Vkontakte Founder Flees Russia(themoscowtimes.com)
themoscowtimes.com
Vkontakte Founder Flees Russia
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/vkontakte-founder-flees-russia-claims-persecution/498715.html
108 comments
> they do so by strategically adding members to the company's board who are part of the oligarchy in place
Seriously? I'd like you to back that up. Because honestly, that's just baseless conspiracy-mongering.
I understand people don't like Rice joining Dropbox (which is what I presume you're referring to) due to her political history and leadership role in the Iraq war -- which is totally understandable, since she's a public figure with strong political associations.
But anyone suggesting that her joining Dropbox is not in order to help their international/governmental expansion (which makes perfect business sense), but is rather part of a nefarious secret plot to undermine the privacy of Dropbox users, really has to show at least a shred of evidence for it.
And implying that the level of freedom, or rule of law, in American society is somehow comparable to the level in Russian society, shows a tremendous amount of naiveté. American government certainly isn't perfect, but it's worlds apart from Russia's.
Seriously? I'd like you to back that up. Because honestly, that's just baseless conspiracy-mongering.
I understand people don't like Rice joining Dropbox (which is what I presume you're referring to) due to her political history and leadership role in the Iraq war -- which is totally understandable, since she's a public figure with strong political associations.
But anyone suggesting that her joining Dropbox is not in order to help their international/governmental expansion (which makes perfect business sense), but is rather part of a nefarious secret plot to undermine the privacy of Dropbox users, really has to show at least a shred of evidence for it.
And implying that the level of freedom, or rule of law, in American society is somehow comparable to the level in Russian society, shows a tremendous amount of naiveté. American government certainly isn't perfect, but it's worlds apart from Russia's.
The problem with the West is that you guys _believe_ the law to be the same for those at the top and at the bottom of the pyramid.
Russians, on the contrary, _know_ that equality belongs on the same bookshelf with unicorns. That the government does not work the way the government tells kids it works.
Let me be blunt: To be a seriously profitable business in 2014 you must sleep with the government.
Those who disagree retire early. Ask PrivacyHarbor.com or that other more famous email provider who had to quit.
Let me be blunter: The public's Kardashian-Oprah-Fox-Oscar-elections megatrip must not be disturbed by the reports of how things actually work. There is simply no need for us to know, because today we can't legally act on this knowledge.
If history teaches us anything, you will agree with me very soon - but in retrospect[1]. The lines are being drawn as we speak.
As for Dropbox proper, they are wisely killing 2 birds with 1 Rice — demonstrating obedience to the ruling class and sending a clear signal to potential customers: "Choose us if you want to stay in business. We are on the right side.".
------------
1 - I am fully aware that you have no idea what I am talking about. It comes from experience, which you are only about to gain.
Russians, on the contrary, _know_ that equality belongs on the same bookshelf with unicorns. That the government does not work the way the government tells kids it works.
Let me be blunt: To be a seriously profitable business in 2014 you must sleep with the government.
Those who disagree retire early. Ask PrivacyHarbor.com or that other more famous email provider who had to quit.
Let me be blunter: The public's Kardashian-Oprah-Fox-Oscar-elections megatrip must not be disturbed by the reports of how things actually work. There is simply no need for us to know, because today we can't legally act on this knowledge.
If history teaches us anything, you will agree with me very soon - but in retrospect[1]. The lines are being drawn as we speak.
As for Dropbox proper, they are wisely killing 2 birds with 1 Rice — demonstrating obedience to the ruling class and sending a clear signal to potential customers: "Choose us if you want to stay in business. We are on the right side.".
------------
1 - I am fully aware that you have no idea what I am talking about. It comes from experience, which you are only about to gain.
I think the pushback about Rices' appointment is more due to the fact that she's a war criminal with the blood of innocents on her hands.
What company wants that in their board?
What company wants that in their board?
For those that don't get the implied reference in the second scenario, I believe it is a (fairly accurate) reference to Dropbox/Rice.
You're not wrong, precisely, but the former method has the virtues of simplicity, forthrightness, and the presentation of a salutary example to others who might find themselves in a similar position.
Also, people from the West have been telling Russians that Russia has a lot to learn at least since the fall of the Soviet regime, if not since the days of the tsars. Some who've given such advice have done so out of good intentions. Others did so with malice aforethought, and have brought about considerable grief in so doing, as for example during the post-Soviet interregnum, when Yeltsin let himself be swindled out of a huge fraction of his country's wealth to the enormous detriment of the Russian people -- I've seen estimates of premature and unnecessary deaths thus caused which range into the low to middle seven figures.
Part of the reason why Putin enjoys such wide approval in the nation he governs is because he's not particularly inclined to listen to Westerners bearing gifts, whatever their intentions in so doing may be.
Also, people from the West have been telling Russians that Russia has a lot to learn at least since the fall of the Soviet regime, if not since the days of the tsars. Some who've given such advice have done so out of good intentions. Others did so with malice aforethought, and have brought about considerable grief in so doing, as for example during the post-Soviet interregnum, when Yeltsin let himself be swindled out of a huge fraction of his country's wealth to the enormous detriment of the Russian people -- I've seen estimates of premature and unnecessary deaths thus caused which range into the low to middle seven figures.
Part of the reason why Putin enjoys such wide approval in the nation he governs is because he's not particularly inclined to listen to Westerners bearing gifts, whatever their intentions in so doing may be.
