Getting a loan for solar panels how to pay for solar panels financing options for solar panels solar panels 0 finance uk best way to finance solar system how to finance how to finance an investment property

How to finance your solar panels: Cash, loan, lease and more

How to finance your solar panels: Cash, loan, lease and more

Whether you're looking to save money, avoid paying so much to your utility or keep some carbon out of the atmosphere, homeowners are generating their own energy with rooftop solar. By some estimates, 13.4% of homes will have solar panels installed by 2030.

While prices are dropping steadily (though supply chain snags have pushed them up recently), rooftop solar costs thousands of dollars, sometimes tens of thousands. Most people don't have that kind of cash laying around, but there are plenty of options for paying for solar.

---

Advertiser Disclosure : CNET's corporate partner, SaveOnEnergy, can help you find the right energy fit for your home. The SaveOnEnergy marketplace helps you search, compare, sign up and save on the right energy fit for your home — all for free. If you're interested in solar, answer a few questions to get an exact price quote from our solar advisors.  

---

"Financing has always been an issue," said Roger Horowitz, director of co-ops at Solar United Neighbors, a nonprofit and advocacy group helping people adopt solar in 11 states. Being able to finance solar is often dependent on having a bunch of cash, good credit and owning a home. 

This article aims to hit some of the highlights of solar financing, but it should not be taken as financial advice. For that you'll have to find someone more qualified to determine whether going solar makes financial sense for you and how to best pull it off. 

Buying solar panels with cash

Arguably the most straightforward way to buy solar panels is with cash, and the benefits are clear. With a cash payment you avoid paying interest and loan fees and don't need a qualifying credit score. As a result, you'll save more money over the life of your solar panels. 

You do have to cough up more cash up front, however, so it will take a while before you recoup the money that you've spent. That period of time is called a payback period, and it's a useful piece of information when deciding whether or not paying in cash is a good option for you. The average payback period is eight years in the US, and you can find help calculating your payback period here.

A cash purchase gives you the opportunity to take advantage of the federal solar tax credit. If your solar panels are fully installed through 2022, the US government will give you 26% of the cost back when you file your taxes. In 2023 the credit falls to 22% and will disappear after that, barring new legislation.

That means you could be getting thousands of dollars back, but it also means you don't get that money back until tax time.

Paying cash works best for folks who have a stable cash flow and can absorb such a large one-time payment, said Grant Klein, senior dealer relations specialist at Clean Energy Credit Union.

Buying solar panels with a loan

If you can't afford to pay all at once, solar loans are widely available from a number of sources and in a number of forms, though a poor credit score might disqualify you.

It's increasingly common for solar providers to offer loans, often from a third party. While these loans are easy to apply for, they can have higher fees associated with them than options from a bank or credit union.

"The vast majority of folks that purchase solar that we see end up using loans from their installers," Horowitz said. He pins that apparent preference on how easy it can be to get a loan in that way. However, getting multiple loan proposals (at least two, Horowitz said) can save you significant money.

One such option is a home equity loan or home equity line of credit, where you borrow against the equity of your house (what you could get for selling it minus what you owe on your mortgage). You can borrow up to 85% of that amount, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

You can claim the federal solar tax credit if you purchase solar using a loan, though it comes back to you when you file your taxes, not when you buy your system. Still, it might be useful in paying back the loan.

Solar loans can be secured or unsecured. A secured loan is one that's backed by collateral, like your house or the solar panels themselves. Essentially, you're saying the lender can sell your collateral to pay off the loan if you fail to pay it. Solar loans are most often secured by the solar equipment, Klein said. Home equity loans are secured by the value in your house. Unsecured loans don't have that guarantee backing them up. As a result, secured loans offer lower interest rates and longer terms for paying them back. 

With any of these options, it's important to shop around and compare lenders. Again, this article isn't to be considered as financial advice. 

Getting help from the government to buy solar panels

Beyond the federal solar tax credit, the federal government (and sometimes your state) can help with a couple of other financing options.

A HomeStyle energy mortgage from Fannie Mae allows you to add the cost of a solar project into your new or refinanced mortgage. The Federal Housing Administration offers similar additions to mortgages. The amount of money you can borrow is determined based on the value of your home. 

One of the advantages of an energy efficient mortgage is that you're borrowing money once instead of twice. That means you only pay one set of loan costs and fees, and you can pay it back over 30 years, instead of 10 or 15 as can be the case with other solar loans. This keeps your monthly payment low. Not every lending institution offers loans from these programs and the borrowing process can be complicated.

"They tend to be more complicated, because you need to make so many phone calls to reach the right people," Horowitz said. That can place an extra burden on people who have fewer financial resources, the people the program is meant to help. It's important to work with an institution who knows how to navigate these systems, Horowitz said. 

An energy efficient mortgage can be used for other energy saving equipment in addition to solar panels such as new insulation, new windows and doors, smart thermostats or water efficiency improvements. Whatever the upgrade, it must be cost effective, which means it needs to save more money over its lifetime than it costs. For most places in the country, solar panels are sure to satisfy that requirement.

Johner Images/Getty Images

Another option is Property Assessed Clean Energy, which deserves a brief mention despite only being available to residential customers in California, Florida and Missouri. Working with a local PACE office, you can finance your solar panels and pay back the loan over a longer period of time through an additional charge on your taxes. In theory, this makes large purchases more affordable, though early iterations of the program have actually buried some low income homeowners with debt and the possibility of foreclosure. New regulations passed by state legislatures could fix this problem.

Getting solar through a lease or power purchase agreement

If buying solar using cash or a loan is out of reach because of poor credit, lack of cash or some other reason, you still have options. Instead of buying, you can enter into a lease or power purchase agreement with a solar provider. With both options, lumped together as third-party-owned solar, the solar provider owns the panels and you agree to pay for the equipment (via lease) or pay for the power (power purchase agreement), usually at a lower price than you pay your utility.

CNET went into detail on power purchase agreements earlier, but briefly, here's what you need to know.

The biggest benefits to these arrangements are that you don't have to buy solar panels to get solar power. Usually you'll save money on power over the life of your agreement, too. And you won't have to worry about the maintenance of the panels, although maintenance usually isn't a huge burden.

Power purchase agreements usually save you less money than buying panels outright. And, depending on the price of your lease or power purchase agreement and how much your payment increases over time, you could end up saving significantly less. The federal tax credit also goes to the owner of the system, in this case the solar company.

Because these agreements commonly last for 25 years, they work best if you plan to stay in your house long term. Anecdotal reports reveal moving to a house with third-party-owned solar panels can be onerous and expensive. What happens if you move is something you'll want to be sure of before sticking third-party-owned solar panels on your roof.

Also, be aware that third-party ownership of solar panels isn't allowed in every state.

Which solar financing option is best?

Sorry! I'm not giving financial advice here. Before making any decision, make sure you get the advice you need from someone qualified, get multiple offers on solar projects or loans, and make a point of reading all the fine print.

Are there finance options I left out? Others you're curious about? Did you finance solar panels in a way that worked perfectly for you? Reach out via comments and let me know.

---

Source

https://residencec.costa.my.id/

.

