7 ms·

In a dictatorship, if the ones holding power want to take control of an internet company holding data about the personal lives of hundreds of millions of people

by GuiA 13y ago

In a dictatorship, if the ones holding power want to take control of an internet company holding data about the personal lives of hundreds of millions of people, they do so by ousting the CEO and taking control the hard way. 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! :')

aaronem 13y ago
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.
- piokuc 13y ago
  This sounds like shit, Putin-ordered propaganda to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades. HN is not free from this, apparently.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    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.
    - piokuc 13y ago
      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/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/rus...
      - ajuc 13y ago
        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.
        aaronem 13y ago
        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.
        vetinari 13y ago
        HN is a social echo chamber [http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/28232.html 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.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
RobAley 13y ago
For those that don't get the implied reference in the second scenario, I believe it is a (fairly accurate) reference to Dropbox/Rice.
ipsin 13y ago
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.
krick 13y ago
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).
crazygringo 13y ago
> 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.
- BetterLateThan 13y ago
  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.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  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?

by GuiA 13y ago

aaronem 13y ago

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.

piokuc 13y ago
This sounds like shit, Putin-ordered propaganda to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_brigades. HN is not free from this, apparently.
- aaronem 13y ago
  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.
  - piokuc 13y ago
    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/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/rus...
    - ajuc 13y ago
      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.
      - aaronem 13y ago
        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.
        vetinari 13y ago
        HN is a social echo chamber [http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/28232.html 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.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

RobAley 13y ago

For those that don't get the implied reference in the second scenario, I believe it is a (fairly accurate) reference to Dropbox/Rice.

ipsin 13y ago

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.

krick 13y ago

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).

crazygringo 13y ago

> 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.

BetterLateThan 13y ago
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.
fit2rule 13y ago
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?