[deleted]
This sounds like shit, Putin-ordered propaganda to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades. HN is not free from this, apparently.
Well, the source on which I'm relying most strongly here, especially for estimates of the death toll of the post-Soviet interregnum, is a newspaper whose American-expatriate writers were hounded out of Russia, shortly after Medvedev "succeeded" Putin to the presidency, over a single article satirizing one of "Medvedev's" new policies.
I suppose you can argue that these events were merely part of an incredibly recondite plan on Putin's part to substantiate otherwise baseless propaganda of the sort you regard my prior comment to be. I can't imagine how anyone could make such an argument with a straight face, but that's not the same as assuming it's not possible.
I suppose you can argue that these events were merely part of an incredibly recondite plan on Putin's part to substantiate otherwise baseless propaganda of the sort you regard my prior comment to be. I can't imagine how anyone could make such an argument with a straight face, but that's not the same as assuming it's not possible.
I agree - in general this is the raise of Russian nationalism. It started in 1970s, then 1990s were really tough, now it is on the rise.
And democracy in Russia is not at all my concern (and concern of my friends here and there). If things continues like this, then after the western influence is removed, Uzbekis and others will be on the plate :( Then after all Uzbekis are gone, Armenians will need to move their patriarch to Moscow... and so on.
And democracy in Russia is not at all my concern (and concern of my friends here and there). If things continues like this, then after the western influence is removed, Uzbekis and others will be on the plate :( Then after all Uzbekis are gone, Armenians will need to move their patriarch to Moscow... and so on.
What are you talking about? Can you be a bit more concrete and give a link or another reference to your "source"? You are changing subject of the discussion, derailing it into some allegations against "The West" and its past alleged wrongdoings against Russia, and you are praising Putin at the same time - that really smells like a nowadays Russian internet propaganda, there is so much of this on forums these days, this is what I'm talking about: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/rus...
My source is the eXile, and while their archives from the years during which they published in print are in some disarray, you may safely take this article [1] by John Dolan as representative of its editorial stance on the matter under discussion. I grant that this does not constitute a primary source; on the other hand, my reading of the relevant history gives me no reason to find the claim at all incredible. Perhaps your understanding of history suggests otherwise. If so, you would do well to detail that understanding in order to support the claim you're making, rather than persisting in your attempts to discredit my statements by means of blatant ad hominem.
You seem to be reading a great deal into my statements on the subject. A more objective reading of those statements will reveal that I have uttered no more praise for Vladimir Putin than merely that he has consistently acted in Russia's interests, as is the minimal obligation of any head of state toward his nation. That's more or less what I've said about those from the West who have purported to act on Russia's behalf in recent history, as well; while I grant some of them acted in accord with their claimed motivations, others have acted in accord with their own interests and without regard to those of Russia, a claim which seems to me rather trivially defensible.
I am a citizen of the United States, and I have no particular love for Russia beyond the basic respect which any citizen of one sovereign nation may reasonably be expected to extend to another. Where you're getting the moral weighting, which you insist upon applying to my remarks in this thread, is a mystery to me, but regardless of its origins, the interpretation which results is entirely your own, and does not well represent the facts of the matter.
Of course you're welcome to your own opinion, as is anyone who participates in civil conversation, but I will thank you very kindly to desist from further accusing me of being in the pay of the Russian FSB. Quite aside from the fact that to act in such fashion would constitute a betrayal of the nation which has commanded my lifelong loyalty, I am, as already noted, subject to the laws of the United States, and I cannot imagine any way in which I could act as you've accused me of doing without placing myself in grave contravention of those laws.
[1]: http://www.exile.ru/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=6677&IBLOCK_ID=35
You seem to be reading a great deal into my statements on the subject. A more objective reading of those statements will reveal that I have uttered no more praise for Vladimir Putin than merely that he has consistently acted in Russia's interests, as is the minimal obligation of any head of state toward his nation. That's more or less what I've said about those from the West who have purported to act on Russia's behalf in recent history, as well; while I grant some of them acted in accord with their claimed motivations, others have acted in accord with their own interests and without regard to those of Russia, a claim which seems to me rather trivially defensible.
I am a citizen of the United States, and I have no particular love for Russia beyond the basic respect which any citizen of one sovereign nation may reasonably be expected to extend to another. Where you're getting the moral weighting, which you insist upon applying to my remarks in this thread, is a mystery to me, but regardless of its origins, the interpretation which results is entirely your own, and does not well represent the facts of the matter.
Of course you're welcome to your own opinion, as is anyone who participates in civil conversation, but I will thank you very kindly to desist from further accusing me of being in the pay of the Russian FSB. Quite aside from the fact that to act in such fashion would constitute a betrayal of the nation which has commanded my lifelong loyalty, I am, as already noted, subject to the laws of the United States, and I cannot imagine any way in which I could act as you've accused me of doing without placing myself in grave contravention of those laws.
[1]: http://www.exile.ru/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=6677&IBLOCK_ID=35
I did not know exile.ru till I saw the link in your comment, but what I gather from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eXile it doesn't seem to be a serious source of historical knowledge. It's a Moscow based satirical tabloid - how came you, an American citizen, know it so well?
By means of an amazing new technology on which Ames and Dolan, the eXile's erstwhile proprietors, saw fit for some reason to publish much of the same content which they included in the pages of their newspaper. This new technology of which I speak is colloquially known among anglophones as the World Wide Web. Perhaps you've heard of it?
