman
The Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs on the Internet, Dmitry Marinichev, called the bill “madness” and attention to the point where companies will be able to continue to use ways to bypass blocking.
Impossible to distinguish using a VPN as a way to bypass blocking for commercial purposes, the Internet Ombudsman recalled.
All this goes against common sense. The bill talks about technologies that allow you to bypass the blocking. First of all, these are VPNs and anonymizers. How will they separate a VPN that is used for commercial purposes from a VPN that is used to bypass blocks? It's impossible to determine.
According to him, technical feasibility There is a ban on end devices, but its use can be compared to “persecution of citizens in one’s own country” and a ban on “putting locks on doors.”
The keys must be handed over, and curtains and curtains must be removed from the windows so that one can see how citizens live.
Dmitry Marinichev, Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs on the Internet
Marinichev also drew an analogy with the USSR law banning home brewing.
This is the same thing. It is technically impossible to prohibit it, all this can be done by hand, and you can brew moonshine, but you can find someone with the help of a local police officer and punish them.
Dmitry Marinichev, Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Entrepreneurs on the Internet
Director for Strategic Projects at the Internet Research Institute Irina Levova, the bill is a step “towards the complete and final deprivation of the Russian population of constitutional rights.”
If the state’s task is to turn the country’s population into a herd of unthinking cattle, then, of course, a law must be passed.
Along with this logical step, there would be a ban on logic (which is no longer a compulsory subject) and some sections of mathematics, programming, an even greater simplification of Unified State Exam tests and, of course, a ban on the use of curtains in the apartment.
Irina Levova, Director of Strategic Projects, Internet Research Institute
"Yandex"
The Yandex press service said that the introduced bill imposes excessive measures on search engines. The company is referring to a possible obligation to unload domains that should be removed from search results and to prohibit the display of links to blocked pages.
If access is limited, Yandex is sure, it will not be at the level of search engines, which do not provide access to certain sites.
Even if the link to any resource is in search results, this does not mean that a user following a link will be able to access the resource if the resource has been blocked by a telecom operator or otherwise.
Yandex press service
After reviewing the document, Yandex noted its “extremely broad wording.” The company's main concern is that it is not yet possible to assess to whom exactly the requirements of the law will apply.
Rambler&Co
The company Rambler&Co (owns the publications Gazeta.ru, Lenta.ru and Championship.com) criticized the bill, calling it “more than crude” and harmful for owners of not the fastest connections.
We are talking about banning a technology that not only allows you to bypass the blocking, but also facilitates access to resources at low speeds when accessing the Internet.
Since the signing of the Yarovaya Law, there have been debates in the Russian media space about the future of anonymizers and VPN services: will they become a new panacea or will the state tighten the screws so much that there will be no freedom, even illusory, on the Internet. And already on June 8 it became known that the State Duma was going to consider a bill on a complete ban on anonymizers.
To protect personal data and information,
To access better quality entertainment content( , Netflix),
To access sites prohibited in the country (),
To access blocked sites from your workplace,
To communicate with relatives abroad.
And among the world's VPN consumption markets, Asian countries remain the largest. For example, 41% of residents of Indonesia, 37% of residents of the Kingdom of Thailand and 35% of Chinese citizens use secure networks to access information.
VPN services in China
With the development of technology, the popularity of mobile VPN applications is growing. The statistics are very logical - in Asian countries, various resources are most often blocked and, of course, China has succeeded in this.
With the development of the Internet, the Chinese authorities faced the question of reducing the influence of the West on Chinese culture and politics. As a result, the “Golden Shield” was launched, in other words, the “Great Firewall of China”, blocking access to certain sites.
An amazing fact is that the development of the “Golden Shield” was carried out by representatives of Western companies - Cisco, IBM, Yahoo.
Blocking access to prohibited resources has led to the fact that the progressive part of the population has mastered VPNs and proxies and happily uses these means of anonymization on the network.
