
Facebook blocks Russian page supporting Navalny, Putin's biggest critic - geoka9
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/facebook-blocks-russian-page-supporting-navalny-putins-biggest-critic/2014/12/20/a8c782b8-8877-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html
======
DenisM
This incident highlights dangers of centralized information distribution
brought to us by social networks - being a single point of control they
present attractive target for pressure by censors of all kinds, be it dictator
regimes, powerful corporations in the west, etc. It's not unlike Napster -
there is a lot of benefit to everyone being in one place, but far too easy to
subvert. The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path -
gradual decentralization.

~~~
sysk
> The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path -
> gradual decentralization.

Like the web? Sorry for the snark but being blocked from Facebook is the
equivalent of being blocked from Geocities in my mind. I do think a
decentralised social network would be a step forward but let's not attribute
too much power to Facebook as it only gives them more legitimacy.

~~~
xnull2guest
I do think Facebook has a lot of pull. Many people get their news through
their Facebook feed (an awful idea) - at least many people that I know. And
it's the largest place where you can discuss things with close friends and
family _in mass_. Other places on the internet allow mass broadcast - for
information dispersal content not only matters but also source/reputation.

~~~
maigret
Yes, similar case for Google... Looking at some countries where Google has 90%
market share, when you are deleting something from Google, you are effectively
mostly deleting the content page itself - at least reducing the discovery by a
factor 10, which can be critical.

~~~
chii
but then what would be the solution to such a problem? Without centralization,
content discovery/search is difficult.

~~~
dandelion_lover
Did you not hear about [http://yacy.net](http://yacy.net) ?

------
mkempe
If you want freedom of the press, you should own the press. Today that may
mean a distant web server or two, a printer, some paper, some ink. The
samizdat was not built on the shoulders of some corporate behemoth.

Wherever you may live, don't expect Facebook to be your agent for freedom. On
the contrary.

~~~
anonymfus
Your own server has much bigger chances to be banned than popular site.
Because banning Facebook, Google, or ever Github will cause outrage amongst
people who never heard about you.

~~~
raquo
Not so sure about that. Russian regulators normally don't care about tiny
operations that don't influence the popular opinion. For example, there are
lots of blogs talking trash about Putin and no one cares. But if you're as big
as Google, you can't have "fuck Putin" on your front page. That usually leads
to persecution for bullshit reasons like Navalny here.

~~~
anonymfus
[https://antizapret.info/](https://antizapret.info/)

See bunch of sites banned by Генпрокуратура since 21st of December? This is
mostly personal blogs with posts about planned 15.01.2015 protests.

------
danabramov
They blocked this event:
[https://www.facebook.com/events/417200101767938/](https://www.facebook.com/events/417200101767938/)

Somebody quickly created another one which gathered followers twice as quickly
[1]:
[https://www.facebook.com/events/406603402849183/](https://www.facebook.com/events/406603402849183/)

Since there are no organizers, if this one is taken down, people will create a
new one.

Finally, there's a website redirecting to the newest unblocked event in case
current one gets blocked: [https://15.navalny.us](https://15.navalny.us)

[1]:
[http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/554179.html](http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/554179.html)

------
eliben
The relations of tech giants with totalitarian governments like Russia is a
typical tragedy of the commons. The only step that makes sense for the common
good is to remove all business from that country. But Facebook can't do it,
because then Google will get all the profits, and Google/Yahoo/whomever can't
do it for the same reason. If they all could just agree...

~~~
wmeredith
Holy hell, there's more to this world than profit. Of course Facebook has a
choice. Or more directly in this case, Zuckerberg does. If he can unilaterally
spend $19b on Snapchat and have "The Fucking CEO" on his business card, then
he can certainly say, "we're pulling out of Russia, because there are more
important things than money". This is disgusting.

~~~
chii
> "we're pulling out of Russia, because there are more important things than
> money"

if he really thinks like that, he won't be as rich as he is today (and i m
also speaking generically about those who are very rich). You don't become
_that_ successful without giving up something.

------
onewaystreet
The alternative is that all of Facebook gets blocked. People wanting to access
this page are better off doing so through TOR anyway.

~~~
imaginenore
Except, from what I hear, Facebook itself blocked it for all the users
registered in Russia, so TOR can't help you.

~~~
goblin89
> from what I hear, Facebook itself blocked it for all the users registered in
> Russia, so TOR can't help you.

What do you mean by “registered in Russia”? If Facebook doesn’t employ IP
geolocation or something of that sort then anyone who feels strongly about the
issue will simply change or unset their country in profile settings.

------
huhtenberg
A bit of OT, but based on what I read on Russian Internets this Navalny person
is generally recognized as a US sock-puppet even in the anti-Putin circles.
His trial _is_ clearly political, but it's less about him personally and more
about keeping pressure on other agents of influence.

Facebook and Twitter though ... they don't have much choice, do they? They
don't comply - they get a site-wide ban in Russia, which is hardly a headache
they want being for-profit entities. Capitalism at work.

~~~
geoka9
"Anti-Putin circles" is rather vague. It covers anything from the extreme
right to the extreme left. If a "circle" is xenophobic then, surely, most of
the centrist/liberal opposition are US sock-puppets to them, simply by the
virtue of having a similar political agenda to the Western mainstream
politics.

I, personally, am not a fan of Navalny (I dislike racial slur in his blog
posts and some of his views that I consider chauvinist), but the trend is
clear: he and Khodorkovsky have been the only viable opposition leaders in
Russia in the recent years. Both of them ended up in jail on similar white-
collar crime charges.