I'm asking cause you were referring to "their archives from the years during which they published in print". Were you not suggesting you knew the "historical facts" from their printed version and it was difficult to find those articles in their online archives?
Personal attacks, such as your repeated insinuation that a fellow user is a propagandist, are not allowed on Hacker News. Please do not do this again.
It's dismaying that the commenter most attempting to contribute substantive discussion to this thread would be treated like this. If you want to talk about things that HN is disappointingly "not free from ... apparently", such accusations belong at the top of the list.
(My comment does not endorse aaronem's arguments, only his right not to be treated uncivilly on this site.)
It's dismaying that the commenter most attempting to contribute substantive discussion to this thread would be treated like this. If you want to talk about things that HN is disappointingly "not free from ... apparently", such accusations belong at the top of the list.
(My comment does not endorse aaronem's arguments, only his right not to be treated uncivilly on this site.)
That it's necessary for you to include such a disclaimer, in order to avoid being misread, saddens me. I appreciate your efforts, in defense of civil discourse on HN, nonetheless.
No. I was suggesting that, now that they've been booted out of Russia and retooled around an exclusively online presence which lacks any firsthand information about events in Russia and has therefore degenerated into a useless ideological exercise, they don't care very much whether their old website is navigable or indeed even working.
I'd like to say I'm not sure how you reached such an erroneous conclusion, but that wouldn't be true. I'm pretty sure that that occurred because you are proceeding from the assumption that I'm sitting in a windowless room in a Moscow office building, earning thirty-some bucks' worth of rubles a day by sitting in front of a computer typing what my FSB manager tells me to type. As I said before, you're welcome to that assumption if it pleases you to adopt it, but it's not particularly conversant with reality, not that I expect you to take my word for that.
I'd like to say I'm not sure how you reached such an erroneous conclusion, but that wouldn't be true. I'm pretty sure that that occurred because you are proceeding from the assumption that I'm sitting in a windowless room in a Moscow office building, earning thirty-some bucks' worth of rubles a day by sitting in front of a computer typing what my FSB manager tells me to type. As I said before, you're welcome to that assumption if it pleases you to adopt it, but it's not particularly conversant with reality, not that I expect you to take my word for that.
While I don't like what Russia is doing regarding civil rights and Ukraine - accusing the people you debate of being paid to tell lies is poor form and hurts the point you're trying to make.
Especially because most people that support Putin do so not for money, but because they are Russian nationalists and consider Putin foreign policy a good idea. That's sad, and explains nicely why Russia couldn't transform into democratic country, but whatever, it doesn't mean everybody who thinks differently is paid.
Especially because most people that support Putin do so not for money, but because they are Russian nationalists and consider Putin foreign policy a good idea. That's sad, and explains nicely why Russia couldn't transform into democratic country, but whatever, it doesn't mean everybody who thinks differently is paid.
I'd hate to think anyone misread me as speaking in support of Putin for any reason. To conclude, from my explanation of why people in Russia support Putin, that I must support Putin as well, strikes me as bearing the same relationship to the more ordinary jump to a desired conclusion, as an Olympic-class pole vault does to a bunny hop; further, if it's no longer possible for the average interlocutor to recognize the difference between explaining a position and supporting one, then I can only weep for the lost art of intellectual debate.
HN is a social echo chamber [http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/28232.html]. Given it's libertarian leaning, it would be a big surprise, if it would try to objectively assess a topic that is under heavy propaganda from all sides.
Actually the HN community is politically deeply divided. Complaints about its ideological bias thus tend to contradict one another. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7626420 says much the opposite.
You're right on the important thing, though. It's too much to expect HN to "objectively assess a topic that is under heavy propaganda from all sides". Objective assessment requires time, calm, reconsideration, and a high ratio of information per conclusion—plus a discourse in which people respond first to what is true in others' comments rather than to what is false in them. That bar is too high for an internet forum, or at least this one.
You're right on the important thing, though. It's too much to expect HN to "objectively assess a topic that is under heavy propaganda from all sides". Objective assessment requires time, calm, reconsideration, and a high ratio of information per conclusion—plus a discourse in which people respond first to what is true in others' comments rather than to what is false in them. That bar is too high for an internet forum, or at least this one.
[deleted]
Whether he is paid for his propaganda work or not, or just brainwashed and honestly believing in Putin I don't know; these are equally probable options, but they have the same cause: Putin's propaganda.
Anyway, it is well known, that Russia is spamming online forums with propaganda: http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/7796 Honestly, I've seen many, many comments like that under any article criticising Putin and Kremlin, and I feel like I can recognise common traits of these comments - apart from the message there is also the weird, even though often very sophisticated language... Many people do not know what's going on, though, that's why I decided to say something, and I don't care about down-votes.
Anyway, it is well known, that Russia is spamming online forums with propaganda: http://stratrisks.com/geostrat/7796 Honestly, I've seen many, many comments like that under any article criticising Putin and Kremlin, and I feel like I can recognise common traits of these comments - apart from the message there is also the weird, even though often very sophisticated language... Many people do not know what's going on, though, that's why I decided to say something, and I don't care about down-votes.