However, China is closely monitoring the development of VPN services. Thus, in January of this year, Beijing authorities announced the closure of a dozen illegal VPN resources that helped end consumers bypass blocking of sites banned in the Land of the Rising Sun. True, this did not affect large companies that use VPN for data transfer.
China continues to stand by its ban, but with the advent of smartphones and the development and penetration of social networks, the existence of the Great Firewall of China becomes doubtful.
There is an opinion that the Golden Shield will gradually fall because it is not profitable for giant Chinese corporations to exist.
VPN services in the USA
In the USA the situation is completely different. The main prohibitions, as a rule, relate to the distribution of pirated content. The war between copyright holders and the torrent tracker the Pirate Bay is clear evidence of this. However, the use of anonymizers and VPN services in the States, as in Europe, is not prohibited by law. About 17% of Americans regularly used proxies and VPNs in 2014 to protect their personal data and access better content.
An interesting story is unfolding now with Netflix. After the service expanded its influence to almost the entire world, the resource's management declared war on consumers who use proxies, VPNs and other anonymization tools to view content not intended for their country. Thus, the video service is trying to please copyright holders. However, the situation looks quite ironic.
Considering that VPNs are designed specifically to hide end-user data, Netflix can only block the IP addresses of VPN providers and blacklist them.
Providers whose IPs are on the black list simply change their addresses and the game starts again. On the other hand, the “Streisand effect” kicks in and special resources appear on the network designed to bypass Netflix blocking.
Development scenarios
By and large, there are two options for the development of events in Russia:
Neutral. Roskomnadzor will continue to block sites with extremist content, but will not encroach on the freedom of VPN services. This scenario is being implemented now.
Hard. The government will gradually tighten the screws more and more, blocking VPNs used by end consumers. This is already happening to some extent.
In fact, even if the most negative scenario comes true, it will change little the situation on the Russian Internet.
- Firstly, because maybe not 95%, but about 67% of Russians do not know what a VPN is.
- Secondly, resources that are blocked, including VPNs, can create mirrors an infinite number of times and remain available. However, recently the government also approved a bill to block mirrors of sites that distribute pirated content.
VPNs and anonymizers have not yet been subject to the law, however, it will become more difficult for other resources to deal with blocking. But it is worth remembering that even the “Golden Shield” in China does not give unambiguously positive results and anyone can easily bypass it.
As for the State Duma’s consideration of the bill banning anonymizers, we do not believe that this is feasible.
It remains unclear how they are going to determine which VPN services are needed for commercial purposes from services that are used to bypass blocks? This is physically impossible to determine.
In addition, the ban on access to certain sites occurs, rather, from the fear of losing control over the demonic entity called the Internet, the laws of which are completely incomprehensible to the state. And not from good intentions.
If you need a time machine to find out the details of the events of two years ago, then investigation is simply not your calling. However, you can refute some of his recent videos based on the same 1000 euros. But nevertheless, you prefer to claim that it is not possible to prove truth or falsehood.
We have moved to the level of requiring proof of the non-existence of something. From the experience of debates on religious topics, I only assume that further arguments from the area of “you weren’t there” should come into play, I decided to preface them.
Are you serious? Don't you see the difference between information that is not trustworthy and information that is patently false? The first one has yet to be confirmed or refuted, but with the second everything is clear.
That's why I emphasized the functional difference.
Let's think logically. Shariy wanted to clearly show that this was a paid rally. To do this, he was not too lazy to highlight the wallets on the records, although, as we found out, the wallets themselves are not unambiguous evidence. Now the question is - if he really had reliable information about 200 hryvnia - what reasons could he have for not including it in the video about this rally? Why would there be then these worthless wallets, if here it is - reliable and verified information accurate to the hryvnia?
You are quite familiar with the reasons for dislike for Navalny in general within the framework of this discussion. Shariy adds to his claims that Navalny and his crowd are spreading false information about him personally.
You know, I learned that Navalny actually said something about Shariy only in this discussion with you. And I’m the one who more or less follows Navalny’s content. At the same time, Shariy himself produces incomparably more content about Navalny, even judging by the banal headlines. So there's Internet drama on display.
