Russia asks Google to clamp down on Navalny′s ‘Smart Voting′(m.dw.com)
m.dw.com
Russia asks Google to clamp down on Navalny′s ‘Smart Voting′
https://m.dw.com/en/russia-google-told-to-clamp-down-on-navalnys-smart-voting/a-59092740
61 comments
I sometimes wonder... Do the leaders of such corrupt states think that is a better way to run things, and if so why? I might guess it's as simple as "anything else would be worse for me personally" but that seems to simplistic for a guy like Putin. And if they dont think it's better, then why not change it? Inertia? Backlash? Don't know how to get there from here?
To learn some of the answers to those questions, may I suggest you start with a particular YouTube video [1] (and its sequel [2]) and the book that inspired them [3]?
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
[2]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
[2]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator's_Handbook
The best way to run things is the way I run things.
> anything else would be worse for me personally"
No, that's mostly it. Along with an enjoyment of power and control and the suffering of others for its own sake.
He's built a multi billion dollar palace, he's not going to risk losing power.
No, that's mostly it. Along with an enjoyment of power and control and the suffering of others for its own sake.
He's built a multi billion dollar palace, he's not going to risk losing power.
That's the oversimplification that wraps things up nicely and doesn't require digging any deeper. Like when people think Kim Jong Un is necessarily just a madman without realizing that playing the madman is the perfect defense against outside interference. Give up their nukes? Ukraine did that, they even have a signed treaty with Russia for this. Iran signed a piece of paper with the US too. That turned out well for everyone who is a superpower.
Authoritarianism isn't required to get richer than you could otherwise as an already powerful person. Look at democratic countries (all still having a measure of corruption) where having slightly more money and power than most people gives you access to huge wealth and immunity from the law, a positive feedback loop where money begets money.
Did the Sacklers need to be crazy dictators to get even richer while throwing a wad of cash at the government in exchange for full immunity? Regular people get civil asset forfeiture but for rich people there no law to find them guilty and take back all the money, the only way is to negotiate a consolation settlement? Obviously lobbying for donations or plain old influence peddling will get you incredibly far, maybe even further than dictatorship.
Putin doesn't need this level of authority to stay rich and powerful as a former member of the intelligence community. He needs it because he has grandiose dreams of Russian imperialism, bringing them back to former superpower glory after seeing that the post USSR breakup times and trying to integrate into the Western world made them play fifth fiddle. This needs the authoritarianism because Russia is lacking the other quality of life elements to afford selling the "glory" aspect to people.
It's like deciding to be the CEO of your own company rather than the middle manager in somene else's even if the pay is the same. Only your employees are stuck suffering there.
Authoritarianism isn't required to get richer than you could otherwise as an already powerful person. Look at democratic countries (all still having a measure of corruption) where having slightly more money and power than most people gives you access to huge wealth and immunity from the law, a positive feedback loop where money begets money.
Did the Sacklers need to be crazy dictators to get even richer while throwing a wad of cash at the government in exchange for full immunity? Regular people get civil asset forfeiture but for rich people there no law to find them guilty and take back all the money, the only way is to negotiate a consolation settlement? Obviously lobbying for donations or plain old influence peddling will get you incredibly far, maybe even further than dictatorship.
Putin doesn't need this level of authority to stay rich and powerful as a former member of the intelligence community. He needs it because he has grandiose dreams of Russian imperialism, bringing them back to former superpower glory after seeing that the post USSR breakup times and trying to integrate into the Western world made them play fifth fiddle. This needs the authoritarianism because Russia is lacking the other quality of life elements to afford selling the "glory" aspect to people.
It's like deciding to be the CEO of your own company rather than the middle manager in somene else's even if the pay is the same. Only your employees are stuck suffering there.
No more corrupt than the USA.
America and American elections aren't corrupt; they are fortified.
I like how you missed the part, that this fund operated for years on legal terms, but Navalny started to use this non profitable organization to fund his political activities and to launder money. That’s why it was shut down.
please point me to Russian criminal code or precedent where laundering money is an extremism charge instead of criminal. As far as i know laundering money is a criminal charge and the government would have no problem charging and "proving" it in the Russian "court of law" if there were any minimal sniff of it. Especially given how Navalny's and the Fund's activities were under total permanent observation - official at that at least from the moment they got designated as "foreign agent", and the government hasn't been able to dig up any, even minimal, irregularity.
