[pessimizer]

>Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills

Identifying pro-Putin shills is not what's being done here. This is just accusing people that don't agree with everything said about Russia and the depiction in the US media of the current conflict in Ukraine of being Russian shills.

I remember when people who questioned the Iraq war had to constantly defend themselves from accusations of being terrorist shills. This has the exact same chilling effect.

edit: I am honestly interested in evidence of shill posting. I enjoy the detective work. If your evidence of shilling is that you think that the opinions people hold could only be held by shills, you're just stifling dissent in the traditional way that it has always been done. It's no more noble or complex than that.

[pipy]

@pessimizer, if you are interested:

1. You can provide me with your disposable one-time Gmail address (needed for GA).

2. I will send you my real name, give you temporary access to Google Analytics account for the website and some selected Google-translated pages from it. Possibly provide more information if needed.

3. You can support that I am not a shill in this discussion and that my claim about the law in OP affecting me is true.

[pessimizer]

I don't think in any way that you are a shill. And if you were, it wouldn't affect the validity of your arguments in any way. Shills only rise to the level of concern to me if they drown out all discussion that disagrees with them - and people who do that don't even have to be paid for me to consider them shills.

i.e I already support that you aren't a shill, and people who are interested in journalism or the protection of freedom of expression would do well by listening to your own experience in your own country under your own country's laws rather than poisoning the well with accusations (and no evidence.)

[jacquesm]

It's very sad that this should even be required. What a nonsense.