You either prove that there were not 200 of them, or do not mention this fact at all. If you, having watched the part of the video where this amount is mentioned, still do not understand what it means, then you should not focus on it.
You know, I didn’t even immediately realize that this amount was even mentioned in the video itself. But in the end it turned out to be a figure literally pulled out of thin air. This raises the question: what can be protected here?
Why does it have to be me? You tried to attach a similar label to Shariy with a proposal to refute it. Have you already forgotten?
This was a response to your accusations of me idealizing Navalny. And by the way, I didn’t call Shariy a Kremlinbot. Moreover, I fully explained my attitude towards him in this context.
Are you seriously? Slavyansk and Kramatorsk? It’s not just your lies, you even need to rub your nose into the map.
Or do you live in one-dimensional space? I repeat to you for the “one hundred and first” time, from Slavyansk and Kramatorsk to Mariupol, where they walked fighting, no one seemed to care about demilitarization, although it is obvious that these are precisely the people who understand how and what they influence similar solutions. But at the same time, people came from equally distant Melitopol and even Kharkov, where people have no idea what they are talking about and this will not affect their lives at all. Are you able to compare two situations without trying to mix things up and lead the discussion astray?
And you very delicately didn’t quote the rest of my quote? Well, let me do it for you:
In what locality did the rally in question take place? In Mariupol. Whaaaaat locality is it 200 kilometers away? Melitopol (about 200 kilometers away, but it doesn’t matter). What settlement 200 kilometers from Mariupol are we talking about in Shariy’s video under discussion? About Melitopol. When did the fighting take place in Melitopol? Never.
Well, let me immediately ask one more leading question - who and after what even remembered about Slavyansk and Kramatorsk? Mmm?
You have not found out anything, because you are not able to refute this information, you are absolutely unarmed and helpless in this matter. And in the case of Kamikaze, he has already received a lawsuit for his lies and fled the country. You have “veils before your eyes.”
As it turned out, there was nothing to refute there initially. And this story is about the veil before our eyes, mmm... I have straight Vietnamese flashbacks about people who use similar phrases “woke” and all that...
Those. I take it you are not an atheist? If this is a matter of faith, then everything is clear with you. IN in this case you don't need any proof? And the absence of a reason does not hint to you that this is just an attempt to “hype” empty space? Once again you refuse to draw obvious conclusions.
Should you talk about atheism after all this apologetics around Shariy?
If I hurt your tender feelings so much by using the phrase “I believe,” then let me rephrase - based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that this is an organized process. However, I don’t quite understand the reason for your overexcitement from this word, because I just answered your question in style, in which you also used the phrase “believe.” If it was a deliberate provocation, then ugh to do that, it’s somehow pathetic and really at the kindergarten level.
Don't you forget that he is absurd specifically in technically? But in terms of logic, everything is clear with him, the desire for total surveillance. Yes, it is technically impossible under current conditions, but the desire of the authorities to have it is absolutely logical and understandable. And I, in turn, suggest that you think logically.
And it’s probably logical for the authorities to want to live forever and have endless benefits. All that remains is to wait for the corresponding bill to be adopted so that you can say that everything in it is logical. And what was this for?
What do you think about the possibility that the whole situation itself is a lie and nothing special is happening with their videos in comparison with other authors on YouTube? Is this all just empty PR? Is this option really not possible for you?
I followed other bloggers not from Russia, I know that this is not the first time such a situation has happened, so the very fact of such a precedent does not particularly surprise me. That's why I mentioned Youtube's policy. However, I am not particularly convinced that it is not carried out under the influence, for the reasons stated above.
Well, you can look through them and see the contents for yourself. The main point is that YouTube has been creating political problems for a long time, but they mainly relate to the monetization of video data. The drop in profits touched the blogger Kamikaze to the core and he began to complain everywhere about the “tricks of the Kremlin,” however, as usual. Then the whole “non-systemic party” decided to pick up the topic, because... The problem with monetization is actually well-known and global, so we decided to come up with our own, albeit rather absurd one. But which of their fans will think about causes and consequences? Something is happening - which means the Kremlin is to blame, the goal has been achieved.