So much for intellectual debate [1], then, I suppose. Congratulations, if you like, on having genuinely astounded me; perhaps it's merely foolish naïveté on my part, but I'd never have expected anyone to conclude that I am a traitor to my country, based merely on the facts that I know a little bit about modern history and that my English is better than yours.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7630065
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7630065
Have you really never previously encountered suspicions aimed at those with book larnin' and fancy talk?
Sure I have, even on HN. But, here at least, they're much more the exception than the rule, and I've never before encountered such an egregious example of the type. Even growing up in rural Mississippi, no one ever accused me of betraying my country because I talked fancy.
Yeah. Here on HN, what you see is mostly just valid skepticism of credentialism that sometimes bleeds into a backlash against all those with credentials.
True, though I don't fall foul of that myself, because I don't have any credentials for anyone to be skeptical about. I do have a tendency to indulge in rhetoric, though, and I've been pleasantly surprised on many occasions by how willing my fellow HN commenters seem to be to tolerate that deviation.
Welcum 2 'merika.
It's easy to assume that the problem lies with the assorted hicks, rednecks, and crackers who make up so much of this country's population.
As a Mississippi son, though, I have the good fortune to know better. After all, I doubt there are all that many hicks, rednecks, and/or crackers who participate on HN, my own humble self aside.
As a Mississippi son, though, I have the good fortune to know better. After all, I doubt there are all that many hicks, rednecks, and/or crackers who participate on HN, my own humble self aside.
Do I understand correctly that you're implying that case with "dictatorship" is in place? If so, you are obviously wrong. Good example of "the hard way" was notorious Yukos' case, which is drastically different from this one. Mail.Ru have a good share in stocks for the long time and that's a matter for discussion I won't participate in, if they can be considered to be "part of the oligarchy in place" (they can). UCP has the rest of the stocks, which belonged to different people the last year. Durov had only 12% for quite a long time already. And Durov himself is alive and well and left Russia only after getting rid of Vk completely, and some say he wasn't even fired (they say that he wrote retirement letter on 23.03 already, and never revoked it; Durov claims otherwise; where's the truth remains to be unknown).
In both cases, the ones holding power gain access to the data through "lawful" secret requests. You don't need to control the company to exercise control over the company.
Here's to wishing Snowden had asked Putin about this, rather than giving him political cover to orchestrate it...
And lose literally his last place of refuge capable of withstanding U.S. demands in the world? If he pisses Russia off, he's either in a Russian jail (horrible) or in US hands (possibly equally horrible). Why do you want this? Has he not sacrificed enough of his life?
Almost everyone, Russians most of all, know that Russia conducts fearsome mass surveillance of its own population. It was Snowden's revelations about the capabilities and intentions of the U.S. that came as a big surprise to many, and so were most needed.
Almost everyone, Russians most of all, know that Russia conducts fearsome mass surveillance of its own population. It was Snowden's revelations about the capabilities and intentions of the U.S. that came as a big surprise to many, and so were most needed.
He actually did ask a question directly to Putin( I must admit he has guts ) that is relevant to this debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1yH554emkY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1yH554emkY
I'd argue the US would be worse. At least in the Russian jail he could bribe some decent meals.
I'm not sure how to articulate it, but I find it immensely interesting that Snowden fled to Russia, while Pavel is fleeing from Russia, both for issues within similar realms.
Similar realms maybe, but I still think there is a huge difference between exposing your country's secret service operations and running a popular website. The fact that the former gets you into legal trouble is expected. The fact that the latter does is very concerning.
He got in trouble for refusal to turn his company into goverment surveillance device. Much like the ones Snowden exposed so there's some symmetry between those situations albeit not obvious one.
Running Vkontakte in the US would get you into huge legal trouble, considering how many movies and music albums are hosted there without permission. And I think you would be required to share users’ personal data with US law enforcement agencies just as much.
This is factually incorrect. Snowden stranded in Russia. He had a ticket for Cuba where intended to transfer to Bolivia(?). Either way: not Russia.
Yeah, but I don't think his current visa was given out "of the goodness of their hearts"
Well, he didn't have a Russian visa when he started traveling. US did not cancel his passport before he left Hong Kong, and they did not cancel his passport after he'd arrive at supposedly Cuba, they cancelled his passport precisely after he landed in SVO transit zone, but before he could fly out of it.
Of course not. But there are numerous reasons other than that. Not the least of which would be simply to piss off the US.
[deleted]
Snowden is obviously not in Russia because they value free speech and privacy so much there. He's there because he's safe from the US, and because Putin likes messing with the US. As soon as Putin's interests change, Snowden isn't safe anymore.
It's not that surprising that people who disagree with their own government would flee to the protection of another, or that the destination government would play it for political advantage.
[deleted]
It's pretty simple actually. Russia is one of the few countries that aren't willing to extradict Snowden to the US and are able to resist pressure to do so.
It's only natural to hide from somebody on his (I don't want to use the word "foe", but I can't find anything better) foe's territory.
…That's only to be fair, but I'm not sure they have issues in similar realms. I don't deny it, but I'm not sure. While Snowden is some "justice warrior" fighting over the idea who is obviously not welcome in the USA, Durov is much more prosaic person. I mean, he may have some ideas and moral principles he can't neglect, but he is a businessman, clever guy prone to dramatic performances and, honestly, quite a weasel himself. And it's not even clear if he has reasons to be hated by some secret sovernment agents or something as Snowden is. He is not an owner and not even an employee of Vk anymore. He does't claim to know some government secrets or anything. And while it's possible (likely, actually) that he was forced to get rid of stocks, his company wasn't really "taken" from him. I mean, he sold it, he got his money, he didn't suddenly disappear and wasn't taken to jail like Khodorkovsky, when there possibly were reasons for that. And now he has nothing to do with Vk, and there're claims that he wasn't even forced to quit. Weird, huh.