>to fund his political activities
the same crap. The government couldn't bring up any irregularity here, despite having them under total microscope.
>to fund his political activities
the same crap. The government couldn't bring up any irregularity here, despite having them under total microscope.
What would the legal process look like if the app were made by anonymous unaffiliated Russian developers and merely recommended by Navalny?
Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization.
If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes.
In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.
Perhaps Google would be required to hand over the personal information associated with the developer account, because presumably a judge could be "convinced" to issue a warrant for this information based on the theory that the developers were secretly working for Navalny's organization.
If the developers were actually based outside of Russia, then no doubt the app would be deemed to be foreign interference, so perhaps it would not be exculpatory for Google to say that the developers always used Tor exit nodes.
In such situations, I wonder if someone brave would volunteer to have their personal information given to Google. If the app doesn't need any updates, then I suppose the developers could give the details of a recently deceased person. I'm assuming that Google would let the real developer lie, which might be risky if the Russian government can catch them conspiring like that.
deceased person
Or just a homeless one, as it’s usually done for $100 or less. The risk here is not a personal data leak (it will leak because it was a bank payment that google cannot legally deny or hide), but that the investigation will eventually trace everyone involved, regardless of a name on the card.
Or just a homeless one, as it’s usually done for $100 or less. The risk here is not a personal data leak (it will leak because it was a bank payment that google cannot legally deny or hide), but that the investigation will eventually trace everyone involved, regardless of a name on the card.
This is not Russia asking, this is the Russia's ruling party which has nothing to do with the people whose vote it seeks to suppress. Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them.
Also it's not asking, it's a ruling by a court in Russia in favor of a small wool trading company who just happened to register 'Smart Voting' as a trade mark.
The original title "Russia: Google told to clamp down on Navalny's 'Smart Voting'" is more accurate. Preferrably the submission should be changed to that.
> Given the fact in the title the vote is clear - against this specific party, for anybody who can stand against them.
This really doesn't reflect the views of the average Russian.
This really doesn't reflect the views of the average Russian.
Then there is nothing for the ruling party to fear and no reason for the ban.
it also doesn't reflect the views of Navalny and his team, this is tactical voting driven to the extreme. But when there's no one left on the lists to vote for, what would be your alternative?
[deleted]
Lovely theatre to pretend the outcome isn't rigged already.
That depends on just how fine-grained their control on the election is. They might not lose, but they could still be embarrassed or greatly inconvenienced by the results. And you don't always need to chip away at the armor too much before a critical weakness is revealed. Once the party is no longer viewed as unassailable things could change more rapidly.
I'll admit that's a very optimistic view of things though. It has to be a little hard to stick your neck out in Russian politics when the result may be transdermal poison secretly smeared on the insides of your underwear. (And that is not an exaggeration or speculation of the risk)
I'll admit that's a very optimistic view of things though. It has to be a little hard to stick your neck out in Russian politics when the result may be transdermal poison secretly smeared on the insides of your underwear. (And that is not an exaggeration or speculation of the risk)
> They might not lose, but they could still be embarrassed or greatly inconvenienced by the results.
"Embarrassed by the results"? They didn't seem to have been embarrassed by this: https://manipulatori.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sn%C3%ADm...
"Embarrassed by the results"? They didn't seem to have been embarrassed by this: https://manipulatori.cz/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sn%C3%ADm...
What is your point? We're talking about the current election and whether or not Navalny's new initiative will change the way things have gone in the past.
By definition, the issue is whether or not past results will be repeated. Pointing to those past results is supposed to mean... what? That things won't change? Maybe they won't. But the claim here is that Navalny's actions might move the needle a little. You can't point to past results as an objection to that claim because then you're just saying "The results won't change from the past, because look at these results from the past." It is tautological. If you object to that claim, the way to justify it is by addressing how Navalny's initiative might be useless.
And it might be useless: it depends on how many people it reached and, as I said originally, how fine grained the current party's control is over the election outcomes.
By definition, the issue is whether or not past results will be repeated. Pointing to those past results is supposed to mean... what? That things won't change? Maybe they won't. But the claim here is that Navalny's actions might move the needle a little. You can't point to past results as an objection to that claim because then you're just saying "The results won't change from the past, because look at these results from the past." It is tautological. If you object to that claim, the way to justify it is by addressing how Navalny's initiative might be useless.