Well, excuse me, such a narrative does not really agree with the fact that the Kremlin (in the broad sense) is the leader in requests for deletion on Youtube. However, I admit this option. And just as this was condemned before, I see no reason not to condemn it now. Why shouldn't Shariy focus on this? By the way, it would be interesting to know - what percentage of Shariy’s videos are monetized? Do you know if this was mentioned somewhere?
Questions should arise for everyone.
They appear to everyone :) By the way, I wish the same for you.
But it is not that these statements convey reliable information.
Definitely. It would be very interesting to check the reliability of this information, wouldn’t it?
If we speak beyond the criteria of absolute conviction or questions of evidence beyond doubt, what do you yourself think is more likely? Since you are using these kinds of criteria in relation to the rally in Mariupol, I think it would be fair to apply them to Usmanov as well? How convinced are you of Usmanov’s crystal honesty and that such accusations cannot be based on anything? Which probability do you think is more significant?
This is not just a “technical inaccuracy”, it is a deliberate manipulation to heat up the situation. Don't you understand this?
It seems to me that the very fact that people are imprisoned for expressing their opinions in in social networks That in itself is enough to heat up the situation.
It’s not difficult to find, nor is it difficult to read the contents of these “reposts”. You will be imprisoned for this in any developed democratic country.
And indeed, for example here - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Chudnovets
But I’m not particularly convinced about the “they’ll put you in prison in any developed democratic country.” I can agree that there were such precedents, but not that this is a criterion characterizing a developed democracy in the country.
We have already discussed this issue; the film deliberately contains false information that Usmanov is supposedly a criminal. But this cannot be so in accordance with the law until the relevant court decision. And the demand for witnesses will not change this fact. Within the framework of this trial there was not and could not be a task to clarify all the details from Usmanov’s past, but the task was to establish the fact of slander, which is done without special problems. Navalny used a deliberately losing formulation, quite possibly intentionally.
If within the framework of this trial there was no task to clarify the details of Usmanov’s past, this only proves that Navalny, in principle, was not entitled to protection. Which, in general, was what needed to be proven :)
In your wallet? Not the best place to store such desserts.
So they immediately ate the cupcake right on the spot. The tracks were covered.
In Sokolovsky’s case, if only “only”, but no.
So why not?
This means that you cannot claim that she eats them, as well as appeal to this investigation as evidence of anything.
Without a doubt. What practical conclusion can be drawn from this? It is possible to prove that Yarovaya eats children only through court (apparently?). But what if we assume that the court is biased (we won’t discuss the reason for such doubts? Let me just throw in the name Turovsky, and then we’ll do our own thing)? How then to prove that she eats children?
Aren’t you surprised or where are the bad relationships?)
Unscrupulous? How is that? Such concepts do not exist in geopolitics. Do not try to compare relations between states with human relations, this cannot be the case, not on our planet.
A good excuse for any savagery, such as invading a neighboring country.
If by “lost” you mean that we will not return to cooperate within the next 6 years, then yes, prove it. Otherwise, this is only a suspension of cooperation, and not its loss.
Now I need a time machine to go to the future? Or will we discuss the assessments of various experts, which are obviously contradictory, and therefore do not clearly indicate any position? Be that as it may, this moment There are no prerequisites for restoring cooperation. So suspended cooperation is functionally identical to the loss of Ukraine for us. Which brings us back to the original argument.
Where did you get this? I am saying that regardless of the past, there will be no obstacles to restoring the relationship, everything depends on the need for these relationships as such. You can have a long, cloudless history of mutually beneficial cooperation between countries, or you can drop an atomic bomb on some country and still make it your reliable strategic partner, it makes no difference, it all depends on the need and the situation.
How possible do you think mutually beneficial cooperation between Israel and Palestine is?
The dispute was that his quick departure is not guaranteed; he is just as likely to be re-elected for a second term; so far there is no basis for clear conclusions.
