[mtrimpe]

It says it in the article. Navalny was making statements condemning the Crimea annexation and giving advice on how best to apply economic sanction to the Kremlin-elite surrounding Putin.

After the US followed his advice Navalny even tweeted that he was packing his bags for jail because "someone was going to have to pay for [those sanctions]".

[johnnydoebk]

News about Pavel's departure appeared long before the conflict you're talking about. So these two events are not connected.

[mtrimpe]

News about Pavel's departure started appearing ever since the hostile takeover well over a year ago. His actual departure was today which makes it very much possible, if not likely, that it was connected to recent events which undoubtedly resulted in additional pressure against his ideologies.

[noteworthy]

His list of reasons has been building up for years.

Russia in 2012 passed a law allowing censorship of 'pirate websites' and has been heavily abused. Vk has been making licensing deals with Sony and other labels. Pavel is a Libertarian and is against making the website 'corporate' (like facebook, motivated by money not freedom).

Both the Ukraine, arguments with shareholders and copyright pressure are recent. Putting them together he probably saw a restricted future with VK and now he has Telegram to fallback on, he now sees it an opportunity to quit.

However, Telegram has stated it will never charge or have ads, so my theory is he will be making more websites in the future, hopefully he will make websites which embrace his Libertarian ideals.

[mtrimpe]

Thanks for the comprehensive overview! Sounds about right to me. I hadn't heard about the 'pirate website' law though. Do you have some more info on that?

Also, just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that the Ukraine conflict caused his departure. Just that it was at least a contributing factor and at worst the straw that broke the camel's back.

[noteworthy]

*2013 not 2012, my bad.

https://technology.ihs.com/440359/russia-introduces-first-on...

It's been in the talks since 2012, not passed until 2013. In 2012 they passed a law criminalizing viewing images of child exploitation, this was a big sign of things to come (previously to this law they were very free to do anything on the internet). I think it was also 2012 when the ROMS license was discontinued (making websites like AllofMp3, legalsounds.com illegal in Russia).

Roskomnadzor has used this new legislation to censor any website it wants to, drug, copyright, defamation, they'll find any excuse.

Here is a good article summarizing Vkontakte's recent copyright events: https://torrentfreak.com/russias-facebook-prepares-to-make-p...

They will be killing entire ecosystems of websites using Vk (video, image and audio), Pavel is against this but will get raided or censored for not complying.

It's been going downhill quickly for the past 2 years and shows my signs of slowing down.

[gtirloni]

So the US government is taking orders from the founder of a social network in Russia. I wonder how Obama is going to explain that now. Totally busted.

[mtrimpe]

Navalny is a Russian opposition leader. The founder of VKontakte is Pavel.

[gtirloni]

My bad for mixing the names. While I don't have any objection to the argument that the US is working with support of the Russian opposition (and vice-versa), I think it's far fetched to think he will be held personally responsible for any sanctions that are brought upon Russia.

What I'm seeing here from Latin America is that very few people think these supposed sactions will have any impact. There are articles circulating in the media that it might actually be would for LA and Russia relationship.

[mtrimpe]

Navalny, the Russian opposition, is already under house arrest and was threatened with jail just for 'breaking his house arrest' by publishing the blog post about his ideas on who to sanction; even before any sanctions were actually applied. The he'd be held personally responsible is not that far-fetched.

As for the lack of real impact; you're probably right. Most of the targeted officials assets are in Europe, not the US, and Europe's list was much weaker.