Governments fear the internet [! or ?]
Lately, I see more and more various topics on Habré, news on the Internet about how a particular government is trying to curb the Internet. The Chinese, who installed a firewall in 2003, became the first in this business. Then many governments did not react to this with all the attention, but today more and more governments realize that the Internet is a threat to their power and existence ...
Under the cut, some reflections are written by pitchforks on the water, for deaf people from the country of the blind, what is happening today and what we will probably arrive at tomorrow. I just want to note that the topic deals with issues of politics and the Internet, as well as policies regarding the Internet. The entire post reflects only my purely individual point of view and no more. And most likely it is just a cry from the heart, after reading the news about the next bill, designed to protect us ... from what?
')
They first began to fight with the Internet. Because the Internet has become a huge piggy bank for the exchange of media content. Sales of circulations have fallen (newspapers, movies, music and other things). And along with this, the revenues of these companies began to fall. Here they began to worry. They began to fight torrents, releasers and others who, in their opinion, took away their income. But despite all their efforts and huge cash infusions in politicians, legislative assemblies and other organizations, they could not do anything and could not.
Personally, my point of view, as the average man in the street. I buy licensed content and quite often. But I only buy what in my personal opinion is worth the money. For example, I have a complete collection of licensed Mass Effect discs. I bought a GTA IV license, Transformers movie discs and more. But personally, I think that the authors of these works deserve their money, and buying their products, I stimulate the market to produce even better products. BUT! All this was bought, only after I tried these products. And I will never buy a single product without testing it. How much do media companies think we should buy a product blindly? Just because they spent on its production? This is not an argument ... Anyway for me.
There are 3 types of consumers. The first lifelong riders. And how not to try, they still will not buy a media product. They will borrow it from a friend, download it on a torrent, or even refuse to consume it. The second, I will call them prudent, will act like me, first try, and then decide whether they need it. And if it proves necessary to purchase the product. And the third is those who still buy. No matter for what reasons. A lot of money, fanaticism, because I want to. It does not matter, the main thing that they buy.
But such a worldview is foreign to media companies. Because they want to make money. And did at least one company (say the film company) try to reduce the immense salaries of actors or directors? By reducing them to the average market. Maybe then the “stars” would have less time for public outrage, unbridled behavior and other antics. They would concentrate more on their professional qualities, so that they would not be squeezed out of the labor market without leaving their jobs. Why do firefighters, risking their lives every day to save other people, live on low-budget while barely adult upstarts buy their Porsche?
But all this is just a cry in the crowd, which will melt in the general hubbub. The salt of the problem is that the Internet gives people the opportunity to choose, and this is not something that brings income to media companies. So they started a war that continues to lose. And in order not to lose completely, they needed allies. And the most powerful ally in this matter is the governments of large countries ...
By the way, this story resembles in its plot another one that unfolded more than 20 years ago around tobacco companies.
Freedom of speech is a threat to anyone, even the most democratic regime.
This simple law is known to kings since times so ancient that our history is unlikely to be able to find its origin. When in the 15th and 16th centuries any state had extra funds, which could lead to stability and free-thinking, the government of that country was satisfied with the crisis. Whatever people have time to freethinking. When expanding knowledge was a threat to the income of the Vatican, Those declared all knowledge to be heresy and burned at the stake for it. By the way, nothing happened, today we laugh at their attempts to stop progress, although in reality everything is happening the same. The governments of most countries are trying with all their might to stop the progress of the Internet, because they feel from their side a threat to their regime.
And here firewalls, bills on restrictions, ideas to collect fees from search engines, taxes on free software and content from the Internet and so on and so forth begin to appear. Agree that the very first thought that arises when looking at such ideas is nonsense. And the slogans with which this nonsense is covered up are clear and understandable to all of us, but we still do not decide anything, and are unable to influence the decisions of the government.
The first to tighten the policy on the Internet took the country regime, which "democratic" can not be called at all desire, and various banana republics. But it is understandable. When we read about it in the news, shook our heads, sighed and were glad that we were living in a democratic country ... Today we are testing ourselves, what those countries went through 10 years ago. And, like smart people, we should have learned from the mistakes of others, but for some reason we did not do it ...
Government fears are not like media companies. They have fear for their power. The Internet teaches people to do everything openly. Take at least social networks, where we can learn almost everything about everyone. And the government is not the body that would like to act openly and Assange has proved it. But he clearly made it clear that he does not lay out information carrying harm to states, he shared only the one that harmed the peaceful inhabitants.
