October 20, 2012 at 03:05Governments are afraid of the Internet [! or ?]
Recently, I see more and more various topics on the hub, news on the Internet about how this or that government is trying to curb the Internet. Probably the first in this business were the Chinese, who installed a firewall in the whole country in 2003. Then many governments did not take this into consideration, but today more and more governments understand that the Internet is a threat to their power and existence ...
Under the cut, some thoughts are written by a pitchfork on the water, for the deaf from the country of blind people about what is happening today and what we will probably come to tomorrow. I just want to note that the topic addresses issues of politics and the Internet, as well as Internet policy. The whole post reflects only my purely individual point of view and no more. And most likely it’s just a cry from the heart, after reading the news about the next bill, designed to protect us ... from what?
They were the first to fight the internet. Because the Internet has become a huge piggy bank for the exchange of media content. Sales of print runs fell (newspapers, films, music, etc.). And along with this, the income of these companies began to fall. Here they began to worry. They began to struggle with torrents, with releasers and others who, in their opinion, robbed them of income. But in spite of all their efforts and huge financial injections into politicians, legislative assemblies and other organizations, they did not succeed and fail to do anything.
Personally, my point of view is as an average layman. I buy licensed content and quite often. But I only buy what in my personal opinion is worth that money. For example, I have a complete collection of licensed Mass Effect discs. I bought GTA IV license, Transformers movie licensed discs and much more. But personally, I believe that the authors of these works deserve their money, and buying their products I stimulate the market for a work even better. BUT! All this was bought only after I tested 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 lifetime freeloaders. And no matter how hard they try, they still won’t 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’ll call them calculating, will do as I do, first they will try, and then they will decide whether they need it. And if it is necessary to purchase a product. And the third ones are those who buy anyway. It doesn’t matter for what reasons. There is a lot of money, fanaticism, because I want to. It doesn’t matter, the main thing is what they will buy.
But such a worldview is alien to media companies. Because they want to earn. Have you ever tried at least one company (say a film company) to reduce the immense salaries of actors or directors? Reducing them to medium market. Maybe then the “stars” would have less time for shocking the public, 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 without work. Why do firefighters, risking their lives every day to save other people, live on low budgets while barely adult upstarts buy a Porsche?
However, all this is just a scream in the crowd, which will melt into a common hubbub. The problem is that the Internet gives people the opportunity to choose, and this is not what brings revenue to media companies. So they started a war that they continue to lose. And so as not to lose completely, they needed allies. And the governments of large countries are the most powerful ally in this matter ...
By the way, this story reminds one of another plot that unfolded more than 20 years ago around tobacco companies.
Freedom of speech is a threat to any, even the most democratic regime.
This simple law has been known to kings since so ancient that it is unlikely that our history can find its origin. When in a 15-16 century a state had extra funds, which could lead to stability and freedom of thought, the government of that country arranged a crisis. That people would not have time before free thought. When expanding knowledge was a threat to the Vatican’s income, They declared all knowledge heresy and burned for it at the stake. By the way, nothing came of it, today we laugh at their attempts to stop progress, although in reality everything is the same. The governments of most countries are trying by all means to stop the progress of the Internet, because they feel on its part a threat to their regime.
And then 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 are clear to us all, but we still do not decide anything, and are not able to influence the decisions of the government.
The first countries to adopt a toughening policy on the Internet were the countries of the regime, which the “banana republics” with all the desire could not be called “democratic”. But it is understandable. When we read about it in the news, shook our heads, sighed and rejoiced that we were living in a democratic country ... Today we experience for ourselves what those countries went through 10 years ago. And it seems like smart people, we should have learned from the mistakes of others, but for some reason we didn’t do this ...
Fears of governments are not like those of media companies. They have fear for their power. The Internet is teaching people to do things openly. Take, for example, social networks, where we can learn almost everything about everyone. But the government is not the body that would like to act openly and Assange proved it. But he made it clear that he did not post information harmful to the states, he shared only one that was harmful to civilians.
