INTERNET AGAINST THE “MATRIX”

INTERNET

While the war in Chechnya and fighting in Ingushetia are going on, while Russia is getting to the first place in the world in drug trafficking, and criminal groups control entire regions, our special services have gone headlong into the Internet. There is no more problem in the Fatherland ...

While the war in Chechnya and fighting in Ingushetia are going on, while Russia is approaching the first place in the world in drug trafficking, and criminal gangs control entire regions, our special services have gone headlong into the Internet.

There is no problem in the Fatherland more important than the control of the Network. And the generals, for whom Tetris is still the most difficult program, are supported by senators from those regions of the country where they have not been paid salaries for years.

Virtual politicians against the virtual world: the "matrix" has entered into battle with the "world wide web", the whole fault of which is that it cannot be non-free.

As soon as Ivan Zasursky learned from the media about the intentions of some senators and politicians to restore order in the RU zone, he turned to the drafters of the bill with a request to start a competent and open dialogue on this issue. They did not refuse him, but they have not yet invited him, promising to do it later - perhaps in the fall.

While representatives of the Duma and the Federation Council are determining how democratic the discussion on the bill should be, we decided not to put off talking about trends in the “RU zone”. Moreover, the break between the public statements of senators about regulating the network media space and the FSB generals about controlling content on the Internet turned out to be short-lived.

And the first meeting of the working group "on the development of draft laws regulating the development of the Internet in Russia", according to our data, should be held on July 13.

- Ivan, you once mentioned that "the Internet community considers those who want to introduce censorship on the Web: political, corporate, commercial" as their main enemies. Is there any reason for concern now?

- Rather, we are all constantly in the zone of such background anxiety: someone has been trying to create some kind of law on the Internet for the past four years and someone is talking about it all the time.

I can only say that our company will comply with any laws that are adopted in Russia. At the same time, Rambler is one of the most liberal companies in Russia, a supporter of free information flows. And, of course, any restriction of freedom is dangerous for us, because we also work in the global market, presenting information about Russia to a huge number of people outside of it. If there is any pressure on us, it will be noticeable. And this immediately eliminates us as a source of information.

- Perhaps the reason for the “background anxiety” of the online community is related to real precedents? One well-known western search engine company, in order to remain working on the Chinese segment of the Web, was forced to put "filters" on certain information by agreement with the government. Can you imagine that you would apply to the Rambler company with such a proposal?

We are not in China. We live in a very liberal country, in fact, in which some people just have a memory of other times. And this damn memory is actually the main problem, because because of it, the authorities are forced to take some steps that they themselves do not even need. generational problem. People after and before 35-45 years are two different countries. One of them dies, the other is born. All these nuts that are about to start tightening - they are all imaginary.

— So what is the most realistic prospect for Runet: self-regulation or control?

How can you control the internet? In the Soviet Union, even then it was impossible to force people not to listen to the BBC. They muffled it - and still people listened to it.

— But after all, for Internet pages, it seems, there is already a kind of “jammers”. There is a well-known story with one Russian site, when users, typing its network address, got to its analogue, but with somewhat different content. Is this not an opportunity to correct information flows?

- You have to be realistic. How many sites are on the internet? Imagine that a chief commissioner for Internet regulation in Russia has been appointed. Will he have a five billion dollar budget? It will be necessary somewhere around 200-300 specialists. Who will do it? Who needs it? The Matrix never tries to control everything. Because as soon as you try to control everything, you weaken yourself. You need to control the most important thing.

- How then to explain the fact that at the end of last year Russia (together with China and Saudi Arabia) applied to the UN with the initiative to create a structure there that controls the "global network"?

— Now many people from the security agencies work in the administration of different levels. Some of them may also have "rusty nuts" from the past. I can only assume that if everything is so, then this is not a "matrix"; maybe it's some rusty Smith agents who have to drink engine oil all the time to keep it from seizing up.

Who built the "matrix" in Russia? It was built by people, political technologists, who learned how to achieve the necessary results by working in the information space. They, in principle, do not care how many of these information sources - it is important for them to have money, because with this money they buy everything they need, evaluate the psychology of people in a certain way and get the necessary results. And there will always be money for elections as long as there is a “matrix”.

Democracy is when different people and different money meet in elections with approximately equal chances. This is American democracy, for example, and there is also European democracy, but everything is still different there: strong parties, trade unions, strong leftists. We don't have them yet.

