5 ms·

Can you clarify something? You seem to be arguing two points without differentiating them clearly. One point is that it should be obvious where the money came

Can you clarify something? You seem to be arguing two points without differentiating them clearly. One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from (etc); the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. Is that accurate? If so I would agree with you on the first point but not the second: the same logic that eg allows one to make the inferences in the first point would also lead one to infer certain things about Yandex (analogous to the situation with Kaspersky). Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex?

smsm42 9y ago
> One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from Depending on how you qualify "where". The specific way the money got there can be very complicated. The answer to the question "is that connected to Putin's interests somehow" is not - it is always "yes" given the source is in Russia and the sum is large enough. > the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. That is very subjective question. Some are ok with foreigners with questionable records (Chinese, petro-monarchies, Russians, etc.) investing in US economy. Some are worried about it. It is a personal choice. But there's no law preventing such people from buying any stock offered to public or entering into any investment deal they'd like, so this is a normal thing to happen. And it happens literally all the time. > Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex? I don't see how we could have any idea about whether it did. Certainly, common investors can influence decisions, but Twitter and Facebook have various investors, with varied interests, so why would you think this particular deal is only influenced by one of them?
YuriNiyazov 9y ago
The first point I am trying to make is that it should've been obvious, and that aside from giving an actual name to the entity through which cash went from Kremlin to Milner, the NYTimes is not news. If you were concerned then, good. If you were not concerned then, there's no reason to be concerned now, as no new facts came to light through this NYT article. On the second point: the source of the money should not be cause of concern if it's "just money." If it's money and a very strong suggestion that you partner with a (obvious, even if explicitly unstated) foreign, state-controlled entity, then it's a cause for concern. If it's just money, and then when you want to partner with a foreign, state-controlled entity, that same money gives you an introduction to the foreign, state-controlled entity, then it's not a cause for concern, because that's the point of business relationships and investments. The question of Russian influence is really a separate question, in my mind, and I think that's what bugs me about this entire thing the most. The implication somewhere here is that the leaders of Facebook and Twitter, and other startups that take Milner money were somehow duped, and allowed Russia to walk free in their systems and influence the election. I will be very surprised if that's true; Zuckerberg and Dorsey are too smart for that. What seems obvious to me is that the systems they created are giant, targeted megaphones, by design. They were successfully used by the Obama campaign, and everyone was very happy for democracy then. Then a foreign state decided that they were going to give Trump help on these megaphones, and now everyone is very unhappy for democracy. Would we have this much hand-wringing if we discovered that Saudi Arabia was helping Hilary?
- postramus 9y ago
  I generally agree but I would have appreciated a more-direct response vis-a-vis Yandex. In re: your broader point I don’t think they are “that smart” per se; or perhaps better put, I think they are smart enough to be aware their platforms are used by all kinds of agents for all sorts of purposes 24/7/365...but up until now also deemed it prudent to turn a rather universal blind eye towards those activities unless they were, say, so obviously fake that ordinary users could identify them as such. Whether that universal blind eye was smart is tbd, but nothing in their response since then has seemed very clever.
  - YuriNiyazov 9y ago
    I had to research a bit about Yandex in order to understand the implications there. The story seems to be something like this: [1] Yandex builds an app to crawl Facebook without Facebook's permission [2] Facebook blocks Yandex [3] Yandex gets licensed access to Facebook's firehose [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/11/yandex-wonder/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/11/yandex-wonder/ [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-yandex-facebook/yandex-puts-mobile-app-blocked-by-facebook-on-hold-idUSBRE90O0RK20130130 http://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-yandex-facebook/yandex... [3] https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/yandex-facebook/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/yandex-facebook/ There's certainly a plausible Kremlin long con here - fund Milner to invest in Facebook, ask Yandex to build a crawler for Facebook, expect that Facebook would shut it shut down, then suggest via Milner that there should be a partnership between Yandex and Facebook, thus gaining official access to Facebook's firehose, to be sent directly to Kremlin for analysis of message proliferation, and further influence of the American public. The fundamental mistake there (the final move that allows you to be checkmated) is the firehose deal, not the investment. In any case, thanks for making me think through the possible attack vector here. Your comment is the first one that was specific enough that made me think through why this could be a cause for concern.
    - smsm42 9y ago
      > There's certainly a plausible Kremlin long con here Not very plausible if compared to other things Kremlin does. Too long, too complicated, too hollywood. The modus operandi is much simpler - you do not need complex cons if you control everything. If you can come to Yandex and demand any data you want, anytime. You just have to keep Yandex alive, they'll find a way to get data (because it's their lifeblood, they are a data organization company, like Google) and when they do, you get the data too. Simple.