Didn’t you notice that you disagreed with me from both directions and in the end both lines converged into one big, bold uncertainty?)
This is if we omit the arguments on the topic of who needs Poroshenko at all...
External players can lose control over the puppets, at the latter's request. The goal is to prevent such a desire from arising.
Again, operating with some abstract incomputable probabilities...
You will study the issue in more detail. To reintegrate Donbass, Ukraine needs to carry out a constitutional reform aimed at decentralizing power; this is the same demand for “federalization” that was raised by Donbass initially. This region will have the right to form its own policy, enshrined in the constitution, as well as the opportunity to veto controversial decisions affecting the entire country. Disagreements, the resolution of which is enshrined in law, are not a problem.
There is an opinion that the issue of self-government of Donbass is still at the forefront here. And this in no way answers the question that two diametrically opposed groups are being formed in the country, which will obviously not agree with each other on any issue, which will only lead to the paralysis of all and any foreign policy decisions. As a result, someone will have to cave in and I see no reason for the current government of Ukraine to adopt such a policy. It must be assumed that this is why these decisions are torpedoed. Yes, the situation for the residents of Donbass is unenviable, to say the least.
And yet you chose not to reveal it. This is, of course, your right, but it is also a conscious decision for which there are objective reasons.
Undoubtedly. The objective reasons are that I see no reason to switch to ad hominem arguments. If you disagree, that is your right.
So you yourself are not interested? Then why do you reserve the right to say something on this topic? I have previously given you sources of food for thought, here are more recent ones:
https://youtu.be/HY90JIqbsUs
https://youtu.be/gqbKvEOk7JY
https://youtu.be/edHNNhL71EEYou can always get up-to-date information about the Middle East on the Internet from Dzhangirov, Vidishenko, Finko and Kedmi, in most cases it is even free.
This is all undoubtedly entertaining, but to be honest, I don’t have the time to listen to 3 hours of abstract lectures about the Middle East for the sake of a sarcastic answer to you. Let's take the conversation in a more constructive direction, shall we? You have undoubtedly read the said content? Perhaps you can briefly outline what the essence is? Perhaps even with links to timestamps? Then we will be able to discuss the theses directly presented.
What is the connection between German turbines and the USA? Everyone solves their own problems; they do not always act as a united front, but in Lately especially.
The connection is simple - both of them are pursuing a policy of sanctions against Russia. And the idea was precisely their unity on this issue.
The sanctions are the same, but the reason will change slightly. In your opinion, are the sanctions for allegedly interfering in the American elections somehow related to the reality in this matter? Russia in the United States is always positioned as an opponent, even as a probable enemy, for this reason, using sanctions against it for one’s own benefit is the simplest and most effective solution, which does not raise any questions in the USA.
Are we really going to argue that if all these events related to us in Ukraine had not happened, then such pressure would not have been put on Russia and there would not have been so many sanctions as now? Or are you trying to reduce the argument to: Maybe in a parallel universe where these events did not happen, the United States would still have unleashed sanctions, because it is impossible to prove or disprove, and the fact that for some reason sanctions were not imposed until 2014 does not mean anything?
What a scene it was, Yanukovych set the theme for the play and immediately ran away when he saw the participation of foreign actors. The blame for the tens of thousands killed in the military conflict lies directly with the revolutionaries and the European leaders who supported them, who considered a military solution to this conflict possible and approved the bloodshed in Europe. And in Europe they are fully aware of their mistake, but, of course, they will never admit it.
Well, it’s a little strange to expect any other events from the first act from a play on the theme “Bloodshed and Revolution,” isn’t it?
Reduced the number of these violations. It also documented that there are violations on both sides, and not as official Kyiv claims.
Number of violations associated with OSCE surveillance? Where does this information come from? Did documenting violations on the part of Ukraine entail any consequences?
They don’t provide it? Do you not see the difference between the active phase of hostilities and rare violations? And for those who “don’t get it,” they will “explain” it properly.