Previously, in order for someone to hear, you had to find an audience. Attract the attention of the audience. To conceive an idea, to grow it ... Today it is enough to start a page on the Internet ... This Internet is a terrible force. And frightening.
No government has attempted to engage in open dialogue with its citizens. Why? Because we can not understand? Do not appreciate? No government has tried to listen to the opinions of its citizens in the process of adopting laws that restrict access to information. By the way, the National Socialist Party of Germany also began with laws on restrictions on access to information.
The most incomprehensible in this situation is this. Doesn't history teach anyone anything? After all, neither the Caesars, nor the Vatican, nor Hitler, nor Hussein, nor Stalin did anything. Progress does not stop. And freedom of information is as much a part of human progress on the path to hegemony as the discovery of the laws of electricity. This is inevitable. And that any such attempt will lead people to revolt and overthrow laws on restrictions. So why not try to start to develop a new path, and not to follow the banned and knowingly false, as we know from history, the path?
Sea of questions. No answer. And we are all so progressive and intelligent, watching what is happening, indulging him with our inaction. Why? Another unanswered question.
And again, the screams in the fog, which, like the hedgehog screams from that childhood cartoon choir, will drown in it without leaving even an echo.
I could write and write this topic. The topic is almost inexhaustible. But I do not see the point. We all know the story. We also anticipate the final. It remains only to decide whether we will agree in our lifetime to put an end to this problem or leave it to be raked by our descendants. Who has something to say, you are welcome in the comments. I remind you that the post reflects only my point of view, and it may differ from yours.
If someone offended, I apologize.
Sorry, that post, turned out slightly emotional. Could not resist.
Here are a few related links:
Stages of censorship on the Internet
Ubuntu is blocked in the Orenburg region
"Beeline" blocks Infogr.am "by the decision of public authorities"
Google will still block the unfortunate video in Russia
The State Duma wants to ban the use of anonymizers
How does the community relate to bill number 89417-6?
In France, they want to force search engines to pay for content.
Freedom House has published the report "Freedom on the Internet 2012". Russia at risk
Under the cut, some reflections are written by pitchforks on the water, for deaf people from the country of the blind, what is happening today and what we will probably arrive at tomorrow. I just want to note that the topic deals with issues of politics and the Internet, as well as policies regarding the Internet. The entire post reflects only my purely individual point of view and no more. And most likely it is just a cry from the heart, after reading the news about the next bill, designed to protect us ... from what?
The last foreword from the author
This whole article is just an attempt to share the feelings that overwhelm me. Because lately I’ve seen more and more various news on various bans on the Internet. And it becomes sad for me that the only place where you could express yourself the way you think is right and being heard stops being such, mutates into something else ...
')
Media companies
They first began to fight with the Internet. Because the Internet has become a huge piggy bank for the exchange of media content. Sales of circulations have fallen (newspapers, movies, music and other things). And along with this, the revenues of these companies began to fall. Here they began to worry. They began to fight torrents, releasers and others who, in their opinion, took away their income. But despite all their efforts and huge cash infusions in politicians, legislative assemblies and other organizations, they could not do anything and could not.
Personally, my point of view, as the average man in the street. I buy licensed content and quite often. But I only buy what in my personal opinion is worth the money. For example, I have a complete collection of licensed Mass Effect discs. I bought a GTA IV license, Transformers movie discs and more. But personally, I think that the authors of these works deserve their money, and buying their products, I stimulate the market to produce even better products. BUT! All this was bought, only after I tried these products. And I will never buy a single product without testing it. How much do media companies think we should buy a product blindly? Just because they spent on its production? This is not an argument ... Anyway for me.
There are 3 types of consumers. The first lifelong riders. And how not to try, they still will not buy a media product. They will borrow it from a friend, download it on a torrent, or even refuse to consume it. The second, I will call them prudent, will act like me, first try, and then decide whether they need it. And if it proves necessary to purchase the product. And the third is those who still buy. No matter for what reasons. A lot of money, fanaticism, because I want to. It does not matter, the main thing that they buy.
