14 ms·

Facebook blocks Russian page supporting Navalny, Putin's biggest critic

178 points by geoka9 12y ago

huhtenberg 12y ago
A bit of OT, but based on what I read on Russian Internets this Navalny person is generally recognized as a US sock-puppet even in the anti-Putin circles. His trial is clearly political, but it's less about him personally and more about keeping pressure on other agents of influence. Facebook and Twitter though ... they don't have much choice, do they? They don't comply - they get a site-wide ban in Russia, which is hardly a headache they want being for-profit entities. Capitalism at work.
- kunstmord 12y ago
  Except that in 3 years I haven't encountered/read a single "sane" opposition figure's opinion who would consider Navalny a sock puppet.
- geoka9 12y ago
  "Anti-Putin circles" is rather vague. It covers anything from the extreme right to the extreme left. If a "circle" is xenophobic then, surely, most of the centrist/liberal opposition are US sock-puppets to them, simply by the virtue of having a similar political agenda to the Western mainstream politics. I, personally, am not a fan of Navalny (I dislike racial slur in his blog posts and some of his views that I consider chauvinist), but the trend is clear: he and Khodorkovsky have been the only viable opposition leaders in Russia in the recent years. Both of them ended up in jail on similar white-collar crime charges.
  - huhtenberg 12y ago
    There's certain logic to what happened to Khodorkovksy (and earlier to Berezovsky and few other people) - they all were oligarchs, they blatantly stole their way into their riches, but they were allowed by the state to use them. That is until they tried to use their money to try and un-sit those who let them become obnoxiously wealthy. They weren't the opposition per se. They were just former buddies that got drunk on money power and decided to play against their own. And they lost.
    - geoka9 12y ago
      So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs that dared to "bite the hand that fed"? OK, Khodorkovsky has spent 10 years in prison, been stripped of his billions and forced to leave the country upon release. But Navalny and Kasparov are not, and have never been, oligarchs; however they are either in prison or in exile (I'm sure Kasparov would be prosecuted right now, but he chose to leave Russia in 2013).
      - raquo 12y ago
        Navalny and Kasparov are in trouble because they had a shot at gaining popular momentum. Khodorkovsky privately expressed desire for a more free Russia to Putin, and was shot down as a warning to others. Putin prosecutes everyone who goes against him apart from allowing a minimal opposition to exist for the sake of appearance and venting off angry people's steam. "Shut up, look down and you'll be allowed to live" is a very popular theme in Russia across all levels from the president down to local municipal offices. If you go against those in power you will be persecuted proportionally to their power. The important thing to understand about modern Russia is that there is no separation of power. Putin owns the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges. As a corollary, everyone is guilty of something, and if not, they are made to be.
        p1esk 12y ago
        Putin owning the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges is not the problem. The problem is that he's not able to, or not willing to, use all that power to improve life in Russia.
        raquo 12y ago
        But that is the problem – he has no incentive to do anything good for the country because he has absolute power and controls mass media. He is not accountable to anyone. In fact, he sort of benefits from people struggling. When you're hungry you don't care about democracy that much. By the way, Russians' lives did improve relative to early 1990s which is what most people remember most vividly. It's just that Putin has little to do with it, it's just a matter of rising oil prices and increased trade.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Sockpuppet means more than aligned views - it implies collaboration. It's interesting to note here that in America the IRS is regularly weaponized to attack political opponents of whichever current administration.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Despite downvote I do insist: sockpuppet does imply collaboration. And I do insist: the IRS is regularly used (with other capabilities) by American administrations to harass and discourage political opponents. This is not a contended fact and is very open to search and research.
