Russia puts the hammer on criticism of the government

I believe American censorship of criticism works in a different way than Russian/European. People are quick to point the finger at Russia for being "authoritarian" (which no doubt they are in in many ways) but people fail to see how incredibly censored North America is as well...people may obtusely criticize Trump-to the point where he has become a national 'meme' but people do not openly criticize other parts of the government very loudly...ie. military spending, the prevalence of liberal ideology, and the censorship of radical left thought. People are very censored here in North America, but it works in different, subtler ways, I feel.

Reply to Grre I think it's the apathy of the comfortable here in the US. If Trump tries to obstruct justice, people are just appalled by how stupidly he went about it, not that he did something underhanded and unethical. We've come to expect that the government is a lying puppet of rich interest groups.

The US doesn't need to introduce censorship on the internet because people mostly don't care as long as they have money to pay their cell phone bills.

So why does the Russian government feel the need to do this? Is it more unstable than it looks?

'Is going'?

You are referring to the former FSB-director and last Prime Minister of Yeltsin that rose to power by starting the Second Chechen War after the FSB killed 367 Russians in Apartment bombings in suburbs?

(I think Litvinenko, but also Aleksandr Lebed, Andrei Illarionov, Anna Politkovskaya and others made quite evident the case.)

So, that guy 'is' just now going old-school?

Reply to ssu The NPR article said the internet has been fairly free in Russia up until now. Is that wrong?

But I take your point. Russians have always had their government stepping on their necks, so to speak.

First of all, Russians are extremely wary of media. They, the smart ones, are quite skeptical about the official line. Far more than Americans, actually.

And basically Putin's strategy has been to dominate the TV, yet have a few independent small papers around to show the West that Russia does have free journalism, which explain just why a journalist like Anna Politkovskaya could write all that she did, up to the point when she was killed that is. And if you watch for example Russia Today, it can have quite good journalism on issues that aren't the focus of Russian propaganda. And of course don't criticize Putin etc. And that's the bias.

With the net Russia has had similar objectives as China to create a controlled own Russian internet space and social media hub. And the natural reason is of course the hostile West. Thus we have news articles like this from last February 19th, 2019:

Russia is preparing to temporarily unplug from the internet in a test of the country’s cyberdefence capabilities, according to reports.The disconnection is expected to take place sometime before April as part of the preparations for a draft law aimed at making Russia more digitally independent.

The legislation, known as the Digital Economy National Programme (DENP), was submitted to parliament last year and would “require internet providers to make sure they can operate” if foreign countries attempt to isolate the the Runet, or Russian Internet, according to US news site NPR.
-
Under the plan, Russian ISPs would “redirect web traffic to routing points within the country and rely on its own copy of the Domain Name System (DNS), the directory of domains and addresses that underpins the global internet”, reports science news site TechCrunch.

The BBC says these routing points, which are “essentially a series of thousands of digital networks along which information travels”, are “notoriously the weakest link in the chain” of cybersecurity. Russia wants to “bring those router points that handle data entering or exiting the country within its borders and under its control”, so that it can then “pull up the drawbridge” to external traffic if needed, the broadcaster continues.

See Why Russia wants to disconnect from the internet

Reply to frank

Apathy and disinterest are certainly powerful tools of censorship in North America-such as the idea that we are always being watched. Surveillance is something people just have come to terms with-I am in no way surprised knowing that I am likely being watched by some government agency.

I agree people are appalled by Trump's veracity and obtuse declarations-and people also like him because of it, because it is 'refreshing'. I believe Trump got elected largely due to this reason, not only because people may agree with some of his outspoken ideas, but even just because he was outspoken more generally-defying an unspoken rule in North American politics-never say anything outspoken ever. Politics is for the smooth-talkers, the vague statements, the Party lines, not for real declarations-Trump shakes the pot so to speak. I don't necessarily agree with all of his policies (nor am I even American) but given the choice between him and Hilary, he was the obvious choice. Hilary and the Clintons more generally, represent everything people have come to abhor and dislike about politics.

I also believe Trump is his own form of censorship-one of the reasons why I have no interest in pop-shop politics. "Oh Trump did this" "Trump said that" "Oh no Trump!" is all you hear in mainstream news outlets, and I feel that it is a major form of 'smoke n mirrors', meant to distract people from and obscure the real issues in the (North) American political climate, and the bigger agencies and systems at work. Take the NRA for example, by far a more powerful group and more worthy of intense analysis and scrutiny than Trump's rants, but it is not scrutinized or explored by these news outlets. I personally, couldn't imagine watching the news unironically, but a lot of people do. Concerning.