>And that's illegal because?

It's not illegal it's just showing who her paymasters are. but keep up the misdirection..

I rephrased the "and that's illegal how?" because I was certain people will not get it. And they didn't.

How does it "show who her paymasters are"?

What I meant by the "illegal" line was, being a Putin supporter describes like 50% of Russians, it's not some fringe activity. Even being a vocal Putin supporter in Russia (as opposed to mere voter) is not much different than someone like Kanye being pro Trump, or the tons of Hollywood/music people being vocal Hillary supporters.

So, that doesn't "show who her paymasters are" at all...

Where did I say anything about legality? Obviously it is legal to be a Putin supporter in Russia, just like it's legal to beat your wife. Both things are pretty bad though.

EDIT: nice job completely rewriting your post so that the replies no longer make any sense

>Where did I say anything about legality? Obviously it is legal to be a Putin supporter in Russia, just like it's legal to beat your wife. Both things are pretty bad though.

I asked that question because your response implied that "Putin supporter = proof she did the video for Kremlin", whereas half of Russians are Putin supporters.

Being a Putin supporter is perfectly common. It's not any kind of proof like having found she was in some illegal gang or such, the guy is the elected official of the country. Of course he has supporters, and of course some will make viral videos. That doesn't mean anybody that (a) is a Putin supporter (that's like 50+ million people there) (b) makes viral videos, makes them for Kremlin purposes.

"Both things are pretty bad though" - maybe a sovereign country can have its own leadership, and replace them when they feel like it, without some holier-than-thou foreigners telling them that's "pretty bad" and equating voting for their leader with "beating your wife"?

>EDIT: nice job completely rewriting your post so that the replies no longer make any sense

Conspiracy theorist much? I rewrote my post because I though it will be misinterpreted (as it was), and I wanted to put it in another way. I did so in the span of like 5 minutes after posting it. I only saw that somebody had already replied to the first version much later (now) that I got back in.

It wasn't just a viral video. It was a professionally produced video with paid actors. Consider that the Russian government needs to pay people to simply post positive comments about it. To think that someone made a video with multiple paid actors that just so happened to demonize a specific political group opposed to the government out of goodness of their heart is laughable.

>without some holier-than-thou foreigners

Why did you assume I'm a foreigner?

>It wasn't just a viral video. It was a professionally produced video with paid actors.

Lots of viral videos are professionally produced. You put money to further your audience/career. She had already done a similar video, and I've seen more impressive stuff from 20-something vloggers. Was her earlier video (agaisnt upskirt pictures) propaganda too? Or how about she is just an attention seeking activist that follow various BS trendy topics, to build her career?

Of course we have to believe that the Kremlin is both like some bond villain that produced a viral video (and a rather insignificant one) to further its causes (rigorous handwaving about what those are and how they possible relate to the video, from fueling cultural conflict in the West, to justifying a law that passed 2 years ago), but also that they're bad at it, and can't even get their actors to not admit it was real to the first journalist that asks them. Or perhaps they wanted to be found out - if one adds that as a premise, there's no need for any further rational examination).

>Consider that the Russian government needs to pay people to simply post positive comments about it.

Does it "need to"? So, if you're local in Russia, you don't know tons of people who really like the Russian government? Or, who did very much liked them when they did a complete U-turn on the economy and unemployment from disaster to almost-good in their first terms?

Or does it merely pay some, which is different than "needs to"? How about any modern government just does the same, and has people promoting its opinions on the web and in social media? Perhaps this is much older, and as old as print media themselves (mockingbird anyone?)

>Why did you assume I'm a foreigner?

Because being on HN it was the statistically safer guess?

Why did 3 different people in this thread assume I'm Russian, if not a Kremlin troll (because, of course, who would ever have the gall to have a differing opinion on such matters -- it's not like western countries ever had a Left that was anti-imperialist and anti-globalist and not the current Whole-foods liberals that pass for one, is it?)