The article does seem very reasonable, but I'd disagree that it's objective, since the author, Durov, runs Telegram and is writing to justify their actions.
Whether an app should block a bot/user when the app store blocks the bot app?
=> Whether an app / telegram with third party extension/bot ability would be considered as similar to an app store? => Whether a bot built on a private application ecosystem should be considered as an independent app?
They shared their decision making process which I agreed with, not too sure what would have been a better choice in that situation.
that's another way to say subjective if you aren't willing to admit it. the whole point of objective/subjective is that its supposed to be POV neutral.
What if the request came from the EU or the US, to ban an account that was campaigning in local elections in violation of local election finance laws?
Note that the ban is not even permanent! It's only for the last 2 days of the 3-day voting window. Campaigning was supposed to have been illegal throughout the whole 3-day period.
It doesn't make the content false just colored by the authors point of view.
It's basically the same law as in many other countries. The only difference is that citizens of most other countries don't dare to do these tricks, because there are severe consequences for playing with election integrity in the Western world. For example, look at what happened with Dinesh D'Souza when he tried donating to a campaign of a friend more than what the law allowed, using another friend as a lame duck to make the donation to avoid personal limits.