So I'd say there's quite a probability of that thing being just another spectacle.
…That's only to be fair, but I'm not sure they have issues in similar realms. I don't deny it, but I'm not sure. While Snowden is some "justice warrior" fighting over the idea who is obviously not welcome in the USA, Durov is much more prosaic person. I mean, he may have some ideas and moral principles he can't neglect, but he is a businessman, clever guy prone to dramatic performances and, honestly, quite a weasel himself. And it's not even clear if he has reasons to be hated by some secret sovernment agents or something as Snowden is. He is not an owner and not even an employee of Vk anymore. He does't claim to know some government secrets or anything. And while it's possible (likely, actually) that he was forced to get rid of stocks, his company wasn't really "taken" from him. I mean, he sold it, he got his money, he didn't suddenly disappear and wasn't taken to jail like Khodorkovsky, when there possibly were reasons for that. And now he has nothing to do with Vk, and there're claims that he wasn't even forced to quit. Weird, huh.
So I'd say there's quite a probability of that thing being just another spectacle.
Enemy of my enemy and all that. Seems logical to me. Unfortunately, no western nation would protect Snowden.
By the way, you seem to have triple posted.
By the way, you seem to have triple posted.
Snowden didn't flee to Russia. He was on his way to South America, transiting through Russia, when the USA revoked his passport, forcing him to stay in Russia.
Several comments at the same comment level as this comment seem to take seriously the assertion that Snowden only incidentally ended up in Russia. In fact, his route from Hawaii to Hong Kong (a territory controlled by the central government of China) and then on to Russia looks very suspicious to readers who know what airline flights connected at that time of year from Hawaii to other places. Moreover, Snowden had contact with agents of the Russian government while he was still in Hong Kong[1], after he left his hotel there. From the beginning, as a person who has traveled to Hong Kong (and, for that matter, to Hawaii) before, I have been puzzled by his choice of air routes.
[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/11/01/edwar...
[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/11/01/edwar...
Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me, but where exactly does the article say Snowden had contact with agents of the Russian government while he was still in Hong Kong?
Hong Kong was a good choice. It does not extradite to US or many countries friendly with US and has a slow moving legal system that is relatively independent compared to other options that meet the first criteria. It gave him a relatively safe place and time.
The point is that there's no place to flee to!
All oligarchs, all politicians, all countries are the same. This is prison planet, and nobody of memory has escaped yet ever.
(The fight against free energy is not so much as to keep the oil oligarchs powerful, as to prevent people to flee out of the planet).
All oligarchs, all politicians, all countries are the same. This is prison planet, and nobody of memory has escaped yet ever.
(The fight against free energy is not so much as to keep the oil oligarchs powerful, as to prevent people to flee out of the planet).
What's so hard to understand? Hacker News has a lot of naive people who have no idea how the world works.
Hey, the 80's called, and if you were born during or after, it's probably time to ask what you don't understand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/...
Hey, the 80's called, and if you were born during or after, it's probably time to ask what you don't understand.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/03/...
He made $260 million in Russia creating a copy of Facebook. He sold his shares and resigned.
But wait, he didn't _really_ resign. No, it was all an April fools joke! The investors didn't buy it and fired him.
He claims the site is now under the control of Kremlin because one of its shareholders is Alisher Usmanov, an alleged ally of Putin. Yet, that guy was a shareholder for awhile now and Durov never complained about him.
I don't know. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Sounds like someone is trying to stay relevant by creating controversy and generating hype for a new messaging system that's supposed to protect you from government's eyes.
But wait, he didn't _really_ resign. No, it was all an April fools joke! The investors didn't buy it and fired him.
He claims the site is now under the control of Kremlin because one of its shareholders is Alisher Usmanov, an alleged ally of Putin. Yet, that guy was a shareholder for awhile now and Durov never complained about him.
I don't know. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Sounds like someone is trying to stay relevant by creating controversy and generating hype for a new messaging system that's supposed to protect you from government's eyes.
As far as business in Russia goes, this sounds like a fairly normal course of events. Almost every large company has someone Putin-connected at the top, and when the Kremlin wants more control that's how they exercise it. (Either that, or corrupt court judgments that directly change corporate control.)
Don't be surprised if there are a rash of allegations of corruption, embezzlement, etc., against Durov. The sad thing about Russia is that they could be true, they could be part of a conspiracy against Durov, or both. You'll never know.
Don't be surprised if there are a rash of allegations of corruption, embezzlement, etc., against Durov. The sad thing about Russia is that they could be true, they could be part of a conspiracy against Durov, or both. You'll never know.
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
- Winston Churchill
- Winston Churchill
True, but I don't think Putin has thought out his Ukraine folly and Russia will suffer in the long term. The West has become so dominant that Putin can rattle his rusty sabre and everyone says "meh".
I don't think there's any question about dominance, rather, it's about complacency.
If in the coming years Russia takes Ukraine, and or other countries like Latvia or Moldova, it'll be due to the West being complacent. Putin - or any dictator - 'winning' the first four rounds due to other nations having an attitude of not giving a shit, would match up with what typically has happened throughout history.