And it might be useless: it depends on how many people it reached and, as I said originally, how fine grained the current party's control is over the election outcomes.
My point was that such results would most likely not lead to any embarrassment since the embarrassment threshold for elections in Russia seems to be very high. I did not say a word about anything changing or not.
Vladivostok is one place in Russia where Putin genuinely struggles to get even single digits of approval ratings.
It's one of the only places in Russia a jury acquits a person 3 times, just for him to finally get jailed for the 4th.
2018 token provincial elections had Lutun's candidate lose despite ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE fraud. And yet they still pulled this at the end:
https://meduza.io/impro/LCjzlLaaoQX5pld_zlmxXqom_TRmlz9WhemQ...
It's one of the only places in Russia a jury acquits a person 3 times, just for him to finally get jailed for the 4th.
2018 token provincial elections had Lutun's candidate lose despite ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE fraud. And yet they still pulled this at the end:
https://meduza.io/impro/LCjzlLaaoQX5pld_zlmxXqom_TRmlz9WhemQ...
> Vladivostok is one place in Russia where Putin genuinely struggles to get even single digits of approval ratings.
Citation needed.
In the last election in Primorsky Kray Putin got 65% up from 57% in the previous election. Pretty much the lowest in the country, but far from the single digits you claim.
https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2394633.html
Even Levada approval polls (pro-opposition “foreign agent”) shows he is the most popular politician (although they don’t provide a breakdown by region).
https://www.levada.ru/2021/02/04/prezidentskie-rejtingi-i-po...
Citation needed.
In the last election in Primorsky Kray Putin got 65% up from 57% in the previous election. Pretty much the lowest in the country, but far from the single digits you claim.
https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2394633.html
Even Levada approval polls (pro-opposition “foreign agent”) shows he is the most popular politician (although they don’t provide a breakdown by region).
https://www.levada.ru/2021/02/04/prezidentskie-rejtingi-i-po...
> In the last election in Primorsky Kray Putin got 65% up from 57% in the previous election.
Yes, and in 1927 Liberian general election Charles King received around 240,000 votes (out of 15,000 registered voters). So what?
Yes, and in 1927 Liberian general election Charles King received around 240,000 votes (out of 15,000 registered voters). So what?
Election rigging is a finite resource. After certain amount regime loses it's legitimacy. This in turn creates a regime phase transition, which in certain scenarios could be not fatal (as Belarus and Venezuela examples shows us), but very painful for the elites and increases all sorts of risks, especialy for current incumbent.
Also there are investors, external and internal, which are too all over risks, this damages economy and national currency.
Also there are investors, external and internal, which are too all over risks, this damages economy and national currency.
Election rigging is a renewable resource. At the start, you can tilt the results a bit in your favor. As you gain power you also gain more influence and popularity, and then you can build deeper structures of corruption, which enable further election rigging. The cycle continues until it implodes with a revolution. Then the citizens are left with a broken government - after removing the corrupted parts - and must rebuild everything. The lack of structure allows more corrupted players to enter, and that's why a single revolution us not always enough to move a country from a fake democracy to a functioning one.
Of course it's rigged.
That's not what "Smart voting" is about. The SV works by recommending the candidates that a) are not the ones actively pushed by the Kremlin b) have a shot at winning or credibly pretending they did. These could be some batshit crazy Stalinists, mobsters or whatever - the point is that they aren't the guys that the suits in Kremlin have already secretly anointed.
In short, this will hurt Kremlin's credibility and put an organizational tax on all its future efforts. With the pandemic, an economy in deep crisis and Putin's term ending in 2024 he'd need a lot of political capital and SV hits him where it hurts.
Here's a bit longer explanation. The point is that in autocracies elections are not rigged by altering an Excel column. In Russia we have empirical statistical evidence to this: the presence of poll watchers has a very clear effect on the electoral outcomes, the rigging elasticity is capped by the anti-Putin sentiment etc. This is a consequence of how the elections are organized: the local authorities are handed the required numbers and told to deliver, as a test of their loyalty, capability and popularity. They have limited number of ways for this: they can mobilize their base, force their dependents (state employees, the military etc) to vote or press local polling committees to alter the results. If they overplay their hand, they will face local unrest (this actually happens a lot) and the Kremlin will jettison them without a second thought - so this is a balancing act. The efficiency of all their tools is capped by the popularity of Kremlin and the overtly pro-Kremlin forces, and it is at all-times low and still going down. So to get things done they need to depress the turnout - and this creates an opening for organized opposition. If openly pro-Kremlin candidates are hurt en mass then the president's admin would have to renegotiate with both the winners and the losers, effectively losing a lot of organizational cohesion, and that's on top on very public humiliation. With Putin's popularity near its all-time low and going down and 2 years before a very uncertain end to his current term, that's a lot of damage - although likely far from enough to topple the guy. But we take what we can get and this may be a rather large take.