Biden handing over us to who biden signing crypto bill biden sends 5 million biden laptop nbc news biden sends 5 million biden requesting 33 billion biden 30 by 30 plan pres app 538 biden biden sends missiles to ukraine

Biden Sends $53B to US Chipmakers by Signing CHIPS Act Into Law

Biden Sends $53B to US Chipmakers by Signing CHIPS Act Into Law

President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law Tuesday, sending $52.7 billion to processor manufacturers over five years in an effort to help the US reclaim semiconductor industry leadership lost to Taiwanese and Korean companies and challenged by increasingly capable Chinese firms.

The legislation has already helped encourage smartphone chip designer Qualcomm to spend $4.2 billion with chipmaker GlobalFoundries to build processors in New York, the White House said in a fact sheet released Tuesday. And Micron will invest $40 billion in memory chip manufacturing capacity, the White House said, a move that could elevate the US share of memory chipmaking from 2% to 10%.

"The CHIPS and Science Act supercharges our efforts to make semiconductors here in America," Biden said in a speech Tuesday at the White House's Rose Garden. "America invented the semiconductor, and this law brings it back home."

It costs billions of dollars to build new chip fabrication facilities, called fabs. The CHIPS Act will knock about $3 billion off a $10 billion leading-edge fab, said Intel, which is sinking more than $40 billion into new and upgraded fabs in Arizona, Ohio, New Mexico and Oregon and stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries.

US fabs made 37% of processors in 1990, but that's dropped to 12%, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. The CHIPS Act is designed to reverse that trend, shoring up an industry that's critical to electric vehicles, laptops, weapons systems, washing machines, toys and just about anything that uses electricity about anything with a power plug or battery.

The law emerged after a chip shortage made it clear how much US industries and the US military now rely on processors made overseas. As Intel, a Silicon Valley fixture, struggled to advance over the last decade, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. in Taiwan and Samsung in South Korea took the lead. China, eager to foster a native chipmaking industry, subsidized its own rivals like Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.

TSMC and Samsung are foundries, businesses that build chips for other companies. Intel, in contrast, has chiefly built its own chips. Part of Intel Chief Executive Pat Gelsinger's recovery plan is to add a foundry business, expanding its manufacturing volume and drawing in new customers such as Taiwanese chip designer MediaTek. Although Samsung and TSMC have headquarters and most of their chipmaking business overseas, both are building new fabs in the US, too. GlobalFoundries, a foundry based in the US, isn't on the leading edge of chipmaking for most technologies, but it's expanding capacity, too.

That chip shortage frustrated consumers eager to lap up PlayStation 5 game consoles during the COVID-19 pandemic and shuttered US auto plants as crucial electronic components stalled manufacturing. The shortage also provided a measure of rare bipartisan support for the CHIPS Act, which passed with a 243-187 vote in the House of Representatives and a 64-33 vote in the Senate in late July.

Waning chip manufacturing in the US comes with geopolitical worries. China claims Taiwan as its own territory and has been saber-rattling with military exercises since Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, visited Taiwan last week. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent cessation of high-tech product imports also shows how vulnerable a country without its own industry can become. This week, the chip shortage led the US auto industry to drop production of 100,000 vehicles.

RK Anand, chief product officer at automotive AI chip designer Recogni and a longtime Silicon Valley executive, laid out the problem. One of his earlier employers, network gear maker Juniper Networks, relied on IBM to make its chips. But as Big Blue slipped behind, Juniper switched manufacturing to TSMC to keep up with rivals like Cisco, Anand said. IBM eventually exited the chipmaking business altogether.

"In the last 20 years, it's been disappointing that we've given up that leadership," Anand said. "We better get back on it."

Nantero, a startup trying to leapfrog today's memory chips using an exotic material called carbon nanotubes, could be the opposite example to Juniper, hoping CHIPS Act funding will let it find a fab in the US. 

"Right now fab access is so limited in the US that many companies either fail or go overseas while waiting in line," said CEO Rob Snowberger, who attended Biden's signing. "Nantero will now be able to plan our future around staying in the US."

Massive government subsidies are anathema to the free-market ethos that generally prevails in the US, but CHIPS Act allies argue they're necessary to compete with subsidies in South Korea, China and Taiwan. Japan's government subsidizes the development of the exact technology Nantero hopes to commercialize.

US chipmaking won't suddenly surge

Businesses and consumers shouldn't expect immediate relief from the CHIPS Act. For one thing, it takes years to build a new fab, so new capacity won't arrive right away.

For another, many of the processors that have stalled products are built with older, less advanced chipmaking technology. Chipmakers are generally more eager to invest instead in leading-edge methods that make premium chips like those that power Apple iPhones, Nvidia graphics accelerators and Amazon data centers.

Making a handful of fabs significantly cheaper can help US manufacturing, but it's a long way from building the rich network of companies that prevail in Asia, supplying materials like giant polysilicon crystal ingots that are sliced into chip wafers to all the testing, packaging and assembly work that takes place after chips are made.

"Efforts must also support the larger semiconductor ecosystem, which spans everything from wafer substrates to chip probers to items as mundane as shipping materials," said Jim Witham, CEO of power electronics maker GaN Systems. He believes the CHIPS Act funding is only a beginning. "We've lost many of these capabilities in the US, and rebuilding them takes time and money."

The Boston Consulting Group expects it would cost $350 billion to $420 billion to create a self-sufficient semiconductor supply chain in the US.

Fusion Worldwide, which distributes chips worldwide and has had a front-row seat to the semiconductor supply chain crisis, expects it'll be two or three years before the CHIPS Act funding really makes a difference. And the law largely sidesteps some of the most acute shortages, said Paul Romano, chief operating officer at Fusion.

"The legislation will improve long-term US standing around newer, complex chip production but isn't likely to do much to boost supply of older technology components," still in high demand for cars and other industries, Romano said. Although the CHIPS Act helps US manufacturing, it "won't go nearly far enough in helping achieve parity with the Asian fabs."

Chip industry cheers the CHIPS Act

Chip industry players cheered the law. The Semiconductor Industry Association estimates that it will create thousands of jobs and make supply chains more resilient for industry and military customers that rely on processors. The Information Technology Industry Council, whose members include dozens of tech companies, included the CHIPS Act as a top policy priority. It's now the Commerce Department's job to rapidly approve CHIPS Act applications so the money can flow, the ITI said in a statement Tuesday.

Under the law, companies receiving the subsidies may not use them for dividend payments or stock buybacks, Biden said.

The CHIPS Act includes $39 billion in manufacturing incentives. Of that $2 billion is for the older generation chips that automakers and military equipment makers require. It also includes $13.2 billion to spur research and development and to improve worker training.

The full title of the legislation — the CHIPS and Science Act, with CHIPS standing for Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors — is so named because the $53.7 billion in semiconductor industry funds are part of a larger $280 billion law that also funds basic and applied research at the government's National Science Foundation, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Commerce Department.

The chipmaking subsidies and research funding will "cultivate the tech hubs of tomorrow, spurring new innovations and technologies right here at home," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, which stands to benefit from investments by GlobalFoundries and other chip makers.

---

Source

https://reinavietc.kian.my.id/

.

Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5G? How to Decide

Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5G? How to Decide

5G  was once synonymous with premium prices, but it's become the norm in most new phones -- even those that cost less than $300 in some cases. 

But you might be wondering whether 5G is a necessary in a new a phone. Maybe you're getting a great deal on a refurbished device from a couple of years ago that doesn't support 5G. Perhaps you're eyeballing the iPhone 11, one of the cheapest phones Apple currently sells at $500 but that can't connect to 5G. 

