😲 🤙🏽 📇 Alexander Plyushchev about the politicization of the Internet, the digitalization of power and robots that will replace journalists (but this is not accurate) 👩🏿‍✈️ 👨🏾‍🌾 🤴

The well-known Russian journalist, host of the Tochka program on Echo of Moscow radio about Internet and technology, as well as the author of the Deutsche Welle column, Alexander Plyushchev, gave Roskomsvoboda an interview.

He has been working on the topic of the Internet since the 90s, so he has a good understanding of the development of the Web over the past twenty years. Alexander shared with us his vision of the mutual influence of politics and the Runet, how Zharov’s trick differs from Yandex’s trick, why Klishas and Bokova do not pay attention to criticism, do users have a request for personal data protection and can artificial intelligence reproduce Shenderovich. And also - that lately he was really impressed.

Runet and politics

“People who are in control were born in the pre-Internet era”

- Alexander, you have a fairly wide range of topics on which you, as a journalist, work. This is politics, and public topics, and the Internet, and gadgets. When did you start, I suppose, politics and the Internet went separately? We can say that these two topics are increasingly intersecting now, and personal on the Internet is now political?

The Internet in Russia began to develop in 1995-1996, I dealt with it closely in 1998. Not everyone back then even knew what the Internet was, and my role was more likely to be enlightening, I talked about it. Now that everyone knows what the Internet is (77% of Russia's population has access to the Internet from home- approx. Ed.), any state cannot but pay attention to it. Therefore, everything related to the Internet is becoming the subject of state interest, and if so, then this is politics in one form or another.

- Why does the Russian government have such a great interest in the Internet and technology? And the digital economy is a national project in our country, and they want electronic voting, and much more is indicative. Not all countries have that.

I can’t compare, but I agree, yes, in Russia they pay great attention to the Internet. There are two reasons for this. First, our technologies are developing well thanks to bright heads and a very good education in mathematics and programming. Unlike many countries, Russia has its own companies that have succeeded not only in the domestic market, but also globally actively compete with transnational American companies. This is Yandex, Kaspersky Lab, ABBYY. Not bad for a country with a relatively small market and population.

The second reason is that Russia is an authoritarian, autocratic state, its control issues are very interested. If the Internet becomes a political factor, it must also be controlled.

« 2010- , , ».

But Putin does believe that the Internet is a CIA project . Therefore, one can imagine that mass communications are of great importance for the state.

“The Russian authorities see the Internet as a powerful aggravating circumstance,” you wrote in one of the articles. And why is the fear of the Internet in power? The question may seem trite, but on the other hand, sofa critics are often only sofa critics, why should they be afraid?

People who are in control were born in the pre-Internet era. They generally do not understand what self-regulation is. For example, Wikipedia has no editor in chief, no editorial advice - no one determines what to write. And officials do not understandWhat are network horizontal structures without a leader. They were born in the 50s and lived a great life without the Internet, they have black and white ideas about the world in general. The Internet is a mysterious thing. Putin does not use it and has little idea what it is. “Why do I need Facebook when I have an FSB.” And these people make decisions. What generation is in power, such and such decisions. Not even in the age sense, but in the worldview. There are young people, but they behave the same way.

- Will this change in the future?

I think this is inevitable. But I'm not sure that your grandchildren will be able to find this. However, everything may change in the near future. The problem, however, is that we look at other deputies and think that they are morons, and so for twenty years already. During this time, a couple of generations have changed. From somewhere new young people come who are brought up in the same system of values, despite the fact that their whole life has passed with the Internet. Nevertheless, the environment apparently determines consciousness.

“It also turns out that the system cannot generate other models.”

Yes.

Locks, censorship, personal data

“Everything related to the taking of money from the population is developing at an incredible pace: taxes, parking, banking, food delivery”

- If we talked about officials and digitalization, then the next question. Do you agree that Mishustin improved the Federal Tax Service through a digital reform ?

My acquaintances, businessmen are happy about this, it has become easier for them in reporting. I don’t know, for business, maybe it works. Mishustin from the Stone Age brought the ministry digitally, that's true. Another thing is that relations between people have not changed. For example, you cannot solve the arisen problem online, it is necessary to address in tax. What happens in this tax? There, the operator looks at the computer, just as you would look at home, and says that it is not clear how this thing works. And sends you to leadership. But leadership, for example, is not.

Digitalization looks good, but so far nothing has happened. During a failure, at best, you will be able to get yours back with big fights. And nothing is ever decided in favor of the citizen. As a rule, everything is decided in favor of the state.

In other countries, however, no better. Europe and the United States have their own bureaucracy, and technological progress is very peculiar.

Also, I would not say that in 2020, digitalization begets a miracle, and we must carry Mishustin in our arms and therefore forgive him, for example, corruption suspicions.

- Does “digitization” threaten the government now?

I do not know. In general, everything related to the taking of money from the population is developing at an incredible pace: taxes, parking, banking, food delivery.

