> Any evidence for that?

No. But it's reasonable to presume he's a compromised source. That doesn't mean he wants to be, nor that everything he's saying has been dictated to him. But his public communications would be, at the very least, monitored and vetted.

Assuming that that's true (which wouldn't make any sense to me, but let's say), why would Snowden defend Durov?

If Telegram helps Mother Russia more than it hurts it, which it likely does + it's something Snowden would reasonably say. Makes perfect sense to me.

When you learn how Russian intelligence community operates, you realize that this isn't as much a defense of Durov...

This is another way of trying to inflate an incident, to create "an elephant out of a fly"(as they say in Russia)

This has little to no relevance on freedom of speech

>Any evidence for that?

at this point he is at the mercy of his FSB handler, either he posts what he is told/expected to or he loses usefulness and joins Russell 'Texas' Bentley as a cautionary tale.

His continued existance in Russia antagonizes the US Intelligence Community. That itself has value to Russia. Not tremendous value, but value nevertheless.

>Any evidence for that?

Reposting Glenn Greenwald.