      - geoka9 12y ago
        > sockpuppet does imply collaboration They do imply collaboration, too. Most of them see no reason to champion liberal values other than being paid for it.
  - rev 12y ago
    > white-collar crime charges Agreed re Navalny, but Khodorkovsky was charged with three murder cases (and one case of attempted murder), so I'm less sure about the collar color.
    - ired 12y ago
      Have you ever seen any evidence to prove his or his associates guilt? Just because he was charged with anything makes him not guilty. Basically he was imprisoned for about 10 years for alleged tax evasion + for "stealing" crude oil. p.s. I have seen a lot of the original materials of the cases and I can assure you that State failed to prove his guilt. With Navalny cases (yes, he and his associates have been charged with many things including stealing a picture) it has reached the whole new dimension.
- DenisM 12y ago
  He is only recognized as "us sock-puppet" by those trying to smear critics of the regime. To add credibility to their baseless arguments, they often resort to tricks, such as ascribing the smears to some nebulous moral authority.
  - kirushik 12y ago
    Also, those 'they' are typically on Putin's payroll: http://www.stopfake.org/en/putin-s-trolls/ http://www.stopfake.org/en/putin-s-trolls/
- elementai 12y ago
  Contrary to latter is an example of Vkontakte russian social network refusing to block ukranian EuroMaidan groups. Which subsequently led to it's founder Pavel Durov resignation.
  - SpaceRaccoon 12y ago
    So apparently the narrative goes, he resigned, the network is owned by Putin's cronies now...yet all the Euromaidan groups still exist.
onewaystreet 12y ago
The alternative is that all of Facebook gets blocked. People wanting to access this page are better off doing so through TOR anyway.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Except, from what I hear, Facebook itself blocked it for all the users registered in Russia, so TOR can't help you.
  - goblin89 12y ago
    > from what I hear, Facebook itself blocked it for all the users registered in Russia, so TOR can't help you. What do you mean by “registered in Russia”? If Facebook doesn’t employ IP geolocation or something of that sort then anyone who feels strongly about the issue will simply change or unset their country in profile settings.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  On some level, that might be preferable because of the additional outrage it might generate.
  - wmf 12y ago
    Twitter/Facebook have argued that they can do more good by being 99% accessible in oppressive countries than by generating outrage.
eliben 12y ago
The relations of tech giants with totalitarian governments like Russia is a typical tragedy of the commons. The only step that makes sense for the common good is to remove all business from that country. But Facebook can't do it, because then Google will get all the profits, and Google/Yahoo/whomever can't do it for the same reason. If they all could just agree...
- yabatopia 12y ago
  Of course Facebook has a choice. It may cost them some money, but refusing to collaborate with totalitarian governments is an option. Look at Google versus China. Google had the courage to resist Chinese censorship and I really respect them for that.
  - polack 12y ago
    Lets not forget that Google complied with Chinese censorship requests until China hacked them. As long as only minorities are the victim then these Internet giants don't give a damn. So now we just wait until Russia bans Facebook for other reasons and watch Facebook collect goodwill when they turn around and start to "stand up against censorship".