Previously, to hear someone it was necessary to find an audience. Attract audience attention. To give rise to an idea, to grow it ... Today it’s enough to start a page on the Internet ... The Internet is a terrible force. And scary.
No government has attempted to engage in open dialogue with its citizens. Why? Because we can’t understand? Do not rate it? No government has tried to heed the opinions of its citizens in the process of passing laws restricting 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 thing in this situation is this. Does history really teach anyone nothing? After all, neither Caesars, nor the Vatican, nor Hitler, nor Hussein, nor Stalin did anything. Progress cannot be stopped. And freedom of information is as much a part of human progress towards hegemony as the discovery of the laws of electricity. This is inevitable. And that any such attempt will lead people to rebellion and overthrow the laws on restrictions. So why not try to start working out a new path, and not follow a hackneyed and knowingly false path, as we know from history?
Sea of questions. Not a single answer. And we are all so progressive and smart, watching what is happening, indulging him with our inaction. Why? Another unanswered question.
And again the screams in the fog, which, like the screams of a hedgehog from that horror cartoon of childhood, will drown in it without even leaving an echo.
I could write and write this topic. The topic is almost inexhaustible. But I do not see the point. The story is known to all of us. We also foresee the final. It remains only to decide whether we will agree to end this problem in our lifetime or leave it to our descendants to rake it. To whom there is something to say, you are welcome in the commentary. I remind you that the post reflects only my point of view, and it may differ from yours.
If I offended anyone, I apologize.
I'm sorry that the post turned out to be slightly emotional. I could not restrain myself.
Here are a few related links:
Stages of censorship on the Internet
In the Orenburg region, Ubuntu is blocked
Beeline blocks Infogr.am “by decision of state authorities”
Google still blocks the ill-fated movie in Russia The
State Duma wants to ban the use of anonymizers
How does the habrasociety relate to Bill No. 89417-6?
France wants to make search engines pay for content.
Freedom House published the report “Freedom on the Internet 2012”. Russia at risk
Under the cut, some thoughts are written by a pitchfork on the water, for the deaf from the country of blind people about what is happening today and what we will probably come to tomorrow. I just want to note that the topic addresses issues of politics and the Internet, as well as Internet policy. The whole post reflects only my purely individual point of view and no more. And most likely it’s just a cry from the heart, after reading the news about the next bill, designed to protect us ... from what?
Last introduction by the author
This whole article is just an attempt to share the feelings that overwhelm me. Because lately I have been seeing more and more various news on various Internet bans. And I feel sad that the only place where you could express yourself as you think is right and be heard, ceases to be so, mutating into something else ...
Media companies
They were the first to fight the internet. Because the Internet has become a huge piggy bank for the exchange of media content. Sales of print runs fell (newspapers, films, music, etc.). And along with this, the income of these companies began to fall. Here they began to worry. They began to struggle with torrents, with releasers and others who, in their opinion, robbed them of income. But in spite of all their efforts and huge financial injections into politicians, legislative assemblies and other organizations, they did not succeed and fail to do anything.
Personally, my point of view is as an average layman. I buy licensed content and quite often. But I only buy what in my personal opinion is worth that money. For example, I have a complete collection of licensed Mass Effect discs. I bought GTA IV license, Transformers movie licensed discs and much more. But personally, I believe that the authors of these works deserve their money, and buying their products I stimulate the market for a work even better. BUT! All this was bought only after I tested 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 lifetime freeloaders. And no matter how hard they try, they still won’t 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’ll call them calculating, will do as I do, first they will try, and then they will decide whether they need it. And if it is necessary to purchase a product. And the third ones are those who buy anyway. It doesn’t matter for what reasons. There is a lot of money, fanaticism, because I want to. It doesn’t matter, the main thing is what they will buy.