For US shoppers, the answer largely depends on what carrier you have, how much you're willing to spend and how long you're planning to hold onto your next phone. Since 5G is available in just about every new phone at no additional cost, there are few reasons not to buy a 5G-enabled phone. 

Combine that with the fact that carriers are building out their midband networks -- which offer faster speeds than low-band 5G offerings as well as broader coverage than the fastest millimeter-wave networks -- and the argument for buying a 5G phone is even stronger.

Read more: Not All 5G Is the Same: We Explain the Different Names and Flavors

At the same time, it's important to remember that 5G speeds and coverage will vary depending on your carrier. And 4G phones will continue to function for years to come. 

"They're not turning off those 4G networks anytime soon," said Avi Greengart, president and lead analyst for research and advisory firm Techsponential. "Your phone will be dead before you need to worry about it."

Understanding 5G

Figuring out whether you need 5G in your next phone starts with understanding the current state of 5G. All three major network providers in the US offer 5G, and there are three main flavors to be aware of. 

There's low-band 5G, which is available broadly but provides similar speeds as 4G LTE, and millimeter-wave 5G, the super fast version that only operates at a short range. You likely won't notice the difference between 4G and 5G when you're on a low-band network. But millimeter-wave networks are so scarce you probably won't find yourself near one on a regular basis unless you frequent busy venues like stadiums, arenas or airports. Even then, the coverage is often only in select locations. 

The happy medium between both of these networks is midband 5G, which provides faster speeds than 4G but can also cover much larger distances than millimeter wave. AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are all at different phases of their midband deployment, with T-Mobile currently taking the lead. The carrier said in February that its Ultra Capacity network, which is mostly composed of midband spectrum acquired from Sprint, reached 210 million people by the end of 2021. T-Mobile expects to reach 300 million people with its midband network, Ultra Capacity 5G, by the end of 2023.

Verizon, on the other hand, is aiming to cover 175 million people with its Ultra Wideband network, which uses millimeter wave and its midband spectrum, in 2022. AT&T plans to cover 200 million people with its own midband network by the end of the year.

Read more: Apple Needs Another Affordable 5G iPhone

T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T 5G

	Faster 5G Network Reach	Time frame
T-Mobile	210 million people	2021
Verizon	175 million people	2022
AT&T	200 million people	2022

All these technologies can work together to provide better coverage, speed and performance than 4G LTE. 

"So we're not just talking about cities, but a lot of the country where people live is covered by T-Mobile 5G," said Greengart. "And so you're going to want to buy a 5G phone both for coverage reasons and for speed." 

How much are you willing to spend?

The iPhone 11 from 2019 is one of Apple's cheapest iPhones, but it doesn't support 5G. 

Angela Lang/CNET

The biggest factor in determining whether you should buy a 5G phone is how much you're willing to spend. If you have less than $200 to spend on a new device, it might be difficult to find a worthwhile 5G phone. 

If your budget allows for spending more than $400, there are several compelling 5G options like the $429 iPhone SE and $450 Galaxy A53 5G. The $450 Google Pixel 6A, which recently launched on July 28, also supports 5G. That's a significant departure compared to when the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G launched roughly three years ago for a sky high price of $1,300.

Cheaper phones may not support all flavors of 5G, namely the fastest millimeter-wave networks, but that shouldn't be a dealbreaker for most people shopping today. With its benefits in speed and range, the three major networks have prioritized midband 5G deployments over the past year. As long as your new phone supports midband 5G, you should be able to connect to faster speeds in more places. 

It's important to consider what matters most to you in a phone and how long you're planning to hold onto a device. If you'd rather have a larger screen, a more contemporary design, dual cameras and are planning to upgrade your phone again in two years, the 4G-enabled $500 iPhone 11 might be a better choice than the $429 5G-capable iPhone SE. 

But if you're looking for a phone that can get you through the next three years or so, it's probably best to look for a 5G device. Most Android phones in the $400-$500 range have 5G and modern features like multi-lens cameras and large screens.

The situation is different for Apple fans. The only 5G-enabled option under $600 is the 2022 iPhone SE, which has Apple's latest smartphone chip but lacks other staples like a big screen and multiple cameras. That might change this fall when the rumored iPhone 14 launches and Apple drops the iPhone 12 and 12 Mini's price accordingly.

Bob O'Donnell, president and chief analyst for Technalysis Research, says 5G will likely feel more essential in early 2024. By then, carriers will have had more time to build out their midband networks. 

"You will get faster speeds," said O'Donnell. "Hopefully by then we'll see some additional services and apps that take advantage of 5G."

The bottom line

Sarah Tew/CNET

To decide whether you need 5G in your next phone, consider how much you're willing to spend, how long you plan to hold onto your phone before upgrading and what type of coverage your carrier provides. 

Investing in a new 5G phone is generally the best move if you can afford it since it ensures that your device will feel fast and relevant for years to come. But if your budget is limited, or the 5G phones available to you right now don't fit your needs, you won't be missing out on too much by opting for 4G instead.

"As a purely functional phone, you can't go wrong with a good LTE phone," said O'Donnell. 

---

Source

Tags:

• Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5g How To Invest
• Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5g How Many Hertz
• Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5g Phones
• Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5g Wifi
• Does Your Next Phone Really Need 5g Towers
• Does Your Next Phone Really Slow
• What Does Your Pancreas Do
• What Does Your Appendix Do

Europe's last dictator has a YouTube problem

Europe's last dictator has a YouTube problem

If you're a dictator, what you don't want is the world watching your every move -- but that's the attention Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko cast on himself Sunday.

Dubbed Europe's last dictator, Lukashenko earned Belarus a fresh round of local protests and international sanctions when he used military force to ground a RyanAir plane flying between Greece and Lithuania on Sunday. As the plane flew over Belarus' airspace, Lukashenko's government sent a MiG fighter jet to ground the flight full of civilian passengers. 

And what for? To take down a journalist and his Telegram group.

Police boarded the plane and arrested Roman Protasevich, a 26-year-old journalist who runs Nexta, an anti-establishment news channel that operates mostly on the encrypted messaging app Telegram, where it has over 1.2 million subscribers in a country of about 9 million. 

Online platforms are rattling restrictive regimes in Europe's east: In the aligned nations of Belarus and Russia, heroic activists like Protasevich and imprisoned Russian dissident Alexei Navalny use the twin powers of Telegram and YouTube to expose corruption and governmental malignancy. 

That these dissidents are being targeted for elimination and imprisonment now, after years in the public eye, is a sign of how threatening their online presence has become to Lukashenko and Russia's president, Vladimir Putin.

"These guys have really figured out how to use the internet to counter these regimes in the last few years," William Partlett, a professor at Melbourne Law School who researches post-Soviet societies, told me on a recent phone call. Because state TV is so controlled, creative and defiant young people flocked to YouTube and Telegram, where they can create their own news channels. 

While the Russian and especially Belarusian governments often target specific journalists or publications, Partlett says internet freedom has been strong in Belarus and Russia compared to a country like China. 

But now that resistance movements are being so effectively built using internet platforms, that freedom might soon become more compromised.

A RyanAir flight headed for Lithuania was diverted to Belarus. Belarus claimed there was a bomb threat on board, and had a MiG jet escort the flight to Minsk airport.