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Let's also not forget that China hacked Google's portal for the federal intelligence to understand what surveillance operations were being done against their country. Russia may ultimately ban Facebook for similar reasons. China eventually decided that it wouldn't deal with the US's weaponization of large web corporations - this may eventually be the end state of all the large powers.
- dfkf 12y ago
  Bot google and facebook have very strong domestic competitors in Russia. So their withdrawal from the country would achieve exactly nothing.
- us0r 12y ago
DenisM 12y ago
This incident highlights dangers of centralized information distribution brought to us by social networks - being a single point of control they present attractive target for pressure by censors of all kinds, be it dictator regimes, powerful corporations in the west, etc. It's not unlike Napster - there is a lot of benefit to everyone being in one place, but far too easy to subvert. The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path - gradual decentralization.
- brador 12y ago
  There are advantages to this, at least temporarily. We can see who wants to censor the information. With a distributed network they would simply blend into the crowd.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    And what good does that do us? With a decentralized network those who want to censor can't, so they can be ignored, even as they call for "some kind of censorship" (you can see then who they are, too).
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      One can censor and propagandize in a decentralized network, though, and it does happen.
  - raquo 12y ago
    It's usually pretty obvious who wants to censor what information and why.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      Can you say more here?
      - raquo 12y ago
mkempe 12y ago
If you want freedom of the press, you should own the press. Today that may mean a distant web server or two, a printer, some paper, some ink. The samizdat was not built on the shoulders of some corporate behemoth. Wherever you may live, don't expect Facebook to be your agent for freedom. On the contrary.
- sigzero 12y ago
  I don't think anyone seriously thinks Facebook is an "agent for freedom".
  - mkempe 12y ago
    The point is that instead of countless people writing their thoughts in Facebook messages or status updates, because it feels easy and free, freedom would be better served by people owning blogs and other personal channels of expression.
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      It's unlikely they'd be better served trying to learn how to host their own server and blog, deal with identity and spam issues, etc. I dislike FB, but don't kid yourself that it solves a lot of problems very well for a lot of people.
- anonymfus 12y ago
  Your own server has much bigger chances to be banned than popular site. Because banning Facebook, Google, or ever Github will cause outrage amongst people who never heard about you.
  - raquo 12y ago
    Not so sure about that. Russian regulators normally don't care about tiny operations that don't influence the popular opinion. For example, there are lots of blogs talking trash about Putin and no one cares. But if you're as big as Google, you can't have "fuck Putin" on your front page. That usually leads to persecution for bullshit reasons like Navalny here.
danabramov 12y ago
They blocked this event: https://www.facebook.com/events/417200101767938/ https://www.facebook.com/events/417200101767938/ Somebody quickly created another one which gathered followers twice as quickly [1]: https://www.facebook.com/events/406603402849183/ https://www.facebook.com/events/406603402849183/ Since there are no organizers, if this one is taken down, people will create a new one. Finally, there's a website redirecting to the newest unblocked event in case current one gets blocked: https://15.navalny.us https://15.navalny.us [1]: http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/554179.html http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/554179.html