If in the coming years Russia takes Ukraine, and or other countries like Latvia or Moldova, it'll be due to the West being complacent. Putin - or any dictator - 'winning' the first four rounds due to other nations having an attitude of not giving a shit, would match up with what typically has happened throughout history.
"The West has become so dominant" that Putin was able to successfully leverage anti-western feelings in a semi-democratic way for 15 years now, with no end in sight. "The West has become so dominant" that Bin Laden is still considered a hero by millions of people. "The West has become so dominant" that anti-Western sensibilities still hold solid democratic majorities across the Middle East and South America (Egypt etc).
Honestly, where did you get this feeling that "the West has become so dominant"? From a military standpoint, Europe is bent on disarming: not even the UK can now afford the sort of effort that a close US partnership still imposes, and the US government itself is busy cutting everything it can. In fact, only a massive threat from Putin might be able to revive European defence budgets. Most European armies are creaking, from a technological standpoint; the only European nation pumping fresh cash in their armed forces is Russia, which is why Putin can afford to be so bullish. 1995 was almost 20 years ago, the world has changed. Bin Laden and Afghanistan militias showed that "the West" is, in fact, long from being "dominant" both at the military and cultural level.
Honestly, where did you get this feeling that "the West has become so dominant"? From a military standpoint, Europe is bent on disarming: not even the UK can now afford the sort of effort that a close US partnership still imposes, and the US government itself is busy cutting everything it can. In fact, only a massive threat from Putin might be able to revive European defence budgets. Most European armies are creaking, from a technological standpoint; the only European nation pumping fresh cash in their armed forces is Russia, which is why Putin can afford to be so bullish. 1995 was almost 20 years ago, the world has changed. Bin Laden and Afghanistan militias showed that "the West" is, in fact, long from being "dominant" both at the military and cultural level.
I was hoping to see these comments more prevalent in the hackernews thread. The story struck me at first as being interesting but then it seems like there's more murkiness involved and it's not an open-and-shut case. Not that the veracity of this passage is great, but seriously I was hoping for more of a critical eye on the story:
"United Capital Partners, a private company registered in Moscow that owns 48 percent of Vkontakte, disputed Durov's statements on Tuesday, saying he had been seeking to “politicize the situation” because there were “serious legal claims” against him and he was suspected of embezzlement."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/vkontakte-founder...
"United Capital Partners, a private company registered in Moscow that owns 48 percent of Vkontakte, disputed Durov's statements on Tuesday, saying he had been seeking to “politicize the situation” because there were “serious legal claims” against him and he was suspected of embezzlement."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/vkontakte-founder...
Are you sure he didn't create copy of MySpace?
I think you just helped to generate an extra 50% of the hype they're after.
PAVEL DUROV'S 7 REASONS TO STAY IN RUSSIA (12 March 2014)
http://rusbase.com/news/author/benhopkins/not-going-anywhere...
http://rusbase.com/news/author/benhopkins/not-going-anywhere...
That whole blog post stinks of propaganda
Link to russian version on Pavel's personal page: http://vk.com/id1?w=wall1_45616
Nobody was forcing him to write this. It is exactly what he thinks about Russia.
PS But sometimes people can change their opinion in a month :)
Nobody was forcing him to write this. It is exactly what he thinks about Russia.
PS But sometimes people can change their opinion in a month :)
>> Nobody was forcing him to write this. It is exactly what he thinks about Russia.
Just because it was posted to his person page does not mean he wasn't coerced into writing/posting it.
Just because it was posted to his person page does not mean he wasn't coerced into writing/posting it.
Oh. Now I think he has a freedom to say whether he was coerced or not.
Or may he was pretending that he will stay in Russia.
Here is translation of the first paragraph in his post:
=== In recent months, more and more fashionable to get the theme of emigration from Russia. As usual, I'm going against this trend - I publish 7 reasons to stay in Russia.
=== In recent months, more and more fashionable to get the theme of emigration from Russia. As usual, I'm going against this trend - I publish 7 reasons to stay in Russia.
This source (11 March VK post, 12 March rusbase article) is older than the article (Apr 22).
Older, but what?
All of the benefits of Russia have disappeared within a month?
All of the benefits of Russia have disappeared within a month?
All of the benefits of Russia have disappeared within a month?
That is hilarious.
Imagine Zuckerberg selling his Facebook shares, then claiming to flee from USA for not willing to give the data from the Facebook to the FBI. Which of course Facebook (just like any other competitor like Google and Microsoft) gives since it's all regulated by the law:
https://www.facebook.com/about/government_requests
Disclaimer: I don't know how much Durov actually sold. Any additional info welcome.
https://www.facebook.com/about/government_requests
Disclaimer: I don't know how much Durov actually sold. Any additional info welcome.
The last time it was 12% (which is all he had of Vk stocks). There's no info of money amount involved, but I susoect if it was something ridiculously small we'd hear about that already from Durov himself, and estimate of how much it was worth is $M300-400.
Doesn't say where/how Russia was doing/trying an illegal move...
Facebook will be more than happy to get a piece of VK's users.
Who tried VK, will never go back to Facebook. VK is like the wild west of the web: you find everything for free, from music, to software, porn, books, etc.