That's not what "Smart voting" is about. The SV works by recommending the candidates that a) are not the ones actively pushed by the Kremlin b) have a shot at winning or credibly pretending they did. These could be some batshit crazy Stalinists, mobsters or whatever - the point is that they aren't the guys that the suits in Kremlin have already secretly anointed.
In short, this will hurt Kremlin's credibility and put an organizational tax on all its future efforts. With the pandemic, an economy in deep crisis and Putin's term ending in 2024 he'd need a lot of political capital and SV hits him where it hurts.
Here's a bit longer explanation. The point is that in autocracies elections are not rigged by altering an Excel column. In Russia we have empirical statistical evidence to this: the presence of poll watchers has a very clear effect on the electoral outcomes, the rigging elasticity is capped by the anti-Putin sentiment etc. This is a consequence of how the elections are organized: the local authorities are handed the required numbers and told to deliver, as a test of their loyalty, capability and popularity. They have limited number of ways for this: they can mobilize their base, force their dependents (state employees, the military etc) to vote or press local polling committees to alter the results. If they overplay their hand, they will face local unrest (this actually happens a lot) and the Kremlin will jettison them without a second thought - so this is a balancing act. The efficiency of all their tools is capped by the popularity of Kremlin and the overtly pro-Kremlin forces, and it is at all-times low and still going down. So to get things done they need to depress the turnout - and this creates an opening for organized opposition. If openly pro-Kremlin candidates are hurt en mass then the president's admin would have to renegotiate with both the winners and the losers, effectively losing a lot of organizational cohesion, and that's on top on very public humiliation. With Putin's popularity near its all-time low and going down and 2 years before a very uncertain end to his current term, that's a lot of damage - although likely far from enough to topple the guy. But we take what we can get and this may be a rather large take.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Eventually there's a time where corporations, like individuals have to decide what's important, putting their money where their mouth is as it were. What matters more to Google, profit or accessibility of information. Issues like these highlight those choices.
It takes immense pressure for Google to even choose morals over money in the US.
No way they'll even take the slightest risk when Russia has well-positioned competitors in the search engine space and other areas Google is active in.
I don't think they're looking forward to their personal China 2.0
No way they'll even take the slightest risk when Russia has well-positioned competitors in the search engine space and other areas Google is active in.
I don't think they're looking forward to their personal China 2.0
In this case, profit and accessibility of information go hand in hand:
if Google does not comply with the government, Google does not get to exist in Russia.
Yea, I kinda thought the whole idea of corporations, especially the big multinationals, was that profit was ALWAYS the number one priority. When you view them with that lens it helps a lot in terms of attempting to understand their decisions.
yes, but on a municipality by municipality basis because geofences and switch statements are free
[deleted]
Disgusting. I hope Google ignores.
Don't hold your breath.
HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
>HN has a very split mind when it comes to deciding exactly when Google is entitled to ignore the local government.
HN is comprised of a great many individuals. The differing perspectives and worldview are a good thing.
HN is comprised of a great many individuals. The differing perspectives and worldview are a good thing.
I'm guessing it's because some local governments are more deserving of being ignored than others.
Well, I can appreciate the honesty here. I wish more people would admit when they pick and choose their principles.
It's not picking and choosing your principals if the principal is "don't enable authoritarians" and so in one country you can follow all local laws and still live by that principal, but in another you need to ignore the local law to do so.
Not that I'm claiming Google itself has & will adhere to that principal. I'm speaking in general terms, that choosing which local laws to follow can be the only way to stick to your principals. Although that should also mean accepting the consequences. That is a fundamental tenant of civil disobedience: that a choice can be made to follow conscience, but also that the consequences must be accepted. In fact, that others observing the penalty may also have their conscience piqued by the injustice and also rise against it. (Generally associated with non-violent methods though, hence the "civil" inclusion with disobedience.)