178 points by geoka9 12y ago

A bit of OT, but based on what I read on Russian Internets this Navalny person is generally recognized as a US sock-puppet even in the anti-Putin circles. His trial is clearly political, but it's less about him personally and more about keeping pressure on other agents of influence. Facebook and Twitter though ... they don't have much choice, do they? They don't comply - they get a site-wide ban in Russia, which is hardly a headache they want being for-profit entities. Capitalism at work.

kunstmord 12y ago
Except that in 3 years I haven't encountered/read a single "sane" opposition figure's opinion who would consider Navalny a sock puppet.
geoka9 12y ago
"Anti-Putin circles" is rather vague. It covers anything from the extreme right to the extreme left. If a "circle" is xenophobic then, surely, most of the centrist/liberal opposition are US sock-puppets to them, simply by the virtue of having a similar political agenda to the Western mainstream politics. I, personally, am not a fan of Navalny (I dislike racial slur in his blog posts and some of his views that I consider chauvinist), but the trend is clear: he and Khodorkovsky have been the only viable opposition leaders in Russia in the recent years. Both of them ended up in jail on similar white-collar crime charges.
- huhtenberg 12y ago
  There's certain logic to what happened to Khodorkovksy (and earlier to Berezovsky and few other people) - they all were oligarchs, they blatantly stole their way into their riches, but they were allowed by the state to use them. That is until they tried to use their money to try and un-sit those who let them become obnoxiously wealthy. They weren't the opposition per se. They were just former buddies that got drunk on money power and decided to play against their own. And they lost.
  - geoka9 12y ago
    So your point is that Putin only represses the oligarchs that dared to "bite the hand that fed"? OK, Khodorkovsky has spent 10 years in prison, been stripped of his billions and forced to leave the country upon release. But Navalny and Kasparov are not, and have never been, oligarchs; however they are either in prison or in exile (I'm sure Kasparov would be prosecuted right now, but he chose to leave Russia in 2013).
    - raquo 12y ago
      Navalny and Kasparov are in trouble because they had a shot at gaining popular momentum. Khodorkovsky privately expressed desire for a more free Russia to Putin, and was shot down as a warning to others. Putin prosecutes everyone who goes against him apart from allowing a minimal opposition to exist for the sake of appearance and venting off angry people's steam. "Shut up, look down and you'll be allowed to live" is a very popular theme in Russia across all levels from the president down to local municipal offices. If you go against those in power you will be persecuted proportionally to their power. The important thing to understand about modern Russia is that there is no separation of power. Putin owns the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges. As a corollary, everyone is guilty of something, and if not, they are made to be.
      - p1esk 12y ago
        Putin owning the parliament, the government, the military, and the judges is not the problem. The problem is that he's not able to, or not willing to, use all that power to improve life in Russia.
        raquo 12y ago
        But that is the problem – he has no incentive to do anything good for the country because he has absolute power and controls mass media. He is not accountable to anyone. In fact, he sort of benefits from people struggling. When you're hungry you don't care about democracy that much. By the way, Russians' lives did improve relative to early 1990s which is what most people remember most vividly. It's just that Putin has little to do with it, it's just a matter of rising oil prices and increased trade.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Sockpuppet means more than aligned views - it implies collaboration. It's interesting to note here that in America the IRS is regularly weaponized to attack political opponents of whichever current administration.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Despite downvote I do insist: sockpuppet does imply collaboration. And I do insist: the IRS is regularly used (with other capabilities) by American administrations to harass and discourage political opponents. This is not a contended fact and is very open to search and research.
    - geoka9 12y ago
      > sockpuppet does imply collaboration They do imply collaboration, too. Most of them see no reason to champion liberal values other than being paid for it.
- rev 12y ago
  > white-collar crime charges Agreed re Navalny, but Khodorkovsky was charged with three murder cases (and one case of attempted murder), so I'm less sure about the collar color.
  - ired 12y ago
    Have you ever seen any evidence to prove his or his associates guilt? Just because he was charged with anything makes him not guilty. Basically he was imprisoned for about 10 years for alleged tax evasion + for "stealing" crude oil. p.s. I have seen a lot of the original materials of the cases and I can assure you that State failed to prove his guilt. With Navalny cases (yes, he and his associates have been charged with many things including stealing a picture) it has reached the whole new dimension.
DenisM 12y ago
He is only recognized as "us sock-puppet" by those trying to smear critics of the regime. To add credibility to their baseless arguments, they often resort to tricks, such as ascribing the smears to some nebulous moral authority.
- kirushik 12y ago
  Also, those 'they' are typically on Putin's payroll: http://www.stopfake.org/en/putin-s-trolls/ http://www.stopfake.org/en/putin-s-trolls/
elementai 12y ago
Contrary to latter is an example of Vkontakte russian social network refusing to block ukranian EuroMaidan groups. Which subsequently led to it's founder Pavel Durov resignation.
- SpaceRaccoon 12y ago
  So apparently the narrative goes, he resigned, the network is owned by Putin's cronies now...yet all the Euromaidan groups still exist.

onewaystreet 12y ago

The alternative is that all of Facebook gets blocked. People wanting to access this page are better off doing so through TOR anyway.

imaginenore 12y ago
Except, from what I hear, Facebook itself blocked it for all the users registered in Russia, so TOR can't help you.
- goblin89 12y ago
  > from what I hear, Facebook itself blocked it for all the users registered in Russia, so TOR can't help you. What do you mean by “registered in Russia”? If Facebook doesn’t employ IP geolocation or something of that sort then anyone who feels strongly about the issue will simply change or unset their country in profile settings.
jamesaguilar 12y ago
On some level, that might be preferable because of the additional outrage it might generate.
- wmf 12y ago
  Twitter/Facebook have argued that they can do more good by being 99% accessible in oppressive countries than by generating outrage.