It does not, according to the same OSCE, which during its monitoring has repeatedly observed both an increase and a decrease in the number of violations. And who will explain to those who don’t get it? Who's there interested party? Ukraine with radicals who, if they start explaining something to them there, will pump up their rights in Kyiv? Or are we with our troops, who supposedly aren’t there at all? Or militias who have nowhere to go?
But this is an absurd example for the sake of “an owl is not a globe.” Doesn't this bother you?
The very need to explain why the repetition of condemned actions is a double standard offends me.
What a question? Will you also ask other YouTube channels? On television, the rules are much stricter.
Is there any point in remembering any cool stories about journalistic ethics or a good source of information if the channel is obviously known to be jaundiced?
In this discussion, this label is visible a mile away.
So evaluate yourself “by your desires and actions” to label your opponent with labels, whether they are visible to you or not.
Videos related to this topic are obvious. Do you have anything to say about the case?
Will we cling to slander about “all” of his videos, like you and Navalny? No? Nevermind.
Let's go back to the previous message:
I am extremely unhappy with the wording that runs through his entire video, which sounds like “among people from the Caucasus there are also normal people" It carries a completely different message than the usual formulation “there are also abnormal people.” I regard his deliberate distortion of this phrase in this way every time in public speeches as extremism without a shadow of a doubt.
What exactly doesn’t suit you about this formulation? Do you not agree that there are also normal people among people from the Caucasus? And what was the distortion of this phrase? Well, it’s somehow jaundiced to use the connotation of public speaking in the case of video blogging...
What do you mean by not sign? I was interested in the question of the justice of his accusations of extremism, and for this I had to familiarize myself with him and find confirmation of the justice of such accusations, I found them, I am not interested in his further activities.
This is exactly what interests me, moreover, I am familiar with him to exactly the same extent. So what did you find so extremist there?
This sentence does not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation in any way.
Well this is quite some kindergarten with negation and “la-la-la, does not contradict, does not contradict.” You should at least give an argument. Yes, I know that it is further, consider this a stylistic quibble.
The Constitution defines the foundations of government, but regulates them by the criminal code. The court found that Sokolovsky violated Article 148, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by denying the existence of God with the aim of insulting the feelings of believers. The constitution does not give rights to such actions. Are you smart? Maybe rewatch his video and make sure that his goal was precisely insult, and not denial itself?
With pleasure, let's give an example. At the same time, please explain to me how in general the denial of the existence of God can be offensive and for what specific reasons are those offended not judged in this case for inciting hostility and denying the constitutional rights of other people to their freedom of religion. The very concept of someone declaring that people who claim to have a different faith are the first to be insulted, doesn’t it seem a little unhealthy to you? How would you react to a situation where, in response to a statement that you are not a fan of any football club, you were accused of being an insult to Spartak fans by your lack of fandom?
You are in vain hoping for their death. From the point of view of an individual, that’s where they belong. But no one will leave society as a whole without control and the media will not go anywhere.
It’s not in vain, but the trend is quite observable. Especially in the west. As we know, we follow him in all trends with a delay.
Not everything, but what he allows himself for now. Let's do without manipulation.
The fact that he still allows himself to other people completely fits the article. At the same time, the question of his parliamentary immunity is not even raised. And yes, let's not manipulate.
This is what parliamentary immunity is for. Deputies should have the right to say what someone does not like and not be held responsible for it. If they go too far, they lose their mandate and keep their mouth shut or bear responsibility. This is an absolutely normal state structure.
And again, what he says would bring other people under criminal charges. Very interesting thing It turns out - parliamentary immunity, isn't it?
Formal adherence to procedures is important. If such a formality looks absurd, but nevertheless allows you to comply with the law and save face, then they use it. Literally, it’s not pretty, but it’s legally clear.
Ooooh, how they started talking. And since formal compliance with procedures is important, why was the status of religious people who acted as offended not checked at Sokolovsky’s trial? At least even according to the criteria voiced by the court, if not according to the standards of the declared religion? Because we are not talking about justice, but purely telephone law and obscurantism? And no one even thought that in our country someone might be outraged by obscurantism?