NurPhoto/Getty

Hanging by a thread

Anyone living in Belarus under the age of 27 has only ever known one president. The country, also known as "White Russia," held its first free elections in 1994. They were won by Lukashenko, and he's been in power ever since. 

For this reason, and for his autocratic ways, Lukashenko is known as Europe's last dictator. 

Lukashenko "won" the last election held in the country, officially scoring 80% of the polls. The European Union rejects this result, and observers believe the election was actually won by Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, a school teacher and wife of a jailed opposition leader. 

What followed were the biggest and most sustained protests the country has seen since independence, involving hundreds of thousands of people. Lukashenko met these democratic spasms with autocratic force: Over 30,000 protesters have been detained, reports The Economist, and over 4,000 say they've been tortured. Some have died.

Protests over last year's election were the biggest Belarus has seen since independence. 

Getty

In this environment, Nexta, created by Protasevich six years go, flourished. Its YouTube channel, with over 600,000 subscribers, circulates news. Its Telegram group spreads videos of police brutality against demonstrators and serves as an organizing ground for future protests.

Several Belarusian journalists and internet channels have been targeted by the regime ever since, often with trumped-up charges of tax evasion or similar crimes. The case of Protasevich, who fled Belarus in 2019 and has since been branded a terrorist, shows that leaving the country isn't enough to keep dissidents safe. 

Similar channels have frustrated Russia's government. Alexei Navalny, Russia's most prominent opposition leader, first gained traction a decade ago by blogging about Kremlin corruption. In recent years, his team set up a network of YouTube channels, spread across each region of the massive country, that countered state TV. His goal has been to unseat the Kremlin candidates in regional elections, encouraging liberal Russians to vote for whoever has the best chance to displace elected officials from Putin's United Russia party. Telegram groups are used to help organize rallies and demonstrations. 

The strategy proved successful in 2018, when the United Russia party lost three gubernatorial seats.

Those in power have taken notice.

After years of suppressing Navalny -- barring him from elections, having him arrested and charging him as a foreign agent -- Putin in 2020 apparently decided to eliminate him. Navalny's underpants were reportedly smeared with a toxic agent as he traveled from Siberia to Moscow. It's indicative of a broader clampdown on freedoms, both on and offline, that's happening in the two nations. (Putin denies being behind the poisoning.)

"Navalny existed and made all these videos for years and years, but something is happening now. Now they have him in prison. They've forced down a jet to get Protasevich," Partlett explained. "They're starting to lose the internet narrative." 

Despite his subsequent imprisonment, Navalny has shown that it's possible to rile regimes even from a jail cell. He regularly posts to Instagram through his lawyer, and shortly after his imprisonment his team posted a two-hour documentary on YouTube documenting a $1.5 billion mansion owned by Putin, intending to highlight the endemic graft of Russian politics. It's been viewed 116 million times.

Recent protests against Lukashenko in neighboring Poland. NEXTA's headquarters are in Warsaw. 

Nur Photo/Getty

No firewall 

What happens next? 

Lukashenko has been met with almost universal admonishment from world leaders. The EU will ramp up sanctions, initially put in place after last year's fraudulent election, and Ukraine has banned energy imports. 

"The outrageous and illegal behavior of the regime in Belarus will have consequences," warned EU President Ursula von der Leyen. "Those responsible for the RyanAir hijacking must be sanctioned." 

The key outlier is Russia. "It's an independent state," said Leonid Kalashnikov, a senior member of Russia's State Duma parliament, according to state media. "If they see a threat to their security, then they must fight this threat."

As is so often the case, experts worry that the sanctions are likely to hurt Belarus' citizens more than its leader. A new rule, for instance, bars Belarus' state airliner from flying to any European airport, making it harder for citizens to escape the regime.

Just as worrying is what this means for the limited internet freedoms enjoyed in Belarus and Russia. 

Russia has flirted with creating its own internet, separating itself from the world in the same vein as China, but little has come of that idea. It banned Telegram in 2018, but inadvertently blocked thousands of other websites before deciding to lift the ban, indicating that the gargantuan task of creating its own internet is out of reach.

So without the ability for widespread new-era censorship, Belarus' leader is resorting to age-old suppression tactics. The power of tools like YouTube and Telegram is evident in the desperation move of hijacking an international flight. In trying to block news on the internet, Lukashenko got attention from the world. 

---

Source

Tags:

• Europe S Last Dictator Has A Youtube Problem Child
• Europe S Last Dictator Has A Youtube Problem Taylor
• Europe S Last Dictator Has A Youtube Problem With Heater
• Europe S Last Dictator Has A Youtube For Kids
• Europe S Last Warrior Kings
• What Region Is Home To Europe S Last Wild Monkeys
• Amazon Europe Site
• Europe Size

What happened at Zillow? How a prized real estate site lost at iBuying

What happened at Zillow? How a prized real estate site lost at iBuying

Zillow, the popular online real estate marketplace and daydream fuel throughout the pandemic, is having a tough time. 

The company turned heads earlier this month when it announced it would be shutting down Zillow Offers, the algorithm-fueled home-flipping arm of its company. It also said it would try to offload more than 7,000 homes and exit the iBuying -- or "instant buying" -- business completely. That's $2.8 billion worth of homes. 

The announcement came as a major surprise, especially given the scale of Zillow's massive investments in its iBuying efforts in recent years. Its exit was precipitated by a series of missteps, including an overbuying fiasco that resulted in a glut of overpriced inventory. 

Now, according to an Insider analysis, more than half of the homes Zillow owns are listed for prices below what the company paid for them. In Phoenix, 93% percent of the homes Zillow purchased are listed for less than the original purchase price, and in Dallas, 81% are less. 

What is iBuying anyway?

To do iBuying, tech companies rely on algorithms to determine if it would be profitable to purchase a home to then resell. Using specific data -- the home's age, condition and ZIP code -- algorithms can predict which homes will rise in value, allowing the tech company to get into an emerging market early. Think of it like large-scale, automated home-flipping. 

If you're a homeowner, there may be a benefit to using an iBuyer to sell your home. For one, the process is streamlined over the traditional method: You don't have the stress of dealing with a real estate agent, showings or the uncertainty of the market. You'll get an immediate all-cash offer based simply on the algorithm's assessment of your home's data, though the tradeoff is a smaller profit margin. 

What went wrong at Zillow?

As an iBuyer, Zillow relied on these computer calculations to buy houses in decent condition on the cheap, spend minimal capital fixing them up and quickly resell them for a profit. Sound too good to be true? For Zillow, it was. The company ended up making thousands of above-market offers to homeowners. 

Zillow attributed the mishap to its technology, blaming its iBuying algorithms -- called "Zestimates" -- for inaccurately predicting the values of homes. Given surging prices and high real estate volatility in the last 18 months, it was a tricky undertaking in the first place. 

As homes appreciated at a rapid pace during the COVID-19 pandemic, Zillow's iBuying algorithms consistently and significantly underestimated market changes. That's what eventually led the company to shut down its instant-buying business for good. The real estate giant is set to lose an estimated $380 million on Zillow Offers, according to the LA Times.

"The challenge we faced in Zillow Offers was the ability to accurately forecast the future price of inventory three to six months out, in a market where there were larger and more rapid changes in home values than ever before," said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for the company.

