Translated material
Farewell to YouTube
One message on Twitter: “ Joking aside, because of this video, on November 3-5, all of YouTube may be completely blocked in Russia ,” and what a commotion in Runet and beyond its virtual environs! The private opinion of a Cyrillic Internet user named Nikolai Nikiforov alarmed the Russian media. And now everyone is vying with each other about it: both TV and the press. It’s no joke, because this was stated, albeit unofficially, by none other than the head of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications.
And this, alas, is not a joke. On November 1, changes to the law “On the Protection of Children from Information Harmful to Their Health and Development” come into force; official blacklists of sites will appear, which all providers in the Russian Federation will be required to block.
Well, since there is a trailer for the film “The Innocence of Muslims” on YouTube, which the video hosting site fundamentally does not intend to cut offline, because of this content it may be blacklisted. And then - ala-ulu, goodbye video traffic :)). After all, access for Runet users will be blocked to the entire provocative, that is, “extremist” resource.
And the video will definitely not be removed from the network - after all, the hosting has already received many complaints about “Innocence” and has gone to the extent of restricting access for users from several Islamic states. Why doesn't proud YouTube remove the scandalous video, despite the international scandal? Of course, out of principle. The principle of freedom of speech. The principle of freedom of conscience. Isn’t it worth it to “go along with the principle” for their sake?
From a socio-psychological point of view, the answer to this question is not at all obvious. Yes, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are important democratic freedoms for society. But... people are structured in such a paradoxical way that the freedom of some can interfere with the freedom of others. When moving “to the individual,” from the social to the individual level, it turns out that for some people freedom of speech can be combined not so much with freedom of conscience, but with freedom FROM conscience.
True, some doubts creep in about the purity of the motives of overseas fighters for world freedom. After all, mass protests by indignant Muslims, the murder of the American ambassador in Libya, attacks on American embassies in dozens of countries, already called the “prologue of the third world war,” are beneficial to someone, right? Here you have a continuation of the turmoil that the assistants of oil traders have long “stirred up” in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Libya and Syria (in the latter case, however, they “stirred up”).
In addition, the same social media resources that kindled the fire of the “Arab Spring” are sowing confusion in the minds and hearts of naive religious fanatics. Those that were made in the USA, although the Americans themselves suffer from this. Do you think there is a “boomerang effect” - whoever comes to Twitter and Facebook with a revolution will also suffer from the revolution? Are defenders of civil liberties becoming their hostages? No, this is a completely different matter: malicious incitement carried out according to the principle of “causing fire on ourselves.” Because if overseas social media resources do not filter content related to religious extremism and incitement of ethnic hatred, it means they do not want to do this.
Try to create a more or less noticeable group on Facebook to throw mud at the American president - they will close it without further ado. We know the matter, at the request of ordinary users. Do the same thing on Twitter and your account will be blocked “due to suspicious activity.” Freedom, even in a democratic world, is permitted with the knowledge of the authorities. It’s just that the technology for manipulating people who consider themselves free differs from the technology for controlling those who are accustomed to consider themselves unfree. Do you agree?
Well, regarding the expected Russian “closure” of YouTube - this is just a concrete example of the negative consequences of the new legislation, which I have already thought about in the blog . Living classic! I mean, a living confirmation of neoclassical wisdom: I wanted what was best, but it turned out...
And whatever you say, for me this whole stinking story - both the creation of a provocative film (including statements by the actors who starred in it that they were deceived and "framed"), and the stirring up of an international scandal on religious grounds - is reminiscent of the "Pussy Riot syndrome" only on an international scale. The technology is the same, right? Meticulous political strategists studied the resonance that arose in the Islamic world for experiments like Rushdie’s books, cartoons of Mohammed or the public burning of the Koran, as well as the response fluctuations in mass sentiment in the West. And they came to the conclusion that such “weapons” for information warfare are highly accurate and very effective. So they use it according to the full provocative program.
What do you think their next "target" will be?