This whole story and the narrative of "civil activist Alexandra Elbakyan" sickens me to no end. In reality, Alexandra is an avid supporter of Putin's regime an

This whole story and the narrative of "civil activist Alexandra Elbakyan" sickens me to no end. In reality, Alexandra is an avid supporter of Putin's regime and a borderline fascist (in the original sense of cooperative state). Last year, when Dynasty non-profit fund (which sponsored thousands of Russian researchers, mostly in natural sciences) got expelled from Russia because of political reasons, she welcomed it because "they were against Putin". Here is my translation of her words [1][2]: > [Dynasty] fund is one of the main supporters of "Liberal mission" fund. It supports, develops and advocates "liberal" ideas. In Russian realities it means support of Maidan [Ukrainian revolution], Bolotnaya [location of major protests in Russia in 2012], propaganda against Putin and Russian government. She hates liberalism and the West in general. To add to the picture, here is what she really thinks about Sci-Hub (context: someone questioned her moral authority) [3][4]: > We will fight you not only with bans [5], I warn you [6]. … I understand why you are so against Sci-Hub - it's one of the projects that Russia can be proud of and this doesn't fit into your narrative of "everything is bad in Russia". And given that I support the government - it turns into a nightmare for people like you. So yeah, when I see comparisons like >Actions of civil disobedience like those of Aaron Swartz and Alexandra Elbakyan it's very hard not to throw up. No, it isn't "civil disobedience"; she is a complete, utter opposite to civil activists like Aaron Swartz. Sci-Hub is born out of indifference to intellectual property, total invulnerability to lawsuits (Alexandra lives in Russia and Kazakhstan, which aren't aren't very fond of cooperating with US institutions) and poverty of Russian scientists. Yet she manages to see it as a "thing Russia can be proud of". It is very sad that media picks up the accustomed narrative of activist underdog and completely misses the context of her true views. Doing this, journalists both distort reality and miss a very interesting and provocative story of a statist (and probably somewhat mad) woman which found herself in a right position in a right time to get Western media attention. [1]: http://vk.com/wall-36928352_2614 http://vk.com/wall-36928352_2614 [2]: «Так, например, фонд Зимина являлся одним из основных спонсоров фонда «Либеральная миссия». Этот фонд поддерживает, развивает и пропагандирует «либеральную» идею. В Российских реалиях это означает поддержку Майдана, Болотной, пропаганду против Путина и Российской власти.» [3]: https://vk.com/wall1396880_8792?reply=8796 https://vk.com/wall1396880_8792?reply=8796 [4]: «Если потребуется — и не только с помощью банов с вами воевать будем, имейте это ввиду. … Я понимаю, почему вы так против Sci-Hub — ведь это один из проектов, которым может гордиться Россия, и это очень не вписывается в вашу пропаганду о том, как всё в России плохо. А на фоне того, что создатель проекта поддерживает государство — это вообще оборачивается кошмаром для таких, как вы.» [5]: She bans everyone who even remotely don't support her views in VKontakte Sci-Hub group. [6]: Yep, it seems like a physical threat in the context. Sorry if I wasn't able to convey it in the translation. EDIT: formatting, typos