The company also said it will write off $569 million worth of homes and lay off 25% of its staff. Though the future is unclear for some of Zillow's languishing inventory across the country, there's reason to believe that institutional investors could win out in snatching it up. The company has agreed to sell 2,000 units to New York City-based investment firm Pretium Partners.

Zillow has said it intends to honor all existing deals for homes under contract. 

What do Zillow's problems mean for iBuying? 

Other competitors seem to have figured out the iBuying formula's secret sauce and are going strong. Two of Zillow's rivals, Opendoor and Offerpad, both posted new revenue highs for the third quarter, though neither company is profitable yet. Private equity firms like Blackrock have made headlines for their investments in instant buying. 

Though Zillow is no longer in the game, iBuying seems to be here to stay. 

---

Source

Tags:

• What Happened At Zillow How Accurate
• What Happened At Zillow How To Sell
• What Happened At Zillow Howard
• What Happened At Zillow Real Estate
• What Happened At Chernobyl
• What Happened At The Alamo
• What Happened At Sandy Hook
• What Happened At Wounded Knee
• What Happened At Ruby Ridge
• What Happened To Matthew Stafford

When Local Newspapers Fold, Polarization Rises. Here's What You Can Do

When Local Newspapers Fold, Polarization Rises. Here's What You Can Do

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, rising energy costs and our ongoing struggles with the coronavirus pandemic take up a lot of our attention these days. But there's more going on a lot closer to home -- you just might not know it, because your local newspaper is gone.

More than a quarter of hometown newspapers have disappeared in the last century, leaving about 70 million Americans with little or no way to stay informed about their city and county governments, schools or businesses. As the country heads toward the 2022 midterm elections, Americans are increasingly turning to friends and social media to stay informed -- which isn't always trustworthy, as we learned during the 2016 election when around 44% of Americans were exposed to disinformation and misinformation through untrustworthy websites. 

"The state of local news in America is dire," said Tim Franklin, senior associate dean of Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism and head of the Medill Local News Initiative.

Local journalism isn't just a nice idea. Community newspapers report some of the most important stories in our country. That includes the Boston Globe's 2002 series exposing the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston's sex abuse of minors, Sara Ganim and The Patriot-News' coverage revealing Penn State sex abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky and the Charleston Gazette-Mail's 2017 expose on opioids flooding into West Virginia. 

This is part of Citizen Now, a package that aims to empower readers with information about our changing world. 

CNET

But for every Pulitzer Prize-winning local journalism story, there are countless more that have  served as chroniclers of their communities and watchdogs of the people in power. And when they aren't there, research from the Brookings Institute found there's generally more government waste and fraud. 

"When you have less local news, there's various effects, some of which you'd find predictable: lower voting turnout, more corruption, more waste," said Steven Walden, president and co-founder of Report For America, a nonprofit that funds young reporters to work in understaffed newsrooms throughout the US. "There's also evidence that you have more polarization and misinformation."

The journalism industry has been struggling to adapt. Advertising, once a vital part of the newspaper world, has shifted to online. Meanwhile, profit-hungry newspaper owners have chosen to lay off staff and reduce the quality of their products.

Nonprofit organizations have stepped up to support newsrooms in several ways, but ultimately, they live or die by their communities. Many local papers and radio stations depend on individual donations to fund reporting that would never be done by larger publications, covering civic meetings and investigating local issues that lead to exposés which fix injustices. Even simply signing up for and reading local news draws people closer to issues that affect them -- and reinforces what publications do.

"Most of these stories weren't big but they mattered immensely to the residents in a community larger outlets didn't regularly cover," said Greg Yee, now a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, speaking about his year writing for the Farmington Daily Times in Farmington, New Mexico. (Full disclosure: Yee is a former colleague of this article's author.) Stories that stick out from that time include a mobile home park cut off from natural gas in winter and a new gas station opening in a Navajo Nation community, the only fuel access in 30 miles, that significantly improved locals' quality of life. 

"A good local news organization is a problem solver: it identifies problems and helps a community come together to solve it," said Penelope Abernathy, visiting professor at Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, who heads a site dedicated to mapping news deserts, areas with one or zero local papers. "And a good news organization shows you how you are related to people you may not know you're related to in another part of the county, region or state."

The Washington Post / Getty Images

Long, withering decline

Journalism jobs have been shrinking for decades, driven by declining newspaper circulation and the rise in digital advertising. The news industry's advertising and subscription businesses have roughly halved over the past decade. Much of that money's shifted to Google, Facebook and Amazon, which together now hold 64% of the US online advertising market.

For newspapers, that shift in spending is catastrophic. In the decade after the great recession in 2009, the Pew Research Center found newspaper newsroom employment in the US had dropped by more than half, to about 35,000 workers. 

Ironically, the news industry has more readers than ever before – upwards of 10 times as many, according to Danielle Coffey, vice president and general council of the News Media Alliance. 

"We don't have a broken product. It's being consumed at exponential rates," she said. "The source of the problem is the revenue problem."

It wasn't always this way. 

The founding fathers believed so strongly in newspapers as a public good that they set up government subsidies for postal rates, reducing the cost of distributing the news – which at the time, was delivered on horseback.

In the 1960s and '70s, though, publicly traded paper owners began fixating on profits. To impress shareholders, news organizations conglomerated into big chains that gobbled up local papers into regional networks, said Amanda Lotz, professor of the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University.

"The financialization pressure really moves [newspapers] away from the balance between a commercial and public service enterprise of providing news to a community," Lotz said. 

Rounds of acquisitions resulted in the gutting of editorial budgets and staff. With fewer reporters, newspapers started relying on national stories published by wire services, a trend that created "ghost papers" that had little or no local content. Meanwhile, the internet became an easy substitution for things online that had until then been exclusive to the paper, like weather, sports scores, classifieds and even news.

Venture capitalists and other financial firms began buying up newspapers in the 1980s but rapidly accelerated in the last two decades, growing to own over 23% of US newsrooms today while wringing out profits with more layoffs.

"Those losses put more strain on already stretched newsrooms and the publications ended up churning through staff," said Yee, who worked for four years at a pair of newspapers owned by hedge fund Alden Global Capital. "All of that translates into worse, inconsistent coverage of the communities they're trying to serve."

As a result, from 2004 until the start of the pandemic in 2020, the US lost a quarter (around 2100) of its newspapers, according to a report from the University of North Carolina's Hussman School of Journalism and Media. By the end of last year, another hundred were gone, Poynter reported, expanding news deserts that are mostly located in financially-impacted rural areas in the country's interior.

Some papers have tried to rely more heavily on subscriptions, while transitioning to mainly digital publishing. Some success stories include the Chattanooga Times Free Press, which has been operating since 1869. Last September, it switched to a daily digital edition and a single print edition on Sunday from a daily print edition. The publication spent $6.1 million to give all its monthly subscribers iPads and train them one-on-one how to use them to access their daily paper, and it's retained subscribers through the transition. 

"There are some real success stories in this transition. If you can lower your paper costs and your distribution costs and if you can attract enough digital subscribers, you can support a local newsroom on that. But many local news organizations are still getting a significant chunk of their revenue from print advertising," Medill's Franklin said.

Bloomberg / Getty News

Legislative fix, maybe

One way the news industry could regain revenue and profit is to seek compensation from big tech platforms. After all, advocates say, Facebook, Google, Twitter make money selling ads next to links, videos and photos published and shared freely to their networks. 

