God. The internet ombudsman wrote me a huge response article to my post about belligerent idiots.
Well, I honestly don't even know what to say. Is he on drugs or something?
Below is the full article in its entirety—read it and decide for yourselves:
Internet Ombudsman Dmitry Marinichev on the scandal surrounding his remarks at a meeting of the Civic Chamber (a consultative civil society body in Russia) with scientists on the subject of import substitution in IT technologies
Everyone who wasn't too lazy has taken a shot at me. So why did my words strike such a nerve with so many people? I will not speculate on how ethical it is to present phrases from a speech—whose purpose was to describe two mutually exclusive, exaggerated scenarios for how events might develop and to raise the question of our choice and our critical view of possible paths for Russia's technological development, addressed to a specific audience—as something else entirely. How can a speech consisting of questions posed to participants in an expert roundtable purely as food for thought be presented as a person's official position without even bothering to clear it with him? But that is not really important. What matters is that these theses touched and stirred the internet audience. They made people think about them. To criticize them harshly or support them wholeheartedly. The criticism was cynical. Concise and unrestrained. And I became intensely curious. How can one discuss or even condemn a person solely on the basis of a single media publication? It is like discussing (or condemning) his suit—its color, cut, and fabric quality—based only on the shadow it casts on the ground. And what really floored me was Mr. Navalny and his supporters. To be honest, I had never had any particular attitude toward his opposition movement. I neither criticized nor approved of it. I believe every opinion has a right to exist. But with me, he picked the wrong fight. He criticizes me by making it personal, knowing nothing about me. He lumps me in with Kremlin officials and managers. I most certainly was not and am not one of them. Quite the opposite: under specific legal provisions, I have the right to defend the interests of the IT business before officials. And I very often come into conflict with them. I defend my position, which is based on the expert opinion of the industry—on the views of specific representatives of specific companies and профильных ассоциаций. Take, for example, the phrase everyone seems to love so much: “If you want to harm the country, then you should invest in training IT specialists within the Russian Federation.” Why do I say it? Want to know the answer? It is extremely simple. If, on the one hand, the state declares the need to train personnel in IT (note: not specialists in agriculture, even though import substitution has been more successful there, but specifically in IT), and on the other hand does nothing to create favorable conditions for IT companies to operate, then for whom, for what purpose, and in whose interests is it doing this? We argue ourselves hoarse in the government about the need to extend tax breaks for IT companies. We explain that abolishing them will lead to the disappearance from the ecosystem of small creative teams capable of producing innovative products. We say that these incentives bring real increases in employment and higher tax revenues for the budget. We point out that neighboring countries are now introducing their own incentives for the IT business and are actively luring IT companies away from Russia by offering them a change of jurisdiction. Over the past two years, a number of Russian companies have moved to Lithuania, Estonia, and other European countries even with the current incentives still in place, because of the general deterioration of the economic climate. Among them is Russia's largest mobile game developer, Game Insight (its 2013 revenue exceeded $100 million), and media reports said that Luxoft transferred around 500 programmers from Russia and Ukraine abroad to Europe (the company's market capitalization is $1 billion). So why do we need IT specialists in the country if they will not be in demand within the country? I ask this because I do not understand why, when exporting oil, companies can reclaim VAT, while when exporting high-tech services they have no such opportunity. Why do we incentivize companies that sell our natural resources, but do not incentivize high-tech companies to sell their solutions abroad? If the state truly follows its declared course of import substitution, it should do the opposite: abolish VAT refunds on raw materials (oil) and give them to IT companies instead. If that does not happen, then the cost of services on foreign markets becomes uncompetitive, and it is unprofitable for companies to do business from Russia, earn foreign-currency revenue, and create jobs. It becomes easier simply to change tax residency at once and become a fully foreign company. So for whom will the state train IT specialists if it does not create business conditions for those who are supposed to hire them? Or do we need IT specialists only to maintain information systems in extractive industries and banks, serving as support staff? That is exactly why I say this: a declaration of intent to train IT specialists must be backed by decisions that motivate the creation of businesses and support them. Otherwise, it will amount to sabotage. Therefore, instead of indiscriminate criticism, it would do Mr. Navalny and his followers no harm to familiarize themselves with my actions, not just quotations from an article, and support them if they are truly so concerned about training personnel and cite speeches by the President of the United States as an example. And note: this is an honest, lawful path—not the foolish claim that everyone is a freak and a thief. As for military presence, there is really nothing to comment on. The point was precisely that if we choose the option of total import substitution of everything in IT, we will slide into isolation and inevitable military confrontation, with a total restriction on the latest technologies. That must not be allowed to happen. And therefore there is no point in indulging nostalgia about producing everything ourselves; we need to move toward identifying the markets of the future and our opportunities to be leaders in them. That is what I was trying to get across to the participants of the roundtable. I do not understand why it is easier for Navalny to call this my call for military expansion. Apparently, he is completely unaware that I was and remain the person who helped American and European companies reduce tensions and mitigate the consequences of the personal data law. The person who defended business interests before the authorities and conveyed our arguments for the need to remain open to foreign companies and their businesses in the Russian Federation, and to soften as much as possible the consequences of introducing a fairly radical law. And we succeeded. And the greatest support we received, strange as it may sound to you, came from the presidential administration. So what conclusions can be drawn about which option for Russia I personally chose—confrontation and a return to the USSR, or something else? Any questions left? There were many comments saying that I am unfamiliar with the IT industry and its history, followed by recommendations that I read smart books about it, mostly foreign ones. But that advice is roughly the same as telling a peasant he needs to take courses in order to know the right time to sow. I'll answer you this way: pull down your pants and sit bare-assed on the plowed field, and you'll immediately understand when it's time to sow. I have worked in IT all my life, and I still do. Even now I am the director of an IT company. Only after that am I a public internet ombudsman. IT is at my fingertips. I live it, and I make my living from it alone. I do not sit in the Kremlin, Mr. Navalny. I openly argue with the authorities' position and prove to them where the mistakes are and how they can be corrected in matters affecting our industry. And people in the ministries and in the presidential administration not only hear me, they listen. They agree with some things and disagree with others. They accept some arguments and offer their own. But they are all normal, reasonable people. And your labels are nothing more than an attempt to whip up an emotional storm by throwing in an information bomb made of outright lies. You are a literal bomber. You do not wish Russia well. I no longer even think that you want a strong and stable Russia. But I do. And that is why good technology, for me, is the ability to feed my family. Good technologies that may suffer from misguided legislative regulation are defended by me and my colleagues in the industry to the best of our strength, experience, knowledge, and ability. That is exactly what is happening now with the law on online marketplace aggregators. This includes, for example, Yandex.Taxi and the thousands of people who earn their daily bread thanks to this innovative service. We are defending their ability to keep earning that bread. We state our position. We discuss these issues and resolve them. But what do you know about that? All you can do is throw around slogans like: “And when millions of citizens possess technology and knowledge that let them feed their families without depending on the state—that is harmful and dangerous.” You picked the wrong fight with me, Mr. Navalny. And now I do not believe a single word or claim of yours. I take criticism calmly and thoughtfully. And I always admit when I am wrong. But not in this case. http://izvestia.ru/news/593362#ixzz3okXCKOGN
Update. It turns out the “internet ombudsman” understands perfectly well why he's making a clown of himself in front of the whole country. It pays very well.