Russian Government Decides To Stamp Out 'Fake News' At Home, Presumably Leaving Export Operations Unaffected
from the censorship-begins-at-home dept
Another nation's government has decided it needs more direct control of the press. It will come as no surprise it's a nation fond of our current president and understandably delighted the leader of the free world spends an inordinate amount of time bashing First Amendment-protected activity.
Russia, which American intelligence agencies said spread its fair share of misinformation during the 2016 United States election, says it will crack down on “fake news” at home, with a proposed law that critics say could limit freedom of speech on the internet.
The bill, submitted by lawmakers from the governing party, United Russia, proposes holding social networks accountable for “inaccurate” comments users post.
It appears the government wishes to monopolize the creation of fake news, cutting out amateur bloggers, podcasters, and Facebook users who can't reliably sway foreign elections. Now it can expand its control of worldwide media past its stake in Sputnik and RT to every medium-to-large social media platform providing service to Russian users.
Much like every other law enacted to govern online speech, the actual perpetrators will be ignored in favor of directly targeting social media platforms. Possible fines of $800,000 await any platform hosting more than 100,000 users for not removing alleged "fake news" within 24 hours of being notified.
This should result in plenty of over-moderation, much like what followed in the wake of Germany's ridiculous speech laws. Those coupled 24-hour takedown demands with hefty fines, resulting in the immediate targeting of satirical posts and comments made by politicians who support government censorship. Unfortunately, the generated irony isn't going to be enough to offset the losses suffered by users who will see their posts vanish into the ether to keep social media platforms one step ahead of the g-men.
This bill targets "inaccurate information," about as vague a term ever applied to online speech. It doesn't even have to be completely wrong or provably false. It just has to contain an error somewhere. Considering the internet is host to a sizable amount of heated opinions and hyperbole, it will unquestionably result in the deletion of posts containing no factual assertions and will drive another nail into the coffin of satire.
But fake news laws aren't really about punishing fake news. What they're intended to do is give those with authoritarian leanings -- usually coupled with a history of corruption -- an easy way to cleanse the web of snooping reporters and complaining citizens. As the New York Times notes, supporters of the bill have made it pretty clear this is more about eliminating domestic dissent than chasing down fictitious posts masquerading as truth.
In ultimate view-from-nowhere phrasing, the Times manages to deliver both an understatement and a "no shit" moment in the space of one sentence.
Activists are skeptical that the authorities have Russians’ best interests at heart.
This sentence could have been written about nearly every action the Russian government has taken under every leader over the past 100 years. Sadly enough, this sentence could be written about nearly every government in the world and applied to almost any piece of grandstanding, hot-button-du-jour legislation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, fake news, free speech, russia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putin's Russia has no interested in ethical integrity
It makes entire sense that Putin's administration would seek to incite unrest in other nations while seeking to quash it in its own.
This is a symptom of Putin's expansionist desires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As Russia slowly transforms into a Chinese-style fascist state, such news of Russia's latest censorship attempts become almost routine. The big question is, what can the West do to help turn this ship around, or will Russia inevitably become another China?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/youtube-removes-four-alex-jones-videos-for-hate-speech-c hild-endangerment/
“I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it”
https://www.techdirt.com/search-g.php?q=US+censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
YouTube management has the right to decide whether a video should be removed from YouTube. Alex Jones has the right to upload that video elsewhere, including his own servers. The First Amendment limits government powers in re: controlling and suppressing speech; it says fuck all about platforms being forced to host speech that platform owners/operators do not want to host.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, this is where you reach the point where we have to explain to you the difference between a private company's privately controlled content moderation policies and laws.
That's the bottom-scraping level you're at, here. You're conversing at a level where you are wholly unable to discern the difference between "YouTube gets to say what gets broadcast via its platform" and "Russian government decides what gets broadcast on all platforms".
Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Russia huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Soviet Russia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Decision
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This sentence could have been written about nearly every action the Russian government has taken under every leader over the past 100 years."
Sadly not only the Russians. And some western dictatorships had third-party interests bought for them with free-world money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]