Translated material
They gave a swing
Good “goods” are not promoted with threats - which can not be said about the national messenger
18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich or concerns the activities of the foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich.
It all started with a statement by Boyarsky Jr. that a public and unjustified discredit of the Max messenger could cause a foreign influence to verify. And what kind of attempts to discredit Max can be forces that want to continue to deceive Russians through foreign platforms.
When the statement was (for obvious reasons) was widely replicated, the deputy announced the “incorrect interpretation of direct speech” (although it was extremely clear and did not allow double interpretation), gently scolded the journalists for the “hot title” and wrote in his telegram channel that “there was no question of the punishment for the criticism of the Max” and that he does not see “a negative wave in relation to the messenger, But if it appears, we will have to take a closer look at the sources of discredit. ”
And then in an interview with the “parliamentary newspaper” he said that if this “negative wave” will be observed, then “it is most likely that those organized forces of professional scammers in Ukraine are interested in it, who used and use foreign platforms to deceive our citizens,” and therefore “every case that causes suspicion can be checked, but this does not apply to reasonable criticism that any user or blogger” and a blogger ”and a blogger” and a blogger ”and a blogger” and a blogger ” Which is not prohibited, but "helps developers make Max even better."
Mr. Boyarsky also assured that the developers of Max “do everything in order to ensure confidentiality, safety, privacy of communication”, that “voice traffic is growing, not only because Roskomnadzor made the right decision on the degradation of foreign counterparts, but also because the quality in Mah'e is much higher than those foreign analogues that have not actually coped with this function correctly”, and recently, ”and a correct way”, and That "I really want us to feel at home, because on foreign platforms you have always been visiting."
I note that I do not have to hear about unbearable torment of domestic deputies and officials who are forced to constantly stay “visiting”, using foreign inventions such as the Internet, or a mobile phone, or operating systems on computers (also by no means domestic).
And the park of personal cars, as a rule, has nothing to do with the products of AvtoVAZ or Moskvich.
Yes, and complaints that they are uncomfortable using “foreign platforms” as whatsApp ** was not heard before - on the contrary, many Petersburg officials known to me used this messenger without any coercion and asked him to send information and documents on him.
But the essence of the matter is not only that. The use of such advertising arguments for promoting MAX as “foreign influence”, “enemies of Russia” and “discrediting” - concepts that have a very definite content in the current Russian conditions - clearly demonstrates what methods the power intends to introduce the “national messenger”, in addition to the flattering posts of famous persons, in whose selfless participation in the advertising campaign is believed with difficulty.
Already because we know well in judicial practice how mobile the border between “reasonable criticism” (appropriate, according to Boyarsky) and “discrediting” is.
We remind of the decision of the Constitutional Court (June 2023), which formulated the position regarding Article 20.3.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses on the “discrediting of the army”: citizens have the right, of course, “express their own opinion regarding the activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, persons, and state bodies of the Russian Federation, including indicating the presence of shortcomings,” but only if this is “not associated with arbitrary denial Constitutional and predetermined nature, goals and objectives of this activity are based on open reliable information. ”
At the same time, the Constitutional Court "does not exclude the identification of the focus of the actions of citizens who are given the appearance of a constructive expression of the position, to discredit the relevant decisions, measures and activities."
The question of who will determine, the constructive position is contained in the actions of citizens or there is only its “visibility” (the very remarkable expression that has not previously encountered in law), the Constitutional Court bypassed, but we know well the discretion of this definition. And how easily Russian police officers, investigators and prosecutors see the “discrediting of the army” even in the fact that he has nothing to do with the army at all (including the slogans, with whom we went to official demonstrations for decades).
Given this “current practice”, there is no reason to believe that the same approach will not be applied to critics of the “national messenger”. Especially if it becomes clear that it is not worth the queue to establish it on a voluntary basis - giving the opportunity to collect information about your correspondence, contacts, calls and personal data and (as many experts say) to transmit this information to the “competent authorities” when they have such a need.
And the more authorities promote the Max and assure (like the boyar) that communication with the help of MAX provides “confidentiality, privacy and security”, the higher the confidence in the opposite. Otherwise, why would they stubborn so?
Have you made a "domestic development"? Fine, show and prove that she is better than others, and then it will not be necessary to force her to introduce and threaten Karami for her “discrediting”. The same telegram, for example, no one forcibly introduced and did not threaten to record in “foreign agents” for his “discrediting”. And no one organized to stimulate the transition to him “the degradation of his analogues”, as Sergey Boyarsky elegantly put it, approving the decision of Roskomnadzor ...
In general, the desire in criticizing something domestic to immediately see the evil “foreign influence”-as already mentioned, a very old idea.
The basis of which lies confidence (characteristic of the Soviet regime and willingly inherited by the power of the current one) in that citizens can be dissatisfied with its decisions only if someone has an insidious way to do this (as a rule, from abroad). And in its own understanding, the idea that the state can do something wrong and this must be indignant, and even more so, try to protest, categorically cannot come to their minds-it can only be invested from the outside.
No matter how today they did not plan to develop this line creatively: for example, to declare “foreign agents” of those who criticize domestic cars.
Do you say that BMW or Toyota is better than Lada Iskra (which, as the manufacturers innocently declared, even the air conditioner does not supply such luxury for our people as unnecessary)? Welcome to the discriminatory register of the Ministry of Justice.
Do not like the works of domestic "state-patriotic" writers or directors, such as Prilepin or Bogomolov? Well there too.
Moreover, there is experience: they declared “foreign agents” and “undesirable” those who critically spoke about the honesty of the Russian elections?
Meanwhile, refusing to block calls in Telegram and Votsappa required an apple.
In the statement adopted on August 21, the party bureau was regarded as “an attack on the rights of citizens and another step towards establishing total state control over society and citizens.” It is stated that "the main cause of new measures is not the protection of citizens, but the desire of the authorities to maximize communications that cannot be intercepted and censored in popular international services."