Russia's agency for censorship, Roskomnadzor, has announced it is taking steps to limit calls on Telegram and WhatsApp. This action is being taken, according to the agency, to stop criminals. Roskomnadzor stated that Telegram and WhatsApp have become the primary tools for deceiving and extorting money, and for involving Russian citizens in harmful activities. The agency also mentioned that its requests to the messaging services' owners to address these issues were not acted upon.

These restrictions follow reports of disruptions to Telegram and WhatsApp earlier in the week, with users experiencing difficulties making calls through the apps. There have also been widespread internet problems across Russia in recent months.

The Russian Federal Security Service claimed that Ukrainian secret services used WhatsApp and Telegram to recruit Russian pensioners. These pensioners were allegedly asked to store explosive devices to be given to Russian soldiers. However, an independent Russian journalist, Andrey Zakharov, questioned these claims. He pointed to a 2024 report from the Russian Central Bank, which indicated that only 15% of cyber fraud in Russia occurred through messaging apps, with most fraud happening through text messages and regular phone calls.

Original article

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article describes actions being taken by a Russian agency but does not offer any steps or advice for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article provides some educational depth by presenting conflicting information. It explains the stated reasons for the restrictions (stopping criminals, extorting money, harmful activities) and then counters this with a journalist's questioning of the claims, citing a report that suggests most fraud occurs through other channels. This contrast helps the reader understand the complexity and potential motivations behind the actions.

Personal Relevance: The personal relevance is limited for a general audience outside of Russia. For individuals in Russia, it is highly relevant as it directly impacts their ability to communicate using specific apps and highlights potential government control over digital services. For others, it serves as an example of how governments can restrict communication tools.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function in terms of providing warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts. It reports on a news event and presents differing perspectives on the reasons behind it.

Practicality of Advice: No advice is given in the article, so its practicality cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The long-term impact is unclear from this article alone. It describes a current event that could have lasting effects on digital communication and user trust in Russia, but the article itself does not offer guidance for long-term planning or adaptation.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article is primarily informative and does not appear designed to evoke strong emotional responses. It presents factual reporting and differing viewpoints, which could lead to a sense of awareness or concern depending on the reader's perspective.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The language used is factual and reportorial, without resorting to sensationalism or clickbait tactics.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article could have provided more value by offering guidance on how individuals in Russia might adapt to these restrictions, such as exploring alternative communication methods or understanding their digital rights. It could also have provided links to the Russian Central Bank report or the independent journalist's work for readers who wish to delve deeper into the data and claims.

The reliance on distant, impersonal communication channels for critical family and community matters weakens the bonds of trust and responsibility essential for survival. When communication is filtered or controlled by external forces, it erodes the direct accountability that neighbors and kin owe each other. This shift away from face-to-face interaction and local oversight diminishes the natural duties of fathers, mothers, and extended kin to protect their own, especially elders and children, from deception and harm.

The claims of external actors exploiting communication tools to involve elders in dangerous activities highlight a failure in local community vigilance and the protection of the vulnerable. Elders, who should be repositories of wisdom and care for the young, become targets when local structures for their protection are bypassed. This undermines the intergenerational transfer of knowledge and responsibility, weakening the clan's ability to nurture the next generation.

Furthermore, the assertion that messaging apps are primary tools for fraud, even if disputed by some data, points to a broader trend of individuals seeking convenience over accountability. This can lead to a decline in the careful stewardship of resources, as trust in personal dealings is replaced by reliance on anonymous digital transactions. The emphasis on digital interaction over tangible, local relationships fractures family cohesion by creating dependencies on external systems rather than on the strength and support of kin.

The consequences of unchecked reliance on such impersonal communication and the erosion of local accountability are dire for the continuity of the people. Birth rates will likely decline as family structures weaken and the sense of collective responsibility for raising children diminishes. Community trust will erode, leaving individuals more vulnerable to exploitation and less able to resolve conflicts peacefully. The stewardship of the land will suffer as the deep, personal connection to place and kin is replaced by abstract, mediated interactions. Without a strong foundation of local trust and personal duty, the ability to protect the vulnerable, care for resources, and ensure the survival of future generations is severely compromised.

The text presents one side of an issue by only stating Roskomnadzor's claims about criminals using messaging apps. It does not include any information that might support the messaging apps' side or offer a different perspective on why these actions are being taken. This selective presentation of information can lead readers to believe only Roskomnadzor's stated reasons are valid.

The text uses the phrase "Russia's agency for censorship, Roskomnadzor" which frames the agency negatively from the start. This label suggests a hidden motive or an oppressive action, influencing how the reader perceives Roskomnadzor's subsequent statements. It's a way to shape the reader's opinion before presenting the facts.

The text uses the word "claimed" when referring to the Russian Federal Security Service's statement about Ukrainian secret services. This word choice implies doubt or skepticism about the FSB's assertion. It suggests that the information might not be entirely true or reliable, without directly stating it.

The text includes a quote from an independent journalist that directly contradicts the claims made by the Russian Federal Security Service. This contrast highlights a potential bias in the FSB's statement by showing evidence that questions its accuracy. It presents a different viewpoint that challenges the initial narrative.

The text conveys a sense of concern and frustration from the Russian government's perspective. This is evident when Roskomnadzor states that Telegram and WhatsApp have become "primary tools for deceiving and extorting money, and for involving Russian citizens in harmful activities." The word "harmful" suggests a negative impact on citizens, creating a feeling of worry about their safety and well-being. The agency's mention that their requests to the messaging services "were not acted upon" highlights a feeling of being ignored or dismissed, leading to frustration. This emotional framing aims to justify the government's actions by presenting them as necessary protective measures against serious threats.

The text also introduces an element of skepticism and doubt through the inclusion of the independent journalist Andrey Zakharov's comments. By questioning the claims made by the Russian Federal Security Service, Zakharov introduces a counter-narrative. His reference to the Russian Central Bank report, which shows a lower percentage of fraud occurring through messaging apps, serves to undermine the government's justification. This creates a sense of uncertainty for the reader, making them question the official explanation and potentially leading them to believe that the government's actions might not be solely about stopping criminals.

The writer uses emotionally charged words like "deceiving," "extorting," and "harmful" to create a strong negative impression of the messaging apps. This is a persuasive technique designed to make the reader feel that these apps are dangerous and that the government's intervention is a necessary response. The repetition of the idea that these apps are used for "harmful activities" by both Roskomnadzor and the Federal Security Service reinforces this negative portrayal. By presenting the government's actions as a response to these serious issues, the text attempts to build trust in the government's intentions and persuade the reader to accept the restrictions as a reasonable measure to protect citizens. The contrast between the government's strong accusations and the journalist's data-backed skepticism encourages the reader to consider different viewpoints, potentially shifting their opinion about the situation.