But such a worldview is foreign to media companies. Because they want to make money. And did at least one company (say the film company) try to reduce the immense salaries of actors or directors? By reducing them to the average market. Maybe then the “stars” would have less time for public outrage, unbridled behavior and other antics. They would concentrate more on their professional qualities, so that they would not be squeezed out of the labor market without leaving their jobs. Why do firefighters, risking their lives every day to save other people, live on low-budget while barely adult upstarts buy their Porsche?
But all this is just a cry in the crowd, which will melt in the general hubbub. The salt of the problem is that the Internet gives people the opportunity to choose, and this is not something that brings income to media companies. So they started a war that continues to lose. And in order not to lose completely, they needed allies. And the most powerful ally in this matter is the governments of large countries ...
By the way, this story resembles in its plot another one that unfolded more than 20 years ago around tobacco companies.
Governments
Freedom of speech is a threat to anyone, even the most democratic regime.
This simple law is known to kings since times so ancient that our history is unlikely to be able to find its origin. When in the 15th and 16th centuries any state had extra funds, which could lead to stability and free-thinking, the government of that country was satisfied with the crisis. Whatever people have time to freethinking. When expanding knowledge was a threat to the income of the Vatican, Those declared all knowledge to be heresy and burned at the stake for it. By the way, nothing happened, today we laugh at their attempts to stop progress, although in reality everything is happening the same. The governments of most countries are trying with all their might to stop the progress of the Internet, because they feel from their side a threat to their regime.
And here firewalls, bills on restrictions, ideas to collect fees from search engines, taxes on free software and content from the Internet and so on and so forth begin to appear. Agree that the very first thought that arises when looking at such ideas is nonsense. And the slogans with which this nonsense is covered up are clear and understandable to all of us, but we still do not decide anything, and are unable to influence the decisions of the government.
The first to tighten the policy on the Internet took the country regime, which "democratic" can not be called at all desire, and various banana republics. But it is understandable. When we read about it in the news, shook our heads, sighed and were glad that we were living in a democratic country ... Today we are testing ourselves, what those countries went through 10 years ago. And, like smart people, we should have learned from the mistakes of others, but for some reason we did not do it ...
Government fears are not like media companies. They have fear for their power. The Internet teaches people to do everything openly. Take at least social networks, where we can learn almost everything about everyone. And the government is not the body that would like to act openly and Assange has proved it. But he clearly made it clear that he does not lay out information carrying harm to states, he shared only the one that harmed the peaceful inhabitants.
Previously, in order for someone to hear, you had to find an audience. Attract the attention of the audience. To conceive an idea, to grow it ... Today it is enough to start a page on the Internet ... This Internet is a terrible force. And frightening.
No government has attempted to engage in open dialogue with its citizens. Why? Because we can not understand? Do not appreciate? No government has tried to listen to the opinions of its citizens in the process of adopting laws that restrict access to information. By the way, the National Socialist Party of Germany also began with laws on restrictions on access to information.
The most incomprehensible in this situation is this. Doesn't history teach anyone anything? After all, neither the Caesars, nor the Vatican, nor Hitler, nor Hussein, nor Stalin did anything. Progress does not stop. And freedom of information is as much a part of human progress on the path to hegemony as the discovery of the laws of electricity. This is inevitable. And that any such attempt will lead people to revolt and overthrow laws on restrictions. So why not try to start to develop a new path, and not to follow the banned and knowingly false, as we know from history, the path?
Sea of questions. No answer. And we are all so progressive and intelligent, watching what is happening, indulging him with our inaction. Why? Another unanswered question.
And again, the screams in the fog, which, like the hedgehog screams from that childhood cartoon choir, will drown in it without leaving even an echo.
I could write and write this topic. The topic is almost inexhaustible. But I do not see the point. We all know the story. We also anticipate the final. It remains only to decide whether we will agree in our lifetime to put an end to this problem or leave it to be raked by our descendants. Who has something to say, you are welcome in the comments. I remind you that the post reflects only my point of view, and it may differ from yours.
If someone offended, I apologize.
Sorry, that post, turned out slightly emotional. Could not resist.
Here are a few related links:
Stages of censorship on the Internet
Ubuntu is blocked in the Orenburg region
"Beeline" blocks Infogr.am "by the decision of public authorities"
Google will still block the unfortunate video in Russia
The State Duma wants to ban the use of anonymizers
How does the community relate to bill number 89417-6?
In France, they want to force search engines to pay for content.
Freedom House has published the report "Freedom on the Internet 2012". Russia at risk
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/284786/
All Articles