Legislators in Australia were the first to pass a law in February 2021 requiring Google and Facebook to negotiate with publishers for compensation to use their work, while France followed with its own legislation shortly thereafter. The latter locked horns with Google before finally securing legal assurance that the search giant would pay local media outlets when they appear in search results. Critics like the Electronic Frontier Foundation lament that the Australian and French laws ensured deals for big media publishers at the expense of smaller ones, but that hasn't stopped  Canada and the UK from gearing up to pass their own versions. 

A version of that idea in the US, called the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, was proposed in March, 2021 by Senators Amy Klobuchar, Rand Paul, Cory Booker, and Lindsey Graham -- a rare bipartisan effort. The bill would allow news organizations to collectively bargain with tech companies for compensation, but hasn't moved out of committee yet.

Another idea to fund journalism Is the Local Journalism Sustainability Act introduced a year ago in the House by Representatives Ann Kirkpatrick and Dan Newhouse. That bill, if it were to become law, would give newsrooms around $50,000 annually in tax breaks to hire reporters. Small businesses, meanwhile, would receive $5,000 for the first year to advertise in local papers, and Americans would get a $250 stipend to pay for news subscriptions. It's unlikely to pass, though, in part because of partisan bickering over other spending plans on Capitol Hill.

"We need to make sure these publications can sustain themselves through this crisis and beyond, and I believe the credits in this bill make significant progress in providing a pathway to that sustainability," Rep. Kirkpatrick said when announcing the bill. 

Nonprofit newsrooms 

Some news organizations are finding funding beyond ads and subscriptions. Nonprofit foundations and philanthropic organizations are funneling grants and other aid money to newsrooms, including a new wave of nonprofit publications, like ProPublica, which run mostly on foundation and individual donations.

The American Journalism Project is a self-described venture philanthropy firm that to date has raised $90 million to back 32 local nonprofit newsrooms. Founded in 2019, it's also helped launch four more, taking the startup incubation model and applying it to digital newsrooms.

The organization focuses on both funding newsrooms and guiding them toward self-sustainability by diversifying their revenue streams, said Sarabeth Berman, CEO of the American Journalism Project. Newsrooms they've helped grow by around 67% in their first year and are projected to double their revenue in three years. 

"Will local news only be nonprofit? No. Is nonprofit news vital for the future of an informed citizenry? We think so," Berman said.

Report For America, founded in 2017, describes itself as a service organization, which helps pair young reporters fresh out of college with legacy newsrooms. The organization financially supports the reporter by paying half their salary (up to $25,000) the first year, then a third (up to $20,000) the following year. After that, it's up to the publication to decide whether to hire them permanently. 

"If you're not in New York or Boston or Washington, some of these news organizations have trouble getting people to go out to smaller towns," said Report For America's Waldman. "We have a very significant recruiting operation and are able to create a sort of self-selected group of people who are really passionate about local."

Report For America has grown its graduating class to 130 reporters this year, up from its first class of 13 in 2018 -- to date, over 560 reporters have gone through the program and partnered with local newsrooms. They include Laura Roche of the Charlotte News & Observer writing about the fraught debate over museums returning the unethically sourced remains of Black people, Sierra Clark of the Traverse City Record-Eagle writing about Melissa Isaac and many others in her Anishinaabek Neighbors series, and Brandon Drenon of the Indianapolis Star writing about the NAACP and others criticizing Indiana schools for failing Black students.

Report for America also connects newsrooms with donors in their area in an effort to get the community more involved in funding its local news again.

"Our goal is to actually help change the local business models in a way that they can sustain that," Waldman said.

The nonprofit Knight Foundation pledged to give $300 million to news organizations in 2019, some of which will go to both the American Journalism Project and Report For America, among other nonprofits that in turn support local newsrooms -- efforts that can be seen city by city on this interactive map. The flow of financial support is important for local newsrooms that operate on nonprofit and for-profit models, which are both valuable to their communities, said Jim Brady, vice president of the Knight Foundation's journalism program.

"Nonprofits tend to be more investigative or enterprise in nature, and the for-profits tend to provide more information on how consumers can live their daily lives. So we think both must be part of the answer to how local news can thrive," Brady said. 

An infographic from the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media's project website, The Expanding News Desert, headed by Penelope Abernathy.

UNC Hussman

What to do if you don't have local journalism

News experts have advice for what to do if you live in a news desert, with little or no coverage. First on the list: Stop thinking that social media posts are an informative replacement for reporting. Social media can help people know what's going on, but it's rife with bias and misinformation. 

"There's a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation that goes unchecked because there's no local journalist checking on the facts. [Social media is] a place where unvetted gossip can get spread," Franklin said.

People need to learn to spot misinformation that's spread on social media by publications that look like they're trustworthy but aren't. Both the World Health Organization and the Poynter Institute have their own free online courses to learn how to fact-check posts yourself -- not just to spot fake news, but also to understand the agenda behind why they're spreading in the first place.

In the voids left by local papers, citizen journalists and bloggers have stepped up to provide their communities with informative coverage, but they lack the oversight and vetting a newsroom provides. For lack of better options, a citizen reporter could start a site on Substack and write about local events, Franklin suggested. 

The best thing to do is to reach out to regional papers the next town over and request coverage. You can find your nearest local or regional paper on Newspapers.com or  NewspaperMap.com. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has a station finder site too, and if you're a fan of National Public Radio, you can sign up to become a member of your local station in order to help support it. It isn't a perfect solution for an existing newsroom to stretch to cover another area, but is far better than starting a new local publication from scratch. 

But if your community decides to launch a new publication, organizing it as a nonprofit newsroom is a successful way to go. They rely on donations -- foundation support and individual giving account for a combined 83% of nonprofit revenue, according to the Institute of Nonprofit Newsrooms' 2021 Index. And that model is working: 83 of the over 400 nonprofit newsrooms affiliated with INN are less than five years old.

Then there's nonprofit newsroom Berkeleyside, which hosted the so-called first 'direct public offering' where it solicited a combined $1 million in funding from 355 of its readers (an average of $2,816 per person) in 2018 to get started. These are technically securities, but sold directly to its readers, and the publication continues to publish today. It's one of many ways newsrooms are innovating new ownership structures to stay solvent.

"We need to get more support from communities, from local community foundations, from national media foundations and from high net-worth individuals to help make local news sustainable in all areas of the country," Brady said.

Correction, June 28: The original version of this story incorrectly stated how many reporters were in Report For America's first graduating class. Its first graduating class of reporters was in 2018 and had 13 members.

---

Source

Tags:

• New York Times Polarization
• Articles On Political Polarization
• New York Times Polarization
• Political Polarization Over Time
• Where Do Old Newspapers Go
• Where Can You Find Old Newspapers
• Obituary Search Local Newspapers
• When Local News Comes On Two Words

Russia 20 billion a day how long has russia been around facts about russia today what did russia do today why is russia taking so long russia spending on war how much money has russia spent on the war why has russia invaded ukraine how russians sneeze how russia will collapse

How Russia has spent a decade crumbling online freedoms

How Russia has spent a decade crumbling online freedoms

Aleksandr Litreev was on a way to a business meeting last February when his life changed forever. En route to a hotel in Yakaterinburg, a day's drive east of Moscow, Litreev was pulled over by police. When they asked him to hand over his phone, the then-24-year-old knew it was no routine traffic stop. 