Facebook is a prudish and mildly authoritarian walled garden. VK smells like freedom. ;)
Facebook is a prudish and mildly authoritarian walled garden. VK smells like freedom. ;)
Smelled, you mean. I'm not saying that all good of Vk was due to Durov, but things are obviously getting more complicated slowly since Mail.Ru group rules it. It can get even worse.
You can find all these things on Piratebay. Tying all these illegal activities to your social network is highly idiotic.
So does anyone have a recap of this chain of events?
From the last time I heard about this, it sounded like he was bullied into selling his shares to one of Putin's buddies, and stepping down. Then he said he would like to stay in Russia, now he's fleeing?
From the last time I heard about this, it sounded like he was bullied into selling his shares to one of Putin's buddies, and stepping down. Then he said he would like to stay in Russia, now he's fleeing?
Maybe the US and Russia could do a prisoner swap - Snowden for Durov?
I wonder what kind of role the US had in helping aid the Ukraine revolution? or what role they will have now that its going to be another west vs Russia/Putin showdown.
Anyone knows how this affects Telegram?
I also would like to know that. it is the only real end-to-end encrypted whatsapp alternative. I hope it stays that way.
you shouldnt trust closed source software also there are numerous complaints about their security model. See http://www.cryptofails.com/post/70546720222/telegrams-crypta... for example. Why not use an open source, cross device alternative? https://www.surespot.me/
Telegram clients (ios,andriod,windows,osx,linux) are open source. Server is closed but client code and protocol provides user with verified secrecy.
Most criticism seems emotion based but no smoking guns. See comments on http://unhandledexpression.com/2013/12/17/telegram-stand-bac... also see response to the post you linked to http://telegramteam.tumblr.com/post/70588130319/telegrams-cr...
anyway i dont work for them and Surespot also looks nice. though nodejs+coffeescript at the server worries me a bit.
Most criticism seems emotion based but no smoking guns. See comments on http://unhandledexpression.com/2013/12/17/telegram-stand-bac... also see response to the post you linked to http://telegramteam.tumblr.com/post/70588130319/telegrams-cr...
anyway i dont work for them and Surespot also looks nice. though nodejs+coffeescript at the server worries me a bit.
I think I mixed up Telegram and Threema so my bad and thanks for the correction/reply.
Why has this aritcle (124 points, in 1 hour) only 15th on HN?
Who is flagging this?
Vkontakte is larger than Facebook in Russia, and the CEO has to flee due to ugly pressure. This isn't germane technology news?
Who is flagging this?
Vkontakte is larger than Facebook in Russia, and the CEO has to flee due to ugly pressure. This isn't germane technology news?
Users are flagging it and moderators applied a penalty. This is standard practice. The only question is whether it should be on the front page at all, given the predictably low quality of the thread.
It's not a question of it being off-topic. It's a question of it spurring shallow discussion that is high on agitation (noise) and low on reflection (signal). Consider the distinguishing features of the thread:
(1) A top comment that has no substance and is merely an internet witticism to fire up the crowd;
(2) A person attempting to contribute substantively accused of being a propagandist for Putin;
(3) A predictable Snowden argument whose only connection to the story is "Russia".
It's not a question of it being off-topic. It's a question of it spurring shallow discussion that is high on agitation (noise) and low on reflection (signal). Consider the distinguishing features of the thread:
(1) A top comment that has no substance and is merely an internet witticism to fire up the crowd;
(2) A person attempting to contribute substantively accused of being a propagandist for Putin;
(3) A predictable Snowden argument whose only connection to the story is "Russia".
Given that the name of this site is "Hacker News" and not "Hacker Threads", one would expect high quality news items to bubble to the top of the main list, and not necessarily high-quality discussions.
You might want to reconsider the premise of flagging topics in order to facilitate ease of topic moderation. There's more to this site than merely the user discussion.
Are there any metrics that distinguish the ratio of active thread participants, versus quiet lurkers, versus users that seldom view the HN thread at all, and only look at the lists?
On a busy day at work, I'll check the RSS feed frequently, but rarely bother with HN proper. In short, this means if an article doesn't make it into the top 30 list, a (possibly-not-insignificant) portion your user base (myself included) might be effectively disinformed of the topic.
That's kind of important.
You might want to reconsider the premise of flagging topics in order to facilitate ease of topic moderation. There's more to this site than merely the user discussion.
Are there any metrics that distinguish the ratio of active thread participants, versus quiet lurkers, versus users that seldom view the HN thread at all, and only look at the lists?
On a busy day at work, I'll check the RSS feed frequently, but rarely bother with HN proper. In short, this means if an article doesn't make it into the top 30 list, a (possibly-not-insignificant) portion your user base (myself included) might be effectively disinformed of the topic.
That's kind of important.
That's a very good point. It's not obvious how to balance this. What would be better?
The status quo isn't ok, because it violates HN's values of substance and civility. Not having any threads at all is not an option. Selectively shutting down threads when they go off the rails seems draconian. Banning people for making poor contributions to poor threads is wrong; the same people often make good contributions elsewhere. Thoughts?
The status quo isn't ok, because it violates HN's values of substance and civility. Not having any threads at all is not an option. Selectively shutting down threads when they go off the rails seems draconian. Banning people for making poor contributions to poor threads is wrong; the same people often make good contributions elsewhere. Thoughts?
I don't think there are really any shortcuts. This sort of problem is likely to always require nuanced and direct human intervention.
