© Guido Mieth / gettyimages
The proposed legislation was prepared and drafted jointly by the conservative parliamentary majority party United Russia and populist nationalists LDPR. Its sponsors propose that the new rules for online video-on-demand sites come into force starting March 1 this year.
The current draft sets the maximum limit for stakes of foreign citizens and companies in Russian companies providing video-on-demand services at 20 percent. It also reads that Russian authorities can shut down any other management scheme if it allows for direct or indirect control of the services from abroad. The bill further forbids video-on-demand websites from showing advertising ordered by political parties or any other election campaign material.
The draft concerns services that run only "professionally made content," meaning websites like YouTube that host primarily user-generated content are not required to follow its regulations.
The government has already approved the bill but required that its authors expand their explanations of why the 20 percent limit of foreign ownership is necessary. The amendments are expected to be made within 30 days.
At the very beginning of 2016, Russia introduced a law that sets the maximum foreign stake in Russian mass media companies at 20 percent. The same law also banned foreigners (including residents without citizenship and Russians who have citizenship of other nations) from being founders of Russian mass media companies. Exceptions are allowed for media derived from state-level international treaties, like Mir television, which was founded jointly by several CIS nations.
The sponsors of the motion said the main reason behind it was the desire to provide maximum information security. They also noted that the 20 percent limit was chosen because a 25 percent share would enable a powerful veto possibility, allowing shareholders to exert serious influence on the information policy of any media outlet.
The sponsors of the motion said the main reason behind it was the desire to provide maximum information security. They also noted that the 20 percent limit was chosen because a 25 percent share would enable a powerful veto possibility, allowing shareholders to exert serious influence on the information policy of any media outlet.
Now just think about that, if one has enough money and influence, if you buy greater than 20-25% it could change or alter the thought process of people.
We have become a people of visual images and social media information, not that I think that is a bad thing, discernment is needed. In one way, if one looks at it in a esoteric sense, that is where human communication began IMO.
Is this not what we are seeing now in this present time, with movements in the US.
The denigration against Trump comes to mind, this is even before he is sworn into office. MSM influencing social media and has gone into overdrive, it's like it's on steroids,.
I have never before seen anything like it and most political pundits voice the same concerns (the ones that have unbiased opinions) when talking about Trump, and he has not taken office.
So the bigger question to my mind is.
Where is this coming from, and who is directing such opposition, who has the money and influence to direct such opposition in the Western world.
And as always the Latin phrase, Cuo Bono who benefits.