"They took me to a police station," Litreev recalls, "and magically some drugs appear." Litreev said he was arrested by around 10 armed policemen, beaten into confessing to ecstasy possession, and then detained for a month. He managed to flee to Estonia after being released into house arrest. 

Litreev is a member of Russia's liberal opposition. Rather than rousing people to the ballot box, he builds internet tools that help everyday Russians fight against an increasingly controlling state. As part of the tightest squeeze on freedoms in Russia this century, critical online media publications have been labeled foreign agents, and platforms like Twitter and Facebook are being pressured to purge their platforms of content the Kremlin disapproves of. 

With Russia's parliamentary elections running on Sept. 17 through Sept. 19, the Kremlin has stepped up censorship. It's demanded keywords associated with the opposition be blocked from Google and Yandex, the domestic search giant, and that Google and Apple kick an opposition-made app from their app stores.

Litreev has been fighting back for years, creating an app that sends lawyers to defend arrested protesters and joining the "digital resistance" that countered the government's attempt to block encrypted-messenger Telegram.

"If I go back to Russia now, I will get something like lifetime imprisonment," Litreev said. "Not gonna happen." 

Before fleeing to Estonia, Litreev also worked with Alexei Navalny, who, for the last 10 years, has been the face of Russia's opposition to President Vladimir Putin. Navalny was poisoned by Russian spies in August 2020 and has since been jailed. Navalny's case shows how the Kremlin has lost any of the patience it once had: He was tolerated for nearly a decade -- as a popular blogger, investigative journalist and later an opposition politician -- before authorities attempted to eliminate him altogether.

"The things that are happening now have never happened before," said Litreev, explaining that authorities poisoning an opposition candidate would have been inconceivable as recently as 2017. "And now we're here." 

Aleksandr Litreev, a software developer who fled to to Estona amid Russia's opposition crackdown.

Aleksandr Litreev

Digital wargames 

In 2017, Litreev made his first significant venture into opposition politics. A YouTube expose from Navalny alleged that then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev had embezzled over $1.2 billion, sparking protests in Moscow and St. Petersburg that turned into a general rebuke of widespread corruption and political repression.

Litreev's contribution was an app called Red Button. If protesters thought they were at risk of arrest, they could open the app and press the big red button it presented. That would automatically call a lawyer, who also receives the protester's emergency contact details and a GPS signal of their location.

"It's basically Uber, but for a lawyer," Litreev said. It was used extensively by demonstrators at the time, which got the attention of Kremlin authorities. "That's the point where pressure on me started," he added.

Litreev, then 21 and fresh out of university, was motivated to join the opposition movement as he watched the Kremlin ratchet up internet restrictions. A 2014 law allowed the telecommunications regulator, Roskomnadzor, to block access to online media that called for "unsanctioned mass public events." In 2016, Putin signed a bill requiring telecommunications companies to store their customers' text messages and phone calls for up to six months. 

The law was used as a pretext to ban Telegram, a platform created by eccentric Russian-born developer Pavel Durov that doubles as an instant messenger and a social media platform. (Durov is now based in Dubai.) It allows for encrypted messages between people, like WhatsApp, but also for public figures and groups to create "channels" that can have millions of followers. Russian authorities wanted control over Telegram, and stopping them became Litreev's next project.

Thousands rallied for "internet freedom" in 2018 after Roskomnadzor banned Telegram. Many protested by bringing paper planes, Telegram's symbol.

Mikhail Tereshchenko/Getty

In 2018, the Kremlin ordered Durov to hand over keys that would allow the FSB, the successor to the Soviet KGB, to unscramble the app's encrypted messages. Roskomnadzor's stated goal was to fight terrorist attacks, like a 2017 train bombing in St. Petersburg, which it claimed were spreading thanks to Telegram and apps like it. Durov refused, calling the request both unconstitutional and technically untenable. What followed was a game of hide-and-seek that lasted for two years.

Roskomnadzor banned Telegram in April 2018, pulling down the app's servers. Scores of Russian internet users -- dubbed the Digital Resistance -- countered by hosting Telegram on proxy servers, which Roskomnadzor found and banned too. For his part, Litreev helped create software that deployed millions of proxy servers at once, making it impossible for Russian authorities to manually pull them down individually.

"They got tired of banning IP address by IP address, so they started to ban whole subnetworks, ranges of IP addresses," he said. "At some point, when we got our service hosted on Amazon and on Google Cloud, they accidentally banned a huge subnet which belongs to Google."

Those attempts to ban Telegram were unsuccessful. Not only did the service remain accessible, its Russian user base actually grew. Meanwhile, with authorities hastily banning up to 19 million IP addresses, Google and Amazon services were briefly unusable throughout Russia.

Roskomnadzor had a choice: either block a huge range of IP addresses and risk more catastrophic blackouts, or rescind the ban on Telegram. "It was a fight for all or nothing," Litreev said.

After two years, Roskomnadzor relented, lifting its Telegram ban last June on the grounds that the company would help it with terrorism inquiries in the future. The Digital Resistance won this battle, the latest in a war that had been going on since 2012. 

Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin in 2012. 

Natalia Kolesnikova/Getty

The first ruling 

Russia is often grouped with China as a troublesome autocracy. A common misconception related to this comparison is that Russia has always had a fiercely censored internet. But unlike China's internet, which was built from the ground up not to rely on Western companies or users, Russia's internet largely grew freely from the mid-'90s. 

That began to change in 2012, when Putin became president for the second time.

Much like the US, Russian presidents were bound by the constitution to serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms. So in 2008, when Putin swapped places with Dmitry Medvedev, becoming prime minister while Medvedev assumed the presidency, many suspected it was a ploy to circumvent constitutional limits. Those suspicions were confirmed when he announced his intention to run as president again in 2011.

When Putin's United Russia party retained a majority in the parliamentary elections two months later -- elections local monitors and the EU said were fraudulent -- protests erupted. Tens of thousands demanded free elections and the release of political prisoners. But what concerned the Kremlin wasn't the demonstrators, but how they managed to organize themselves. These protests were the biggest the country had seen since the '90s, and they were powered by social media.

"The driving force back then was the internet -- social media, Facebook and Twitter," said Andrei Soldatov, a journalist and co-author of The Red Web, a book that details Russia's tightening grip on internet freedoms. "That was the moment the Kremlin started paying attention to this new threat, and it was absolutely clear that it was the big thing for years to come."

The "Snow Revolution" protests in Moscow, 2011.

Epsilon/Getty

Online freedoms began unraveling a month after Putin took office in 2012. The Russian Duma (the lower house of the Federal Assembly) started drafting an internet restriction bill that lawmakers claimed was necessary to protect minors from child sexual abuse material, online drug markets and content that encouraged self harm. In practice, it allowed government authorities to create an internet blacklist.

Roskomnadzor now had legal cover to pull down websites it didn't like. Today, the internet in Russia is still markedly more open than it is in countries like China, Egypt and Vietnam. But Russia's strategy of censorship is more subtle, focused less on suppressing speech than on oppressing competition.

"The idea is not to prevent you from getting information," Soldatov said. "The idea is to discourage you from participating in political activities of any kind, online or offline." 

