WHAT IS THE RUSSIAN FOR FACEBOOK? AN: No, it’s a matter of principle. Zuckerberg gave it to us straight: if we block something, that’s right. By definition, it must be hate speech. That’s the principle. It doesn’t matter whether you are engaging in hate speech or not. If our moderator presses the button, we know he’s done the right thing. Mind you, that applies only to Russian-language Facebook, but it applies equally to Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Jews who live in Israel but write in Russian. VA: Why does Twitter behave so completely differently? There’s no problem there that you’re trying to send a message to mother but some Russo-Ukrainian war is getting in the way. AN: Twitter behaves differently because, from the outset, it was created as a platform for realizing the right to free speech. It’s not a medium for personal messages, it’s a platform for public statements. Public statements are privileged, protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There’s no problem there that you’re trying to send a message to mother but some Russo-Ukrainian war is getting in the way. On Twitter nothing anyone tweets is private. You are speaking in public. Facebook was set up so that private individuals could communicate with people they know personally. Facebook is a realm of interpersonal communication, where war is just a nuisance. Using Facebook for propaganda campaigns and wars is a violation of the purpose for which Facebook, in its own view, was created. That’s why antagonists are a problem for Facebook but not for Twitter. VA: And that’s why Twitter refuses point blank to block content at the request of Roskomnadzor? AN: Of course. But Roskomnadzor’s big complaint against Twitter is that it refuses to divulge personal data. Why has no one fired the starting pistol? This is another problem in the dealings of global providers with Roskomnadzor. It came to the fore when Russia adopted a law on users’ personal data. Under the law of 21 July 2014 (which has the lengthy title of “On the introduction of amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation with regard to clarification of the processing of personal data in information and telecommunications networks”), databases with personal information of users who are citizens of Russia must be stored on servers located in Russia. The initial date for the law to come into force was 1 September 2016. However, an amendment moved this forward by a year, to 1 September 2015 (although, in practice, the law, will only come into force in January 2016). Some foreign companies, such as Samsung, have fallen into line with its stipulations. Microsoft Corporation has agreed to retain for six months and forward to the Russian law enforcement agencies information on conversations, correspondence, and the exchanging of data between Skype users. The PayPal payment system has introduced restrictions on anonymous payments to Russia. What will happen to social networks which refuse, or claim it is technically impossible, to move servers to Russia? The situation is paradoxical. On the one hand, President Putin is convinced that the Internet is controlled by the US government, and has regularly said as much. For example, in April last year, at a meeting with those attending a Media Forum of Independent Regional and Local Mass Media, he addressed precisely this problem of the storage of personal data: 11