Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fins | Hacker News Reader

Using that piece of rather silly putin's propaganda as a source lowers your credibility greatly.

However, their point stands true: in exUSSR climate, registering a dummy entity through an ignorant proxy is an easy and common way to run a shady business, and sometimes even a legit one. It's entirely unnecessary to bring Magnitsky's deal as an example, but this method is well known and practiced since perestroika. It's safe to assume the person in question was a proxy, and that further investigation is needed.

Oh, that's for sure, it's just that pointing at this particular hit piece is not the most convincing argument. Otherwise, it's entirely correct that business climate in Russia is far from transparent.

Ahem. The maker of that documentary is anti-Putin to the extent he supports the theory that Putin blew up some Russian apartment buildings to start a war.

Browder, on the other hand, is actively surpressing the documentary; even if none of the things said about him in the documentary are true (in which case you'd think he would sue the guy who made it for libel; a guy who lives in the UK), that's pretty shady.

That filmmaker was anti-Putin and he still lives in Russia? Totally believable.

That's not uncommon. Only very high-profile Putin opposers disappear.

Or we do not hear about low-profile ones. Being high profile (Navalny, Khodorkovsky) might be even an insurance policy to keep one at least alive.

Sadly, this isn't true.

You can use google translate to read this:

https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/10/22/78289-povar-...

TL;DR version: Small time regional bloggers disappear and the "executioners" are then erased themselves.

This is one of the very few newspapers left in Russia which does this kind of investigative journalism, they get death threats regularly.

EDIT: Spelling.

Pussy Riot is anti-Putin and they are still based in Russia. Same can be said about everyone in Russia who voted against Putin in the most recent election. You don't have to live outside of Russia to be anti-Putin.

You can call them anti-Trump as well. And they have to serve jail time in Russia, btw.

He lives in the UK, as I already said. And somehow avoided being sued by Browder who also lives in the UK.

fighting it gives it attention and validity, its the streisand effect. And Julian Assange lives in the UK but was still a tool of the kremlin's propaganda wing. what's your point?

This isn't even an argument; it is partisan quackery.

FWIIW Browder was pro-Putin until Putin stopped letting him get away with tax fraud. Citations available: what do you have?

That's... an interesting interpretation of Magnitsky's murder. (regardless of whether Browder himself was involved in any shady dealings). They, and supporting citations, also come from only one source, too.

We're talking about Assange here; why are you changing the subject?

And, I do not get my Browder citations from "one source." I can cite you a bloody youtube video of him talking about what a great guy Putin is.

This still has nothing to do with some poor bastard getting doxxed by a clown who thinks he is Sherlock Holmes.

No argument on the doxxing side, but I wasn't talking about Assange. We were talking about the "behind the scenes" movie, and the maker of the film might have been a Putin critic at some point, but is no more than a clown now. His Twitter feed is quite delicious, complete with claims that Russian press is freer than Western, and with adoring comments from people with English-sounding names, but written in such a stilted and obviously translated word for word from Russian language that one could do another HN post how Twitter's claim to have banned Russian bots is nothing but self-serving bunk.

So, I'm supposed to believe some anon's interpretation of this documentary... apparently based on his subjective analysis of some guy's twitter feed... over my own lying eyes?

How do you explain the Russian documents on Browders website that say ... what Nekrasov says, and NOT what Browder says? It's a pretty simple fact check; you don't even need to speak Russian to do it. I did it, and it appears that Nekrasov was honest and Browder is the deceptive lunatic who wants to start WW-3 over his tax bill. Hey, I could be wrong: on the other hand, I'm providing citations and you, an anon, are providing opinions as to the political content of someone's twitter feed.

Oh, you can believe anything you want, including, from your many posts, that Putin is a nice guy.

I do read Russian, though, and can read Nekrasov's (not "some guy") twitter feed. HYe might as well be working for RT or Sputnik, and deserves exactly as much credibility as those fine news sources. They also want one to believe that evil Browder wants to start a war. Right...

Lol, OK browderbot. Obviously I am a Kremlin functionary for not being a lemming. Only those who believe what some billionaire's PR firm tells them are non-Putin slaves.

Unlike you, I post under my real name. And I will say again: whatever your worthless anon view of Nekrasov's twitter feed might be, his documentary appears to be true in all the details I checked. Including the important ones of who Magnitsky was and what he was doing in Russia.

Not to do anything to violate HN's rules, and you certainly are free to believe what you want, or what you need, but in this particular matter I will take an opinion of someone who doesn't even speak Russian, and does not care to look at any of the primary sources with a great grain of salt.

Don't think publicizing information against the US presidential candidates makes somebody "a tool of the Kremlin's propaganda wing". Or have you drank too much laughable American propaganda yourself?

His anti-putin credentials have been questioned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com