- About other representatives of the authorities. Why do you think it was Bokova and Klishas who suddenly blew up legislation at once with several high-profile laws - on sovereignty, fakes, disrespect, and others? And despite the fact that each time they experience a strong negative impact through the media, they still introduce new laws to tighten the Internet and technology. They reconciled that they act as cannon fodder and work out an expensive government order, or do not know what they are doing, or sincerely believe that their laws strengthen sovereignty and effectively fight evil?

They are in the service. What they ordered, they did.

- That is, all this is not even their ideas?

I am absolutely sure of that. It is possible that they are taking an active part in this. But it doesn’t bother me much. I think they are like a wheel in a car that just spins, but they do not spin on their own, they are spun by the engine. Personally, I do not dislike them. Besides the moment that even if you are in the service, you need to argue your position. A senator cannot be non-public, in my opinion. They are terribly afraid of contacts with the press and talk only if everything is pre-arranged. They do not answer real questions. This shows that they do not believe in their position. However, perhaps this is normal for a soldier, who is the main thing to fulfill the order.

- The question is about another public person from the government. Remember, last year, the head of Roskomnadzor Alexander Zharov at some point recognizedthat locking resources is an inefficient method. Before that, he claimed that blocking Telegram is a matter of time. Do you think he really realized the inefficiency of the methods? And does this lead to the abolition of locks or to new methods of "repression"?

Alexander Zharov is a wonderful, wonderful and touching trickster. In my opinion, this person is ideal as a censorship agency. The combination of his “professionalism” (knowledge and ability to attract specialists who still cannot block Telegram) and his diligence allows the Internet to breathe more or less freely. Without a balance between these qualities, the Internet would be more difficult. Zharov portrays vigorous activity wonderfully, and the media help him in this when they discuss his actions and sometimes even scold him.

Let's see: Telegram works, Twitter works. The first, of course, thanks to the efforts of Durov and the team too. But this is the merit of Zharov and Roskomnadzor. Google and Facebook work, although there has long been a law on the transfer of services to Russia. Internet is available. Without Zharov, it would have been worse. I highly appreciate his services to the Runet.

- You wrote something similar about Yandex. Say, Yandex also plays the game ...

San Sanych is very smart, really. And cunning. But his mind and cunning are bureaucratic and everyday.

Yandex has a different plan - business. And bureaucratic tricks are different from business ones like heaven and earth. In one case, people want to work for their own business at the lowest cost, in which many people are involved, and the public good. In another case, people cover their own asshole. This is what we have on the scales, although it looks, perhaps, the same - a trick here and there.

- In Russia, the Roskomnadzor periodically Facebook with Twitter fined , that the FTS by OOO "Google" block. ( ) ? ? , ?

Let's start from the end. I believe that users have already lost once and for all. Because no one had previously bothered about their data, and if you missed it once, you won’t take it back. No, theoretically, you can probably oblige Facebook to erase everything that it knows about us every day. Or take the last case with Yandex, which, at the request of the state, issued data on Golunov’s trips. They could not give out according to the law. But they could depersonalize them, so for the requesting party they would become meaningless. And store only a week, and then turn into an undecodable "brick". However, this will hurt their business, because taxis are built not only and not so much on drivers as on the very big data that the company receives from trips. Therefore, the user has already lost.

What should the state do? First of all, it should provide conditions for competition. Because monopolistic players dictate their own rules of conduct. Facebook can erase your account, and the courts will not help you, because you signed an agreement in which such an option is probably written somewhere in small print. And you did not read it. And it is not up to the state to dictate use agreements. The task of the state is to create such a competitive environment so that no company can afford to do to its users what they do not like. Otherwise, the competitor will immediately intercept and win. In general, the market should decide everything. And to create a market is the task of the state. Maybe even interstate relations: for example, care that Google does not devour Yandex. This does not mean that you need to pour money into Yandex,so that he always kept afloat. It is necessary to create conditions for its development.

Let me remind you that in Russia Yandex was always in super-competitive conditions and beat Google. And he continues to do this now to some extent.

In the USA, by the way, the market is not created at all. Facebook is a monopoly. Twitter is also a monopoly.

What should companies do? They do not have to do anything. Capitalists should strive for maximum profit; they have such a task.

- But what about the social responsibility of business?

I don’t believe in it, to be honest. The social responsibility of business begins where the business does not want to conflict with the state and prefers to pay off it. If you do not limit the business, he will spit on social responsibility.

I believe in competition. It should alone make companies socially responsible.

“If Yandex provided Golunov’s data, all other companies, in theory, could say: tomorrow we will anonymize the data, you can ride our taxi. But they won’t do it because they’re afraid of the state. ”

Each company is pleased to build an audience. If this is possible by ensuring user privacy, why not.

- Who owns this data?

The data belongs to users, judging by the name - personal data. But we allow someone else to use them. It’s just that every time you have to agree on what conditions. Another thing is that we do not agree looking, because we have no other choice. I can’t come to Facebook lawyers and say: let's make a couple of changes, and then I will sign the agreement.

- Maybe this is the question of social responsibility?

The business is still a different task - to make money. Well, there is no big request from society for this. The only ones dealing with such topics are human rights organizations like Roskomsvoboda. I have not seen millions of demonstrations "We do not want to give your data to Facebook." It’s true that Facebook’s audience is scattered all over the world, but nonetheless. The interests of users are protected by NGOs, which are unlikely to receive much gratitude for this.

