Children's Internet expectation

“Children could see this” - a bill is now being pushed under this sauce that significantly complicates the life of any Internet project. “Children” generally become a common place to motivate power initiatives. Without “children”, it seems that soon not a single political law will do.

The universal argument of any power decision has now become children. As long as it was about pedophilia (or its propaganda), adoption and propaganda of childbearing - it was still clear. The topic, after all, is profile. But now the technological topic is already coming out: everything that the authorities want to adjust is declared a threat to children. This turns out “the last argument of the kings”, only worthy not of the battalist’s brush, but the pen of the satirist.

“From everywhere we hear moans. From all over our vast country they call for help. We must extend the hand of help, and we will reach out. Some of you serve and eat bread with butter, others are engaged in the latrine and eat sandwiches with caviar. Both of them sleep in their beds and hide with warm blankets. Only small children, homeless children, are without a prize. ” Sorry for the extensive quote, but when you look at the next populist initiative, otherwise there is no funds left for how to quote Ostap Bender.

The boycott of fresh amendments to the law on information technology has gone an epic scale. Yandex, Russian Wikipedia , Living Journal and - the last, but not least,our television channels . Everyone opposed the protection of children from unwanted information for children. The speech here, of course, is not about the fact that NTV wants to broadcast child pornography, but LJ - to mutilate the consciousness of Russian babies. The point is exclusively that the bill, which the other day should be considered by the State Duma, is worthless and all the players of the information market understand this very well.

“The draft federal law is aimed at creating mechanisms for forced blocking Internet pages containing information prohibited for distribution in the Russian Federation, hosting providers, and communication operators. The bill also introduces the obligation of the owners of Internet sites to delete the Internet page, which posts the information prohibited for distribution, after receiving the appropriate notification from the hosting provider, ”it sounds good.

But in practice it comes out if not censorship (it is prohibited by us with a constitution), then a precisely repressive mechanism of universal action.

That is - you suddenly have information of illegal or simply undesirable character on your site. And according to the authors of the bill, you must track it yourself and delete it in a day, otherwise sanctions will follow. The focus is that no tracking means for the conditional Yandex with its millions of visits per day will be able to track that these millions of users are laid out or export.

The bill, which is characteristic, was introduced by “representatives of“ all four fractions ”. This is indirect evidence that they came up with the bill not in the Duma, but in the areas much higher - parliamentary factions rarely demonstrate agreements. And the practice of introducing bills invented by the Presidential Administration just implies the formulas “Group of Deputies of United Russia”, “Chairman of the State Duma and the Head of relevant committees” or “representatives of four (if it was not possible to agree - three) factions”. You can’t conduct an accurate attribution here, but it is somehow doubtful that the bill wrote the bill-and there are a dozen of them-deputies. Therefore, his motivation is different.

The motive “Children could see this” becomes perhaps the only argument that the authorities considers something explanatory. This is such a language of communication.

Wedo not like gays - children can see them and we must prevent it. We don’t like the Internet - children can see a lot of things there and this must be removed. What will the next be threatened by the little Russians? Yes, anything, up to the program " Good night, kids ."

The motivation is stupid, but the authorities who feel that it is weak to convince the active part of society, the other is not able to offer. Well, how can one rationally explain why the punishment for violations at rallies is almost higher than for the unintentional murder or hooliganism? It’s impossible. But “injuring the feelings of children” is already motivation.

The expansion interpretation of this principle allows us to adopt one important law in general: "Any political or civil activity in Russia is prohibited, since it can harm the mental health of the younger generation." A very logical law would come out.