4 ms·

> Aven stresses his compassion for the plight of Ukrainians since the start of the fighting. He rejects the claim that he is close to Putin’s Kremlin, arguing t

by ls15 5y ago

> Aven stresses his compassion for the plight of Ukrainians since the start of the fighting. He rejects the claim that he is close to Putin’s Kremlin, arguing that to do business in Russia requires contact with the president and that when his office calls then there is little choice but to respond. As much as I enjoy billionaires who are cleaning their own toilets, I wonder if we really are holding Western oligarchs to the same standard. What about those of them who are meeting dictators for business? Are Russian oligarchs punished harder for being Russian?

ozfive 5y ago
I can't answer this directly since I am not a western oligarch. But from what was happening in Russia prior to the buildup of troops it seems that the Kremlin was holding western business to task by making the request for them to set up a physical office in Russia. My assumption is that they wanted to have some one or multiple someones to hold responsible for deviating from what the forces that be required to keep the status quo within the country concerning social media. As far as I understand it no tech company set up physical offices per the request. A few weeks later the buildup of troops was sufficient and several mandates/laws were put into place to suppress non-state run media. Tech companies responded by adding resources to counter disinformation campaigns that have been ongoing and have publicly been very vocal about their efforts to shut down assets/cells operating with the distinct directive to manipulate public perception. Had physical offices been established, asset detention would have put tech companies into an ethical dilemma far exceeding the one they have by just shutting down these disinformation campaigns. The PR nightmare that would have ensued by physical employees being detained far exceeds the ramifications of just announcing publicly that they are countering such campaigns with resources that aren't threatened by physical detention/fines/death.

by ls15 5y ago

ozfive 5y ago

I can't answer this directly since I am not a western oligarch. But from what was happening in Russia prior to the buildup of troops it seems that the Kremlin was holding western business to task by making the request for them to set up a physical office in Russia. My assumption is that they wanted to have some one or multiple someones to hold responsible for deviating from what the forces that be required to keep the status quo within the country concerning social media. As far as I understand it no tech company set up physical offices per the request. A few weeks later the buildup of troops was sufficient and several mandates/laws were put into place to suppress non-state run media. Tech companies responded by adding resources to counter disinformation campaigns that have been ongoing and have publicly been very vocal about their efforts to shut down assets/cells operating with the distinct directive to manipulate public perception. Had physical offices been established, asset detention would have put tech companies into an ethical dilemma far exceeding the one they have by just shutting down these disinformation campaigns. The PR nightmare that would have ensued by physical employees being detained far exceeds the ramifications of just announcing publicly that they are countering such campaigns with resources that aren't threatened by physical detention/fines/death.