I am somewhat confused by the argument offered here. Providing an application that helps voters to decide whom they can choose to vote for, or who the alternative candidates are in an election is not the same as campaigning.
From what I've found so far, I disagree with this interpretation. It's as if saying that publishing a list of people with their stances on a particular policy is the same as campaigning for them. It's not.
By this metric, a website like isidewith is campaigning, https://www.isidewith.com/, as are voting guides that help voters pick out candidates who back action on Climate Change, https://voteclimatepac.org/voters-guide/, or who are pro/anti-2A, https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ / https://gunsensevoter.org/ . Are these campaigning as well?
Admittedly, the application differed from isidewith by focusing on a single issue - anti-totalitarianism, it did not do anything different that voteclimatepac, the NRA-PVF, Gun Sense Voter etc don't do. It was meant to match voters with candidates who already offer their preferred position - anti-totalitarianism. I don't see how this is campaigning.
Further, the app wasn't affiliated with most of the people it was recommending. While it was designed by Navalny, it recommended people across multiple parties. This fact weakens the argument even further.
Here is the app for you to judge for yourself, https://votesmart.appspot.com/ English translation: https://votesmart-appspot-com.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&...
As you will see, it doesn't advocate for a party or a candidate, but across parties and candidates based on a single issue - anti-totalitarianism.
-
While Telegram has taken a stand against the Russian govt. in the past, I do not believe that past action is necessarily predictive of future results in this regard. Given that the new Kremlin, in particular, is famous for bringing its opposition under their thumbs and turning them into controlled opposition.
> With a flourish he sponsored lavish arts festivals for the most provocative modern artists in Moscow, then supported Orthodox fundamentalists, dressed all in black and carrying crosses, who in turn attacked the modern-art exhibitions. The Kremlin’s idea is to own all forms of political discourse, to not let any independent movements develop outside of its walls. Its Moscow can feel like an oligarchy in the morning and a democracy in the afternoon, a monarchy for dinner and a totalitarian state by bedtime.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/hi...
This assertion may seem conspiratorial. And it is. Though not guaranteed, it is well within the realm of possibility that the state leader bred by the KGB found ways to turn the screws on M. Durov to keep his hold on power. Given that he kills regularly for it. Should we consider it unlikely that he's willing to coerce others for it?