- How many, according to your data, are there in Russia today who can afford to independently form their own information menu using the Internet?

- About 15 million, according to the Public Opinion Foundation. The Internet is growing at 40-50 percent annually - this is the only sector of the media space in which such dynamics. It's an explosion! In America, with the help of the Internet, a politician, even a presidential candidate, is sometimes easier to break through than with the help of traditional media.

And in Russia, everything that has a political connotation immediately finds itself in a dangerous zone, because regulation and licensing immediately begin.

But today the internet is politically irrelevant. This is a great happiness for all of us. You can’t earn political capital on the Internet, because milkmaids don’t care, elderly people don’t care, but they vote.

- Bye?

- Bye. The evolution of the media is in the direction of interaction with the audience. Now the biggest, coolest, most profitable projects in the world, the most long-term and successful will take place in the field of interactive media. The Internet is interactive television.

The network is a very complex, very interesting multi-level mechanism in which real people are connected. The one who will be the first to build the correct architecture of open media, where people will participate according to certain rules, will take a large promising market.

- What do you think, given the situation with traditional media in Russia, is there any chance, say, for a non-state television resource with open access not to become a victim of political games or disputes between business entities?

“And there is no more politics in Russia. Here are two people in suits. Which of them will become the president of Russia does not matter. This is the "matrix". Do you want Agent Smith to smile wider? What's the difference to you? Something else is important.

For example, will the builders cut down the trees in the park on the sly or not. Whether or not a bike lane is built in your area. To do this, people simply gather in the center of Moscow, having previously written off via the Internet. They are gaining a critical mass, at some point there are so many of them that they just clog all the way and go for a ride. They are buzzing from behind, and they - hey, let's go! Why do they need television? Just to be heard. But it's a matter of luck, and the Internet is vital because it helps to get together.

- Is this the reason for such close attention to the content of sites and to their owners?

There is a problem with our internet. It's called compromising. All this fuss about the law would not have happened if there weren't people who built their business model on the Web by throwing mud at other people. What we hear - the law on the Internet - is actually the response of the target audience to some publications.

There are real problems like all sorts of programs that put down page addresses for people, throw them into pornographic places. It's terrible that there is chaos. But it's easier to deal with this locally rather than globally.

You start meeting with specialists - they start to “problem”: “Control over the Internet? You must first come to an agreement with the States, otherwise everyone will go to com ”(American Internet zone. - Ed.) And from there they will broadcast like Gusinsky’s newsru.com.” In addition, if they decide to control it, they still need to make a separate protocol (meaning the protocol for transferring data on the Web, it now has a single standard all over the world. - Ed.). So there are two different realities here. And the reality of lawmaking is a fantasy world. Try closing the server in Gibraltar or Tuvalu...

But if, as a result of influencing the target audience with resources like compromising.ru - cheap political PR - it will still be possible to create such an informal alliance, relatively speaking, some kind of shadow security officers from the administration and stung politicians, and they are somehow through the Duma they will sell it, and, God forbid, it will actually be implemented, which means that there will simply be an outflow of media assets on the Internet to other countries. They will simply really disappear from the jurisdiction of Russia. And those who remain - we, for example - cannot leave, we have a television channel here - we will lose in competition. This will kill us.

We will cease to be ourselves, to play some serious role.

- Is it scary for you?

— It's very scary for our investors, for the owners of the company, but it's even scarier for those who pass the law. Because their goal will not be achieved. We are in a global situation.

On the one hand, we have rusty nuts in memory - they all come from another reality in which the information environment was controlled. On the other hand, we have a hi-tech industry all over the world, the Internet and a new Russia up to 35-45 years old, and most importantly, the worst thing for this whole crowd: we have the reality of free information flows that cannot be pushed or stopped in any way.

This is a collision of two pictures of reality. And the line of confrontation at this particular moment has materialized into a conversation about Internet law. This is a long-term conflict that modernizes modern elites and relies on new technologies that cannot be eradicated. They are global by definition, not tied to a country, but rather tied to a language. This language can come from any source - it will still remain Russian. Not tied to the state.

This conflict will be long. These pictures of reality do not match. The fate of history is decided in clashes in which everyone acts on the basis of their own picture of reality. And the one who is more real wins.

(The full version of the conversation is on the NovayaGazeta.Ru website)