The Kremlin's aversion to political opposition explains why political protests are often followed by a tightening of controls. The Moscow demonstrations of 2011 and 2012 led to the first internet restriction bill, and Telegram was targeted in 2018 after protests were organized on the platform. 

Then, in 2019, the opposition began translating online engagement into electoral victories.

A new era

Activists, journalists and opposition politicians had proven adept at maneuvering around the digital barriers the Kremlin had been throwing up since 2012. Navalny continued to use his prominent online platform to trouble authorities. Though demonized on state TV, many of his YouTube documentaries on shadowy Kremlin activities racked up hundreds of millions of views. Older Russians who regularly watched Russian television thought Navalny was a menace. Many middle-class, internet-savvy Russians, however, were receptive to his cause.

Though the Kremlin punished Navalny in various ways, convicting him on trumped-up fraud charges and barring him from running for office, authorities showed some restraint in suppressing his movement.

"Navalny was tolerated for a decade," said William Partlett, a professor at Melbourne Law School who researches post-Soviet societies and is authoring a book on Navalny. "He was exposing high-level corruption among very important, powerful people in the inner circle of the Kremlin. And he was allowed to do that, and I think the idea was, 'we can manage this guy.'" 

That changed in 2019. Navalny, unable to run for Moscow city council himself, encouraged his followers to adopt the "smart voting" doctrine. It meant voting for anyone other than the ruling United Russia party, be they liberals, avowed communists or hardcore nationalists. The plan worked: The "systemic opposition" won 20 of Moscow's 45 seats, reducing the United Russia Party's majority from 38 to 25.

The same system was used successfully in regional elections, ousting three United Russia governors. In a world where freedom of expression is fine up until the point where it infringes on Kremlin control, this was all unacceptable. Navalny's opposition movement was powered by online platforms, from Telegram to Twitter, and now it was producing tangible offline results. 

"Now the question for Putin becomes, is the internet manageable?" Partlett said.

The Kremlin cracked down hard. An online libel law was enacted last December, allowing sites to be blocked and people to be jailed for "defaming" public figures. Specific activists and journalists have been targeted: one journalist was jailed for 25 days for retweeting a photo that carried the date and time of a planned protest, while a video of police violently interrogating blogger Gennady Shulga was leaked by the police themselves, Shulga said, "to show people what the authorities can do." 

Navalny's treatment played out in front of the world. He was poisoned in an airport in August 2020, then flown to Berlin, where he recuperated. After returning to Russia, he was immediately imprisoned. Meanwhile, Putin amended the constitution in April to allow him to rule as president until 2036. 

Alexei Navalny, the face of Russia's liberal opposition, is currently jailed in Russia. 

Dmitry Serebryakov/Getty

Taking on big tech

Litreev talks about his exploits like a nimble David outmaneuvering a lumbering, sluggish Goliath. He knows the battle will be perilous but expects he and his fellow activists will ultimately prevail. 

"The level of expertise and level of professionalism on the government side is much lower than our side," he said.

Litreev points to a spat between Twitter and Kremlin as evidence. In March, Roskomnadzor demanded Twitter take down thousands of tweets dating back to 2017 that encouraged illegal activity -- which includes child porn, drug markets and, of course, news stories related to opposition candidates. To motivate Twitter to fulfill the request, the telecoms regulator throttled Twitter's speed for months. 

But, in a flashback to the Roskomnadzor inadvertently blocking Google amid a clumsy attempt to ban Telegram, sites like Reddit.com and Microsoft.com went down too. People realized that authorities had targeted the "t.co" link-shortening formation Twitter uses, which clobbered any website that ended with the letter "t."

It was a conspicuous fumble on the part of Roskomnadzor, but authorities did manage to isolate and slow down Twitter. The initial missteps masked the use of a concerning new suite of powers that had been signed into law in 2019, called "the sovereign internet," or RuNet. 

The law requires ISPs to connect a new range of state hardware to internet exchange points. These "big red boxes" all direct to a control center in Moscow and allow the Kremlin to manage the flow of traffic from one region of the country to another. The system has been called a "digital Iron Curtain," akin to China's Great Firewall that separates its internet from the rest of the world. 

Soldatov says this comparison is inaccurate. The Kremlin isn't interested in isolating itself from the rest of the internet, he says, since that would prove economically ruinous. Rather, it's a tool to control the flow of information from one region of the country to the next.

"The sovereign internet was never about the West. It's about what's going on inside the country," he said. "The most sensitive content is generated inside the country."

Moscovites protesting the jailing of Navalny in April.

Anadolu Agency/Getty

Roskomnadzor was able to pair the new sovereign internet hardware with existing data surveillance technology to selectively slow Twitter traffic. In the future, the Kremlin could use the same technology to, for example, throttle certain apps to prevent livestreams from a protest in Moscow from reaching other parts of the country. 

It was the government's first known experiment with its newest online tools -- and it worked.

Twitter has removed over 6,000 tweets, according to Roskomnadzor. In the months since, Russian authorities have demanded Facebook take down content, fined Google $81,000 for not taking down content, and told Facebook and Twitter to store all data of Russian users within the country. On Aug. 26, Twitter and Facebook were both fined for not storing such data quickly enough.

Facebook, Google and Twitter declined to comment. Roskomnadzor was contacted but didn't respond. 

Just as the Kremlin pressures Facebook, Google and Twitter, it fosters local substitutes like RuTube, a YouTube alternative owned by the state gas company. Law requires Android phones to come preloaded with 16 Russian-made apps, including the VK social media app and the Yandex search engine, while Apple is required to prompt Russians to download the apps during the setup process of new iPhones. It's part of a plan meant to better allow authorities to control online platforms so that anti-Kremlin content can't go viral. 

"The tools the Russian government uses are evolving with time. They are much more advanced if we compare them to, say, 2018," Litreev acknowledged. "But modern problems require modern solutions." 

The modern problems

Litreev's latest project is Solar Labs, a decentralized VPN that's based on blockchain and incentivized with cryptocurrency. The Solar Labs platform will allow people around the world to host their own VPN servers, for which they'll be paid with Solar Labs cryptocurrency tokens. If enough people from a variety of countries host their own VPN servers, it'll be impossible for all servers to be taken down at once. 

"Even if the government will do whatever it takes to block our service, they will not succeed unless they just shut the whole internet for the whole country," he said. Solar Labs is designed to be useful not just for Russians, but also Iranians, Chinese and Belarussians, all of whom face strict internet censorship. 

Litreev says the Kremlin's crackdowns on activists, journalists and dissidents are acts of hysteria. The more extreme the measure, the more desperation it reflects. 

And the measures have gotten extreme. It's not just in Russia, either. In May, Belarus' ruler, who's closely aligned with Putin, used military force to ground a RyanAir plane midflight to detain a dissident journalist. The whole region's rules are being rewritten.

Litreev wants to go home to see old faces and places, but says people like him need to work to create a safe Russia. He hopes that Solar Labs' VPN, which launches in September, will be part of that process. Meanwhile, Litreev feels safe in Estonia -- though he makes sure any flights he takes avoid both Russian and Belarusian airspace. 

Soldatov, living in London, is less hopeful. He said he was optimistic five years ago, when he co-authored The Red Web, but that the events since then have sapped his confidence.

"We use this word, 'unprecedented,'" he said. "The problem when something is unprecedented is you cannot calculate your risks, because you do not know where they are going to stop." 

---

Source