Sometimes the acrimony and the controversy is an integral part of a news story. Without the gossip from the peanut gallery, it might not be news.
Relevant social topics often smell terrible. I think it just comes with the territory...
Sometimes the acrimony and the controversy is an integral part of a news story. Without the gossip from the peanut gallery, it might not be news.
Relevant social topics often smell terrible. I think it just comes with the territory...
> Vkontakte is larger than Facebook in Russia, and the CEO has to flee due to ugly pressure. This isn't germane technology news?
Odd. You have successfully convinced me to flag this, whereas I hadn't before.
Odd. You have successfully convinced me to flag this, whereas I hadn't before.
Interesting, indeed. The article was on the very top a couple of hours ago...
Fun Question:
Would any of you consider implementing a last-resort "self destruct system" into your startup? One that completely and totally obliterates all data (writing random data to all discs), causes massive amounts of destruction to the company, permanently dumps databases, deletes all profiles, and sabotages everything you've ever worked for. You might answer this question differently depending on what part of the world you're from. Overall, having a way to instantly invoke "if I can't have it you can't either" might come in handy when dealing with oppressive governments.
Would any of you consider implementing a last-resort "self destruct system" into your startup? One that completely and totally obliterates all data (writing random data to all discs), causes massive amounts of destruction to the company, permanently dumps databases, deletes all profiles, and sabotages everything you've ever worked for. You might answer this question differently depending on what part of the world you're from. Overall, having a way to instantly invoke "if I can't have it you can't either" might come in handy when dealing with oppressive governments.
how much of Facebook can you zero out before a sysadmin detects it? Probably not enough to matter, especially if there are backups which would lead to a headache for the Ops team but not much more.
Before scuffing at Russia as a dictatorship, let's get real here. Which domestically-based, major internet businesses holding vast swathes of social network data are run by foreigners in any of two other key national markets: China and the US?
Well, can anyone name a single one? No? Aside from AMDOCS, which seems to have jumped ship to the US to spruce up its image, or perhaps to a limited extent (versus China Unipay's domestic, now regional, and increasingly global settlement network) Mastercard/Visa and SWIFT (for international settlements only) in China, I can't. Don't forget what happened to Google in China, and how Schmidt and his political buddy then turned around and visited that great bastion of human rights, North Korea, in a transparent snub to China. Don't forget how Microsoft's Skype hands over surveillance keys for its users' private communications to the Chinese government as a market entry strategy.
Politics (control) and business (profit) really have self-organized in to a transnational network of mutual back-scratching oligopolies the world over. Here in China, domestic alternatives to global networks are encouraged (largely by limiting international bandwidth, more rarely by outright censorship) to maximise state opportunities for control and surveillance. Russia seems the same. Perhaps it's time to re-read the preface to Cypherpunks... http://cryptome.org/2012/12/assange-crypto-arms.htm
The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. It has been hidden by secrecy, complexity and scale. The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen. The internet is a threat to human civilization.
These transformations have come about silently, because those who know what is going on work in the global surveillance industry and have no incentives to speak out. Left to its own trajectory, within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there.
Recall that states are the systems which determine where and how coercive force is consistently applied.
The question of how much coercive force can seep into the platonic realm of the internet from the physical world is answered by cryptography and the cypherpunks’ ideals.
As states merge with the internet and the future of our civilization becomes the future of the internet, we must redefine force relations.
If we do not, the universality of the internet will merge global humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control.
The sad thing is, as hyperbolic as this can sound to the uninitiated, it's reality.
Well, can anyone name a single one? No? Aside from AMDOCS, which seems to have jumped ship to the US to spruce up its image, or perhaps to a limited extent (versus China Unipay's domestic, now regional, and increasingly global settlement network) Mastercard/Visa and SWIFT (for international settlements only) in China, I can't. Don't forget what happened to Google in China, and how Schmidt and his political buddy then turned around and visited that great bastion of human rights, North Korea, in a transparent snub to China. Don't forget how Microsoft's Skype hands over surveillance keys for its users' private communications to the Chinese government as a market entry strategy.
Politics (control) and business (profit) really have self-organized in to a transnational network of mutual back-scratching oligopolies the world over. Here in China, domestic alternatives to global networks are encouraged (largely by limiting international bandwidth, more rarely by outright censorship) to maximise state opportunities for control and surveillance. Russia seems the same. Perhaps it's time to re-read the preface to Cypherpunks... http://cryptome.org/2012/12/assange-crypto-arms.htm
The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. It has been hidden by secrecy, complexity and scale. The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen. The internet is a threat to human civilization.
These transformations have come about silently, because those who know what is going on work in the global surveillance industry and have no incentives to speak out. Left to its own trajectory, within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there.
Recall that states are the systems which determine where and how coercive force is consistently applied.
The question of how much coercive force can seep into the platonic realm of the internet from the physical world is answered by cryptography and the cypherpunks’ ideals.
As states merge with the internet and the future of our civilization becomes the future of the internet, we must redefine force relations.
If we do not, the universality of the internet will merge global humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control.
The sad thing is, as hyperbolic as this can sound to the uninitiated, it's reality.
In a democracy with a free market, if the ones holding power want to take control of an internet company which holds data about the personal lives of hundreds of millions of people, they do so by strategically adding members to the company's board who are part of the oligarchy in place.
Putin's Russia still has a lot to learn! :')