- Why don't users have a request?

Because there is no understanding. 90% do not even think about such things. I understand them in a way: the danger here is very abstract. Well, they’ll send me an advertisement, and then what? And some will even say that it’s right to transfer data to the state: you never know what crimes it will save.

- Talking about personal data. Why is Europe accepting GDPR and Russia is going in the opposite direction?

I am not a big supporter of GDPR. It seems to me that it rather limits the freedom of business and users than the latter brings any benefits. I think this is a good attempt to protect human rights, but, as is often the case in practice, it is not very effective and formal. Ineffective because the danger of leakage is still here. That is, in general, not much has changed.

- Encryption and anonymity - where is the balance? Can one claim the right to anonymity in our era of universal openness?

If you make an effort, then yes, but not without exception and not everywhere. And you can always carry out deanonymization, but this is a matter of resources. So, the one who makes false calls about the mining of buildings has not yet been found. Either they do not want to find him, or they cannot. I suppose they can’t. At first they didn’t want to, but now they can’t.

New media formats and communication methods

“It turned out that two talking heads can easily collect tens of millions of views, such as the Dude program”

- It was very interesting to read about telegramization from you - a phenomenon when everyone can get their own media and if they start, they prefer to speak in it and not go to others. What other trends at the junction of media, communications and new technologies can you see?

I am very passionate about the video.

« , . , . , , ».

It turned out that two talking heads can easily collect tens of millions of views, such as the Dude program. This is a trend, and I predict that we will see its further incredible development.

I didn’t really believe in podcasts always, but they occupied their niche. Perhaps they will still be able to recapture part of the space from the radio.

- Returning directly to telegramization, do not you think that segmentation still has its drawbacks?

I warmly welcome segmentation. What's bad about it? This is the choice of people. And this is nothing new, by the way. Previously, it was even worse - with the centralization of the media there was no choice.

Also, people often do not want to receive alternative information. There are also parties of environmentalists about which we do not know their political orientation. It turns out that people without a pronounced political agenda can influence politics. They add variety to their drop.

- Yes, but a person closes on himself ...

People create comfortable conditions for themselves. For a politician, you probably need to imagine what kind of electorate you have. The electorate itself doesn’t care what is outside of his world. This is a great achievement of our time - the ability to create psychological comfort for ourselves.

- How to agree in the conditions of such a separation? For example, to vote in elections?

There are mechanisms for this. The bubble is self-defense. If you do not want information to penetrate you, it will not penetrate. But you can open the valve if you need it. There are things that concern everyone, such as the weather. Here you need to negotiate. But we didn’t fenced off on them. On issues that are not of concern to everyone, a person, it turns out, does not want to negotiate.

- “Yandex.Auto,” in your opinion, will kill FM broadcasting. It will kill, not displace. You did not write in detail why. Can you tell our audience?

I used the name as a common name, because Yandex.Avto alone is not capable of killing a seedy radio station - this is a poor development. Service, of course, is progressing, but so far not enough.

Such technologies enable users to listen to anything. Radio does not provide such freedom. In addition, all the resources that distribute their resources through these services (for example, Medusa are podcasts) become radio stations rivals. And the latter may lose. But it's good. Competition is good.

- Do not be afraid that robots will work for journalists - both textually and visually, and in voice, incl. imitating discussion and jokes in the course of speech? :)

Yes, he can now. We have one time, "Alice" participated in my broadcasts. Robots can read news, weather forecasts.

“This is not terrible from the point of view that journalists will be out of work. This is scary because it is easier to filter the information given to people. So, Alice will only tell news from Yandex.News. And it turns out that you are not creating your own world, but she is creating her own world to you. ”

Robot is good at replacing technical things. The robot is good at compilation, including music (music is also a compilation, in fact). I don’t know if he can make brilliant works, but nonetheless. Radio gives unpredictability. Listeners are interested in what they say next. If the robot learns unpredictability, then I'm afraid we have a problem. But I think he will not learn soon, because he is just programmed to be predictable.

However, you can play on the verge of these things. Yandex.Music is an example of predictable unpredictability. You can choose what you like, and the service will pop up similar tunes. Play it all in a row (classics, ethnic songs) - few will take it. Or here every week a large audience listens to Shenderovich. Despite the fact that in general she knows what he will talk about. But every time he makes a new pitch. And the robot playing on this balance (predictable-unpredictable, old-new) will not be created for a long time. I think it’s difficult to reproduce Shenderovich (writer Viktor Shenderovich is one of the most popular regular guests of “Echo of Moscow” - approx. Ed.). Although here are the leading “Let's get married”, maybe it’s possible :)

“Even if they reproduce it, maybe this will not be a problem either?” People will reach a new level of development ...

Maybe. By the way, when I first heard Alice, I tensed up a bit. On the radio, you have to wait for what they say next. And “Alice” gives out everything you want, and not much worse. This is impressive.

Interview conducted by Melisa Savina, RosKomSvoboda

RosKomSvoboda - a public organization and we really count on the help of the community to continue our work!

Thanks to everyone who helps us!