51–60 of 62 posts
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.
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.
This really doesn't reflect the views of the average Russian.
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.
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 h…
"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...
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.
> 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.
Lovely theatre to pretend the outcome isn't rigged already.
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Each person decides on their principles. Are you making the argument that it is impossible for anyone to be truly principled, without compromise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 h…
> 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...
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.
