Censorship vs. Freedom: How Russia Blocked Rumble in the Name of Control

In our previous article, we analyzed the restrictions on religious freedom in Russia in the 21st century, focusing on minority faiths outside the Russian Orthodox Church. We explained that the main emphasis is on the “15-year rule” and anti-extremism laws, which hinder the registration and free practice of faith for new religious movements. We noted that despite decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, real changes remain limited, with the path to religious freedom continuing to be difficult.

Here is another example of how the freedom of choice is restricted in Russia.

In early March 2024, Russia took a decisive step towards limiting freedom of speech by blocking access to the popular video-sharing platform Rumble. This action came after the company categorically refused to comply with the Kremlin’s persistent demands for censorship. The events underscore the increasing pressure the Russian government is placing on digital media and online freedom of expression.

The conflict escalated following complaints from the Russian side regarding content posted on the Allatra TV channel. In an official message to Rumble, Russian authorities insisted on banning the channel, justifying it by stating that its activities were “undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation.” In response, Rumble’s management conducted a thorough review and concluded that the channel did not violate the platform’s internal rules and there were no grounds for independent censorship.

Rumble’s CEO, Chris Pavlovski, told The Federalist that the Russian government’s request was “a direct attack against the universal human right to free expression.” In response, the company refused to comply and, as a result, access to the site was cut off in Russia. It is additionally interesting that despite Rumble’s ban, other major platforms like YouTube, owned by Google, continue to operate in Russia.

This raises questions about the possible collaboration between these companies and the Russian censorship regime. In an attempt to gain clarity, The Federalist contacted YouTube, which responded that certain Moscow rules had been complied with to maintain the platform’s online presence in the country. The company also emphasized that it had removed a significant number of channels and videos in the context of the war in Ukraine.

In May, Chris Pavlovski provided written testimony to the Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations of the U.S. House of Representatives. He highlighted that the company’s first encounters with governmental censorship came not from Russia but from China — a country with communist governance, where restrictions on various freedoms are common.

This case highlights the serious challenges media platforms face in maintaining freedom of speech at a time when governments around the world are increasingly trying to control and limit the flow of information.

In our next article we will look at the disturbing ideas of the American Bertrand Russell on social engineering and control of the masses that he proposes through his scientific and philosophical writings.