~~~
huhtenberg
There's certain logic to what happened to Khodorkovksy (and earlier to
Berezovsky and few other people) - they all were oligarchs, they blatantly
stole their way into their riches, but they were allowed by the state to use
them. That is until they tried to use their money to try and un-sit those who
let them become obnoxiously wealthy. They weren't the opposition per se. They
were just former buddies that got drunk on money power and decided to play
against their own. And they lost.

~~~
geoka9
So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs that dared to "bite
the hand that fed"? OK, Khodorkovsky has spent 10 years in prison, been
stripped of his billions and forced to leave the country upon release.

But Navalny and Kasparov are not, and have never been, oligarchs; however they
are either in prison or in exile (I'm sure Kasparov would be prosecuted right
now, but he chose to leave Russia in 2013).

~~~
raquo
Navalny and Kasparov are in trouble because they had a shot at gaining popular
momentum. Khodorkovsky privately expressed desire for a more free Russia to
Putin, and was shot down as a warning to others.

Putin prosecutes everyone who goes against him apart from allowing a minimal
opposition to exist for the sake of appearance and venting off angry people's
steam.

"Shut up, look down and you'll be allowed to live" is a very popular theme in
Russia across all levels from the president down to local municipal offices.
If you go against those in power you will be persecuted proportionally to
their power.

The important thing to understand about modern Russia is that there is no
separation of power. Putin owns the parliament, the government, the military,
and the judges. As a corollary, everyone is guilty of something, and if not,
they are made to be.

~~~
p1esk
Putin owning the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges is
not the problem. The problem is that he's not able to, or not willing to, use
all that power to improve life in Russia.

~~~
raquo
But that _is_ the problem – he has no incentive to do anything good for the
country because he has absolute power and controls mass media. He is not
accountable to anyone.

In fact, he sort of benefits from people struggling. When you're hungry you
don't care about democracy _that_ much.

By the way, Russians' lives did improve relative to early 1990s which is what
most people remember most vividly. It's just that Putin has little to do with
it, it's just a matter of rising oil prices and increased trade.

~~~
drdaeman
To be fair, I don't think it's that simple. He must do at least some good for
the country, or the country would suffer and he wouldn't have much to
parasitize upon. He must be beyond any imaginable madness to play "let's see
how long I can fuck with this country"-type of game, so, by Hanlon's razor, I
hypothesize it's more like he's trying to do some good (and has incentive to
do so), but has completely weird ideas on what's good and by which means it
could be achieved.

Still, no matter what Putin's thinking, I don't like what's going on.

~~~
raquo
Well, he does _some_ good, sure, the kind that any generic country manager
would do. Normal maintenance-mode deeds of good. But I can't recall any
significant positive things that he did in the last few years, other than
providing significant state support if you give birth to or adopt your second
child ($10K I think). Maybe you can add Skolkovo to the list, but we are yet
to see how that pans out. For now it feels like a money grab... but then
again, what isn't.

On the flip side, rampant corruption makes government spending incredibly
inefficient. Putin could kill all this off in a year if he wanted to, but he
doesn't, because he knows how to work this kind of system. Be closer to the
top, get more benefits to screw everyone else. That makes for a very stable
power structure. No one will rise against him because all those with any sort
of power are part of the scheme and treasure their position in the food chain.

So, even though Russia is filthy rich with oil money (50% of federal budget),
they can only use a tiny fraction of that money for actual improvements to the
country. Russia could by far surpass Eastern Europe in quality of life today
if its government was working with any comparable efficiency, but that is the
opposite of what is happening.

~~~
chii
> Russia is filthy rich with oil money

but that money has to go somewhere - what is being spent on? Any sort of
domestic production is surely going to improve the lives of some people (ala,
trickle down effect).

Also, the oil money can't last - there's limited oil after all. If the country
can't produce other things except natural resources, it's going to get fucked,
only a matter of time. And world war 2 is essentially a fight for resources.

~~~
raquo
The money goes to corrupt officials and contractors, the Russian 1%. Apart
from some normal stuff they spend it on luxury goods – iphones, bentleys,
jets, yachts, depending on the level. Showing off your status like that is
exceedingly popular in Russia.

At the same time, Russia produces very few such goods and thus much of this
money simply flows out of the country. Besides, rich people spend a much lower
percent of their income than the average Ivan does, so they park their savings
offshore – in foreign bank accounts, real estate, etc. The reason they do it
is because anything they have in Russia can be taken away in a matter of hours
if they ever find themselves on the wrong side of the power field.

So yes, as you see corruption leads to capital outflow which is a real problem
in Russia. In fact, we had some new laws passed to address that, not sure
about the extent or effectiveness.

You're right though, Russia is beginning to see resource exhaustion – easily
accessible forests, oil fields, etc. are gradually drying up. That's why we're
ramping up arctic research for example. So while oil money won't last forever,
we could have used it to kick-start our economy and infrastructure. There are
so many talented engineers in Russia.