Not that I'm claiming Google itself has & will adhere to that principal. I'm speaking in general terms, that choosing which local laws to follow can be the only way to stick to your principals. Although that should also mean accepting the consequences. That is a fundamental tenant of civil disobedience: that a choice can be made to follow conscience, but also that the consequences must be accepted. In fact, that others observing the penalty may also have their conscience piqued by the injustice and also rise against it. (Generally associated with non-violent methods though, hence the "civil" inclusion with disobedience.)
Maybe "picking and choosing principles" is not the ideal phrase, rather "picking and choosing targets", because not all actors are equally benevolent, and it can certainly be the case that some violate principles that others don't.
For example, if your principle is "elections should be democratic and free of interference" then it's perfectly consistent to want consequences for governments who interfere with elections, while not seeing any reason to target those who let them proceed freely.
For example, if your principle is "elections should be democratic and free of interference" then it's perfectly consistent to want consequences for governments who interfere with elections, while not seeing any reason to target those who let them proceed freely.
You're assuming that all governments are equally legitimate, which is an awful assumption.
> assuming that all governments are equally legitimate
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
Not really directed at you but I wanted to explore this more in general:
When a corporation chooses to submit articles of incorporation to any given jurisdiction, notions of "equally legitimate" wrt any particular jurisdiction's leverage over them seems meaningless to me if such corporate operating in any given jurisdiction is not willing to risk being able to operate effectively in such jurisdiction (sure, any given corporation may have different levels of exposure to different jurisdictions, but that to me seems more a risk/reward thing and not really jurisdictional legitimacy thing, even though people may take it as a signal that holding more assets/operational capacity in a particular jurisdiction automatically gives that jurisdiction more legitimacy over another where they hold less or none at all, but that brings up another question: is a jurisdiction any less legitimate if one holds no exposure to it but others orgs do?).
If an organization is able to continue to operate within any given (claimed) jurisdiction without putting its assets/operational capacity at significant risk in such jurisdictions from any punitive actions from non compliance, then the legitimacy of any given jurisdiction is zero if we are tying exposure to such jurisdiction to its legitimacy (thus all jurisdictions would be equally legitimate with a weight of zero, which perhaps would be a better assumption than all with a weight of 1 as far as such orgs are concerned [not that all orgs can operate as such]).
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just enjoying the frankness.
"I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say.
I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
"I support corporations against the governments I don't like" is a really refreshing piece of honesty, and not what most people would be brave enough to say.
I'm trying to become less principled and more pragmatic myself when it comes to politics.
How is it less principled when just about any principle at all will require a variety of actions depending on circumstances? Most notably, that you go about things normally when the principle isn't being violated, (a country isn't authoritarian) and take appropriate action when it is (The country murders journalists and political opponents)
Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"? What about "Guantanamo"? Or "bombing schools and hospitals"? If you find a "but" in there you can already tell what "less principled" means.
Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
Sure, Google doesn't intervene directly in any of this but they would certainly cooperate if asked. And they keep working with that government. What's the common principle besides profit and allegiance?
Is the principle strictly "murdered journalists"?
Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
No, I'm arguing that if these "principles" are tied to profit or allegiance (the "who" rather than the "what") [0] then it kind of chips away at their value. All the way down to nothing.
[0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
[0] https://64.media.tumblr.com/864c839058d5319d8b1333e613cac53c...
I disagree. I think most people want Google to ignore local governments in the context of secret subpoenas (US), govt-mandated hosting of content (as pushed by GOP in the US), censoring content (China/India/elsewhere), etc.
[deleted]
Google been all over Kremlin as early as 2005.
Apple famously went to all extremes to "gift" iPad to Dimitry Medvedev
Apple famously went to all extremes to "gift" iPad to Dimitry Medvedev
for all the modern self loathing of tech, it ongoingly feels to me like we have just barely scratched tbe surface of what connected technologies could do for us. i dont know how probable it is that there be any change- any people feeling more empowered amid their authoritarian oppressors- from an communication system like this. but that the government is so afraid of it is certainly promising.
The "Smart voting" has a lot of connections to "The fund to fight corruption", so the Russian state can go here pretty far. A comment from a political pundit in the top Russian commercial media:
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4868616
"There is a technical capacity to block. The government understands the disadvantages of it, and initially will try to make Google to cooperate and to block by their own means. If such "goodwill" approach wouldn't work, the government will force it the hard way."