smsm42 9y ago

> One point is that it should be obvious where the money came from Depending on how you qualify "where". The specific way the money got there can be very complicated. The answer to the question "is that connected to Putin's interests somehow" is not - it is always "yes" given the source is in Russia and the sum is large enough. > the other point is that that origin should not be cause for concern. That is very subjective question. Some are ok with foreigners with questionable records (Chinese, petro-monarchies, Russians, etc.) investing in US economy. Some are worried about it. It is a personal choice. But there's no law preventing such people from buying any stock offered to public or entering into any investment deal they'd like, so this is a normal thing to happen. And it happens literally all the time. > Do you honestly think that the funding under discussion—and the personal relationships that subsequently developed—had no impact on either Twitter or Facebook deciding to establish their respective partnerships with Yandex? I don't see how we could have any idea about whether it did. Certainly, common investors can influence decisions, but Twitter and Facebook have various investors, with varied interests, so why would you think this particular deal is only influenced by one of them?

YuriNiyazov 9y ago

The first point I am trying to make is that it should've been obvious, and that aside from giving an actual name to the entity through which cash went from Kremlin to Milner, the NYTimes is not news. If you were concerned then, good. If you were not concerned then, there's no reason to be concerned now, as no new facts came to light through this NYT article. On the second point: the source of the money should not be cause of concern if it's "just money." If it's money and a very strong suggestion that you partner with a (obvious, even if explicitly unstated) foreign, state-controlled entity, then it's a cause for concern. If it's just money, and then when you want to partner with a foreign, state-controlled entity, that same money gives you an introduction to the foreign, state-controlled entity, then it's not a cause for concern, because that's the point of business relationships and investments. The question of Russian influence is really a separate question, in my mind, and I think that's what bugs me about this entire thing the most. The implication somewhere here is that the leaders of Facebook and Twitter, and other startups that take Milner money were somehow duped, and allowed Russia to walk free in their systems and influence the election. I will be very surprised if that's true; Zuckerberg and Dorsey are too smart for that. What seems obvious to me is that the systems they created are giant, targeted megaphones, by design. They were successfully used by the Obama campaign, and everyone was very happy for democracy then. Then a foreign state decided that they were going to give Trump help on these megaphones, and now everyone is very unhappy for democracy. Would we have this much hand-wringing if we discovered that Saudi Arabia was helping Hilary?

postramus 9y ago
I generally agree but I would have appreciated a more-direct response vis-a-vis Yandex. In re: your broader point I don’t think they are “that smart” per se; or perhaps better put, I think they are smart enough to be aware their platforms are used by all kinds of agents for all sorts of purposes 24/7/365...but up until now also deemed it prudent to turn a rather universal blind eye towards those activities unless they were, say, so obviously fake that ordinary users could identify them as such. Whether that universal blind eye was smart is tbd, but nothing in their response since then has seemed very clever.
- YuriNiyazov 9y ago
  I had to research a bit about Yandex in order to understand the implications there. The story seems to be something like this: [1] Yandex builds an app to crawl Facebook without Facebook's permission [2] Facebook blocks Yandex [3] Yandex gets licensed access to Facebook's firehose [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/11/yandex-wonder/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/11/yandex-wonder/ [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-yandex-facebook/yandex-puts-mobile-app-blocked-by-facebook-on-hold-idUSBRE90O0RK20130130 http://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-yandex-facebook/yandex... [3] https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/yandex-facebook/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/13/yandex-facebook/ There's certainly a plausible Kremlin long con here - fund Milner to invest in Facebook, ask Yandex to build a crawler for Facebook, expect that Facebook would shut it shut down, then suggest via Milner that there should be a partnership between Yandex and Facebook, thus gaining official access to Facebook's firehose, to be sent directly to Kremlin for analysis of message proliferation, and further influence of the American public. The fundamental mistake there (the final move that allows you to be checkmated) is the firehose deal, not the investment. In any case, thanks for making me think through the possible attack vector here. Your comment is the first one that was specific enough that made me think through why this could be a cause for concern.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > There's certainly a plausible Kremlin long con here Not very plausible if compared to other things Kremlin does. Too long, too complicated, too hollywood. The modus operandi is much simpler - you do not need complex cons if you control everything. If you can come to Yandex and demand any data you want, anytime. You just have to keep Yandex alive, they'll find a way to get data (because it's their lifeblood, they are a data organization company, like Google) and when they do, you get the data too. Simple.