Slashdot Mirror
VK CEO Fired, Says Company Under Kremlin Control
An anonymous reader writes "The embattled founder of VK, Russia's largest social networking site, said this week that the company is now 'under the complete control' of two oligarchs with close ties to President Vladimir Putin. In a VK post published Monday, Pavel Durov said he's been fired as CEO of the website, claiming that he was pushed out on a technicality, and that he only heard of it through media reports."
In Soviet Russia, status updates you!
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
>> He appeared to announce his resignation from the company on April 1st, but later claimed that it was an April Fools' joke, and that he would remain onboard. In a statement issued Monday, however, VK said that Durov submitted a resignation letter on March 21st and never withdrew it within the mandatory one-month window. Because of that, Durov said, he will be "automatically relieved" of his position.
Politically, it's bad, but I do enjoy seeing someone's stupid April Fools stunt blow up in their face.
The US should resume its former campaign of organising cope d'etat in communist countries. Russia is clearly out of control.
You use the word communist, but I don't think it means what you think it means.
Former Soviet Union reconstituting. Putin saying collapse of Soviet Union mistake. Yeah I think he used the term correctly.
Putin seems to want the USSR back but without Communism as its form of government, though still with the USSR's authoritarianism. Kind of like how China isn't really Communist anymore.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The Soviet Union was not communist. Like China it was state run capitalism. All countries are capitalist, with varying degrees of openness.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why? In the USA Facebook and Google+ are both run by people who could be described as "oligarchs" with strong ties to the White House.
By the way, if you believe this story is true then you should also believe that Putin's answer to Snowden was correct, given that it says:
i.e. they are/were not able to simply access that data in the same way the USA and UK were slurping internal Google/Facebook db replication traffic right off the wire. In which case Putin's assertion that the FSB doesn't monitor "millions of users" might be correct, though of course the rationale given is highly suspect.
Here in america we certainly dont have anything this ridiculous. Our social networks take careful steps to ensure profits are privatized and personal information is harvested and transmitted to the government quietly and quickly without so much as raising the issue for reasonable discussion. Our media outlets would never consistently report on the legality or morality of such normal operations as theyre both patriotic and in the interest of the people of the united states. Our elected leaders would never pressure private companies to shut down websites and deny financial remuneration for wholesome and informative whistleblower agencies such as wikileaks. For the Russian government to even consider a takeover of a private corporation is bombastic. We've never once taken over an auto industry or a bank, for example. And as for conventional media in america, we have never delivered talking points and restricted journalists in an attempt to control the dissemenation of information.
Good people go to bed earlier.
They both are communist in practice; It's just that the practical definition of communism clashes with the lies of communist propaganda, and that socialists/communists like you are always arguing that other socialists/communists aren't true socialists/communists.
Fascism is far more apt for Russia's state of government under Putin than Communism.
I think if the Snowden affair has taught us anything, it's that real power in the west is not held by politicians but rather the executive branch (US) and civil service (UK). The bureaucrats appear to be able to do whatever they like, then repeatedly lie about it (USA) or simply refuse to turn up at all (UK) and politicians let them get away with it. What's more, the bureaucracy is now routinely blacklisting and even assassinating people based on no kind of formal process whatsoever, with no democratic oversight, and the people doing it are career government employees who are certainly not elected and in many cases their identities are themselves secret.
For background, in my former job I worked on one of the systems at Google that was compromised by GCHQ (they wrote wire sniffers to decode the login traffic). The root cause of this failure was the incorrect idea that western governments are "good" and the nasty Chinese/Russians/Iranians are "bad" thus internal encryption was only worth the cost when traffic transited wires controlled by "bad guys". But it turned out that they're all bad and the degree of badness appears limited only by their budget, so now Google all wire traffic all the time.
So please get out of this idea that the west is better than Russia. Democracy in the anglosphere has become so weak that lots of people simply refuse to vote at all, or are (at best) single issue voters for things like immigration. Anything national security related is uncontrollable by voting at this point.
There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.
There is no meaningful difference between totalitarian regimens in practice. The only real difference are the excuses. Fascism, Communism and Nazism are one and the same, and no it s not possible to have a non totalitarian communist country. Communism needs big and all powerful governments and those governments as they grow become more and more totalitarian. There is no way to avoid it.
I agree with that for the most part (and history bears you out with regards to Communism). However, Fascism doesn't tie itself to a specific, unworkable, economic theory; it accepts capitalism so long as the state maintains control. Which is is a very prominent factor in Russia of late, possibly even more than in China.
Would it really be such a bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back?
Yes. The Soviet Union was a nightmare state.
The offered a balance of power. With the exception of a couple proxy wars (not that they weren't bad) we kept each other in check, but never checkmate. Compared to now, the world did its own thing.
Tell that to Poland, Hungary, the Czech and Slovak republics, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Not to mention North Korea and Vietnam. I'm sure they enjoyed doing their "own thing".
After the fall of the Soviet Union, we immediately elevated ourselves to the status of, "United States of America: Full-Time World Cop." That has not gone well. I sometimes miss the sanity of mutually assured destruction.
What? Seriously, what? How old are you? Do you actually remember the Cold War?
The fact that America is a flawed nation is no excuse for false equivalencies with brutal totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao. Those countries, under those leaders, deliberately killed tens of millions of their own people. We never want to see anything like that again.
Yes, it would be a very bad thing for the Soviet Union to come back, a disaster of epic proportions. Communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century. Such tyranny has seldom been equaled.