eliben 12y ago

The relations of tech giants with totalitarian governments like Russia is a typical tragedy of the commons. The only step that makes sense for the common good is to remove all business from that country. But Facebook can't do it, because then Google will get all the profits, and Google/Yahoo/whomever can't do it for the same reason. If they all could just agree...

yabatopia 12y ago
Of course Facebook has a choice. It may cost them some money, but refusing to collaborate with totalitarian governments is an option. Look at Google versus China. Google had the courage to resist Chinese censorship and I really respect them for that.
- polack 12y ago
  Lets not forget that Google complied with Chinese censorship requests until China hacked them. As long as only minorities are the victim then these Internet giants don't give a damn. So now we just wait until Russia bans Facebook for other reasons and watch Facebook collect goodwill when they turn around and start to "stand up against censorship".
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Let's also not forget that China hacked Google's portal for the federal intelligence to understand what surveillance operations were being done against their country. Russia may ultimately ban Facebook for similar reasons. China eventually decided that it wouldn't deal with the US's weaponization of large web corporations - this may eventually be the end state of all the large powers.
dfkf 12y ago
Bot google and facebook have very strong domestic competitors in Russia. So their withdrawal from the country would achieve exactly nothing.
us0r 12y ago

DenisM 12y ago

This incident highlights dangers of centralized information distribution brought to us by social networks - being a single point of control they present attractive target for pressure by censors of all kinds, be it dictator regimes, powerful corporations in the west, etc. It's not unlike Napster - there is a lot of benefit to everyone being in one place, but far too easy to subvert. The solution to Facebook censorship will likely take a similar path - gradual decentralization.

brador 12y ago
There are advantages to this, at least temporarily. We can see who wants to censor the information. With a distributed network they would simply blend into the crowd.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  And what good does that do us? With a decentralized network those who want to censor can't, so they can be ignored, even as they call for "some kind of censorship" (you can see then who they are, too).
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    One can censor and propagandize in a decentralized network, though, and it does happen.
- raquo 12y ago
  It's usually pretty obvious who wants to censor what information and why.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    Can you say more here?
    - raquo 12y ago

mkempe 12y ago

If you want freedom of the press, you should own the press. Today that may mean a distant web server or two, a printer, some paper, some ink. The samizdat was not built on the shoulders of some corporate behemoth. Wherever you may live, don't expect Facebook to be your agent for freedom. On the contrary.

sigzero 12y ago
I don't think anyone seriously thinks Facebook is an "agent for freedom".
- mkempe 12y ago
  The point is that instead of countless people writing their thoughts in Facebook messages or status updates, because it feels easy and free, freedom would be better served by people owning blogs and other personal channels of expression.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    It's unlikely they'd be better served trying to learn how to host their own server and blog, deal with identity and spam issues, etc. I dislike FB, but don't kid yourself that it solves a lot of problems very well for a lot of people.
anonymfus 12y ago
Your own server has much bigger chances to be banned than popular site. Because banning Facebook, Google, or ever Github will cause outrage amongst people who never heard about you.
- raquo 12y ago
  Not so sure about that. Russian regulators normally don't care about tiny operations that don't influence the popular opinion. For example, there are lots of blogs talking trash about Putin and no one cares. But if you're as big as Google, you can't have "fuck Putin" on your front page. That usually leads to persecution for bullshit reasons like Navalny here.

danabramov 12y ago

They blocked this event: https://www.facebook.com/events/417200101767938/ https://www.facebook.com/events/417200101767938/ Somebody quickly created another one which gathered followers twice as quickly [1]: https://www.facebook.com/events/406603402849183/ https://www.facebook.com/events/406603402849183/ Since there are no organizers, if this one is taken down, people will create a new one. Finally, there's a website redirecting to the newest unblocked event in case current one gets blocked: https://15.navalny.us https://15.navalny.us [1]: http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/554179.html http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/554179.html