I found confirmation of extremism. And you know, if I look in more detail, I’ll probably find a call for genocide, because Sokolovsky didn’t follow the words at all, youthful maximalism just rushes on. But, due to the disgusting manner of presenting information, I think I’ll leave this question open and won’t mock myself.
And what kind of call to extremism was this? You guess that this argument will fall apart if you put it next to the features of extremism?
Of course, you should also be responsible for the form in which your attitude is presented. One and the same relation can be expressed by many different words and their combinations. For example, Posner for regular denial existence of god in live on Channel One, however, there is nothing to attract, a wise person knows how to formulate thoughts correctly.
Based on the formal criteria you mentioned above, it is quite possible to attract him. And him and any other atheist and all representatives of non-Abrahamic religions (and even some of them). Posner himself, obviously, believes something approximately similar, taking into account his own wise formulations -
These are the wordings
I consider it necessary to warn you that I may be brought to trial and sentenced to prison. This is as surprising to me as it is to you, so let me explain.Last Thursday, the Verkh-Isetsky District Court of Yekaterinburg sentenced blogger Ruslan Sokolovsky to three and a half years probation. He was found guilty, in particular, of insulting the feelings of believers. According to judge Ekaterina Shaponyak, the insult to the feelings of believers was formed, I quote, “Through the denial of the existence of God, the denial of the existence of the founder of Christianity and Islam, Jesus Christ and Muhammad.”
I would like to remind you that when the law on insulting the feelings of believers was adopted a little over three years ago, many warned that it would be used to persecute opponents of the church. That's what happened. A person denies the existence of God, that is, he is an atheist. Once upon a time, people were burned at the stake for denying the existence of God, that is, for atheism; in particular, the “Holy Inquisition” was passionate about this. I have no doubt that to this day there are people who regret that this method of fighting heresy is no longer used, I will not name names, otherwise they will be brought under Article 248 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for inciting hatred, but I cannot help but refer in response to the words of the Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, Hegumen Serapion, who, commenting, I quote: “Such a lenient sentence,” expressed the hope that Sokolovsky would take it as a sign that “there is mercy in this world and that there is a source of this mercy - God". Where was God when they burned at the stake... well, that’s the question.
I am known to be an atheist. Therefore, I believe that there is no God. It’s not that I run around and shout “no, no” from morning to evening, but I don’t hide my convictions either. I would like to receive a comprehensive explanation: by professing this view, am I violating the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation? Maybe Patriarch Kirill will say whether I offend his religious feelings by claiming that there is no God? Perhaps the Chairman of the Constitutional Court will tell me whether I have the right to think what I think and express what I express? Perhaps the head of state will clarify whether I am awaiting trial and, God willing, excuse the pun, a lenient sentence?
This is all water, the main idea remains the same - the absence of evidence of a fact deprives the right to assert it.
Oh, and now it’s all just water. Comfortable. You would like more uniformity of approach regarding what is water and what is not.
State Duma deputies Russian Federation voted for laws regulating the work of instant messengers and banning means of bypassing site blocking.
These laws are published on the website of the Automated System for Supporting Legislative Activities of the State Duma of Russia.
VPNs and anonymizers
Services were also required to provide the ability to transfer emails at the initiative of government agencies in accordance with Russian legislation.
The head of the relevant State Duma committee on information policy, Leonid Levin, commented on information about a possible ban, according to this law, access to instant messengers for individual users.
“The introduced regulation provides for sanctions only against instant messenger operators if they contribute to violation of the law. There are no plans for any fines or direct bans against users,” he said.
According to the new law, information about the subscriber number of messenger users can be transferred to third parties only with the consent of the first. The law also establishes the obligations of the messenger to identify users by subscriber number operator on the basis of an agreement with the operator. In addition, the law stipulates that instant messengers belonging to legal entities or Russian citizens registered in Russia have the right to be identified by their subscriber number.
The document notes that if messengers fail to comply with the requirements regarding restrictions on sending messages with information that violates the requirements of Russian legislation, it is possible to restrict access to the messenger in the country.