If you miss the "sanity" of Soviet times, you are woefully ignorant about events, badly confused, or a madman. Perhaps you could start smaller, such a suggesting widespread castration because it "calms" men?
If you really miss an ever present threat against you then you could try a visit a tribal society and start a blood feud?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Communism is an economic theory that can't work in theory - it centralises economic planning leading to an insoluble information processing scaling problem, while at the same time destroying precisely the information (prices) that are needed to make sensible decisions - and has been proven not to work in practice. There have been plenty of Communist states. They all failed spectacularly, generally displaying massive corruption and brutal oppression as they did so.
They may not have looked like you imagine Communism should look, but that's because Communism cannot function at the scale of a nation-state, not in the real world, not with real people. And an economic theory that doesn't work unless people stop acting like people is not a very good theory.
That's propaganda. They have the form of Communism but not the function.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Yes.
Perhaps the simplest thing would be to point out that while America might be building walls to keep unwelcome visitors out, the Soviet Union built walls to keep its people in. A state that needs to imprison its entire population is not a state that has any right to exist.
I'm really not sure why we even need to discuss this. Assuming people are too young to personally remember this, were they also asleep during their history classes?
Well, at least you have the old cold warriors modding up your little troll post there. But... you're still wrong. Everybody has a price. The process of agreement is capitalism, even in the most dictatorial, communist, fascist regime you can find. There is no other way to exchange goods and services. Even with a gun, which you have to pay someone to make for you, you still have to pay someone, or an army to pull the trigger. That is capitalism.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That's just how things work in Russia. There's not really any Rule of Law there. So once a company gets lucrative, the government swoops in and takes it over. Any unfortunate owner who tries to stand in the way finds himself in jail, or worse.
What I don't understand is why anyone would invest a single dime of their own money in a business operating in a country where the instant an investment starts paying off, someone else will come reap all your rewards. It just makes no sense whatsoever to try to do business there.
If it was Soviet Estonia then your parents or grandparents weren't among the victims of repression or deportation, although they might be among the ethnic Russians moved there by the Soviet Union. (Ethnic Russian by any chance?) Those would be among the ethnic Russians that Putin has threatened other countries over.
Just a snippet of history: Soviet deportations from Estonia in 1940s
The Soviet Union had started preparations for the launch of terror in Estonian civil society already before the occupation of Estonia. As elsewhere, the purpose of communist terror was to suppress any possible resistance from the very beginning and to inculcate great fear among people in order to rule out any kind of organised general resistance movement in the future as well. In Estonia, the planned extermination of the prominent and active persons, as well as the displacement of large groups of people were intended to destroy the Estonian society and economy. The lists of people to be repressed were prepared well in advance. From the files of the Soviet security organs, it seems that already in the early 1930’s the Soviet security organs had collected data on persons to be subjected to repressions. Pursuant to the instructions issued in 1941, the following people in the territories to be annexed into the Soviet Union and their family members were to be subjected to repression: all the members of the former governments, higher state officials and judges, higher military personnel, former politicians, members of voluntary state defence organisations, members of student organisations, persons having actively participated in anti-Soviet armed combat, Russian émigrés, security police officers and police officers, representatives of foreign companies and in general all people having contacts abroad, entrepreneurs and bankers, clergymen and members of the Red Cross. Approximately 23 percent of the population belonged to these categories. In fact, the number of those actually subjected to repressions was much greater, for a large number of people not included in the lists also fell victim to the settlement of scores.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
An Irishman, an American, and an Aussie are talking about republicans. The Irishman describes a bunch of pro-Soviet Socialists who never go to Church (but insist they're Catholic), and think the world would be a better place if someone blew the Royal Family into tiny little bits. The American is talking about a bunch of knee-jerk Anti-Soviets who describe everything they dislike as "socialist," go to religious services at least twice a week, are (mostly) Protestant, and secretly have a major crush on the Royal Family. The Aussie is somewhat generically left-wing in economic terms, doesn't give too shits about religion one way or the other, and thinks the Queen should stop being Queen of Australia but otherwise should be left alone because she's a nice old lady. Whose lying?
The answer is nobody. The word "Republican" has been used by so many political movements over the years that hearing someone is "Republican" without hearing a lot more context tells you precisely jack-squat. "Democrat," "Liberal," "Conservative," etc. are almost as bad.
It's gets even worse with Communism because Communists have never been able to agree on much beyond that one song.
Yes, Fascism allows for a measure of capitalism, but strongly controlled by the government, which is very far from Laissez-faire capitalism
Fascism is the ultimate expression of capitalism. It is essentially a corporate state run by oligarchs or plutarchs. The regimes of Mussolini and the Nazi's would never have gotten off the ground without the help of the titans of industry in their countries.
You're right that it's different from laissez-faire capitalism, but laissez-faire is an unworkable economic system because it assumes monopolistic behaviour does not exist and people are rational, so all attempts at laissez-faire capitalism end up in a form of fascism as the most powerful capitalist entities take control. Laissez-faire is extreme, anarchistic capitalism and has the same fundamental problem as communism (extreme, anarchistic socialism), it assumes people aren't greedy and wont try to grab more (power/money) for themselves. Of course this is wrong, so attempts at communism end up as despotic socialist states and attempts at Laissez-faire end up as despotic fascist states.
This is one of the key reasons why most western nations operate mixed economies, neither purely capitalist nor socialist and changing as circumstances require. Ultimately, inflexible economic systems are doomed to failure.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.