But such a worldview is alien to media companies. Because they want to earn. Have you ever tried at least one company (say a film company) to reduce the immense salaries of actors or directors? Reducing them to medium market. Maybe then the “stars” would have less time for shocking the public, 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 without work. Why do firefighters, risking their lives every day to save other people, live on low budgets while barely adult upstarts buy a Porsche?
However, all this is just a scream in the crowd, which will melt into a common hubbub. The problem is that the Internet gives people the opportunity to choose, and this is not what brings revenue to media companies. So they started a war that they continue to lose. And so as not to lose completely, they needed allies. And the governments of large countries are the most powerful ally in this matter ...
By the way, this story reminds one of another plot that unfolded more than 20 years ago around tobacco companies.
Government
Freedom of speech is a threat to any, even the most democratic regime.
This simple law has been known to kings since so ancient that it is unlikely that our history can find its origin. When in a 15-16 century a state had extra funds, which could lead to stability and freedom of thought, the government of that country arranged a crisis. That people would not have time before free thought. When expanding knowledge was a threat to the Vatican’s income, They declared all knowledge heresy and burned for it at the stake. By the way, nothing came of it, today we laugh at their attempts to stop progress, although in reality everything is the same. The governments of most countries are trying by all means to stop the progress of the Internet, because they feel on its part a threat to their regime.
And then 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 are clear to us all, but we still do not decide anything, and are not able to influence the decisions of the government.
The first countries to adopt a toughening policy on the Internet were the countries of the regime, which the “banana republics” with all the desire could not be called “democratic”. But it is understandable. When we read about it in the news, shook our heads, sighed and rejoiced that we were living in a democratic country ... Today we experience for ourselves what those countries went through 10 years ago. And it seems like smart people, we should have learned from the mistakes of others, but for some reason we didn’t do this ...
Fears of governments are not like those of media companies. They have fear for their power. The Internet is teaching people to do things openly. Take, for example, social networks, where we can learn almost everything about everyone. But the government is not the body that would like to act openly and Assange proved it. But he made it clear that he did not post information harmful to the states, he shared only one that was harmful to civilians.
Previously, to hear someone it was necessary to find an audience. Attract audience attention. To give rise to an idea, to grow it ... Today it’s enough to start a page on the Internet ... The Internet is a terrible force. And scary.
No government has attempted to engage in open dialogue with its citizens. Why? Because we can’t understand? Do not rate it? No government has tried to heed the opinions of its citizens in the process of passing laws restricting 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 thing in this situation is this. Does history really teach anyone nothing? After all, neither Caesars, nor the Vatican, nor Hitler, nor Hussein, nor Stalin did anything. Progress cannot be stopped. And freedom of information is as much a part of human progress towards hegemony as the discovery of the laws of electricity. This is inevitable. And that any such attempt will lead people to rebellion and overthrow the laws on restrictions. So why not try to start working out a new path, and not follow a hackneyed and knowingly false path, as we know from history?
Sea of questions. Not a single answer. And we are all so progressive and smart, watching what is happening, indulging him with our inaction. Why? Another unanswered question.
And again the screams in the fog, which, like the screams of a hedgehog from that horror cartoon of childhood, will drown in it without even leaving an echo.
I could write and write this topic. The topic is almost inexhaustible. But I do not see the point. The story is known to all of us. We also foresee the final. It remains only to decide whether we will agree to end this problem in our lifetime or leave it to our descendants to rake it. To whom there is something to say, you are welcome in the commentary. I remind you that the post reflects only my point of view, and it may differ from yours.
If I offended anyone, I apologize.
I'm sorry that the post turned out to be slightly emotional. I could not restrain myself.
Here are a few related links:
Stages of censorship on the Internet
In the Orenburg region, Ubuntu is blocked
Beeline blocks Infogr.am “by decision of state authorities”
Google still blocks the ill-fated movie in Russia The
State Duma wants to ban the use of anonymizers
How does the habrasociety relate to Bill No. 89417-6?
France wants to make search engines pay for content.
Freedom House published the report “Freedom on the Internet 2012”. Russia at risk