Why do you want your country to control what you can see, read or say? Why do you want your country to have access to your private thoughts and opinions? Stop being a coward and fight this fascist overreach. And spite yourself if you support it.
Why do you want your country to control what you can see, read or say? Why do you want your country to have access to your private thoughts and opinions? Stop being a coward and fight this fascist overreach. And spite yourself if you support it.
If Telegram did actually prioritize private and secure communication, they would indeed be just a data pipe and nothing could be shared with law enforcement.
What details are you assuming Telegram are sitting on, besides the data law enforcement already collected?
Durov got arrested for insufficient moderation of public channels, so my guess is that law enforcement would be able to get exactly the same data as Telegram themselves sit on.
But it's hard to get a full picture without it going to public courts, for now we can only go on what's being reported.
Message contents (vast majority of TG chats are not E2EE) and additional metadata seem pretty desirable?
I believe it's as incorrect as arguing the United States wants to ban or own Tik Tok because China has access to Americans private data.
Whether the US has sincere reasons for proposing a ban is a station that has by long been passed. If your point is that "social" media is mainly a tool in the hands of tech elites, whose main business model is social upheaval and where foreign influence is up for the highest bidder (troll farms), then yes, I agree that we should have a broader discussion of what we as democratic societies expect from those profiting from information chaos, distrust in societal institutions, outrage, and advertisement clicks.
Parasitic tech elites and their tools of influence in the information sphere have nothing to do with free speech -- in fact they kill a fair debate among equal citizens in a democratic society.
And that is a sudden change because… lack of censorship in matters that affect Israel and Ukraine. This is not a distraction.
No no, I want my country to control what other people can see, read or say. Not me: I'm a good person.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." - Tacitus (Roman historian)
"Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria (head of Stalin's secret police)
Still possible to access with VPNs, though.
Anyone who does not want that, should stay away from Telegram in the first place - an app that stores all your private messages unencrypted for the company to read. All your interactions on any channel ever - all their data. All this is about is sharing that data with the western governments. The russian government already has it for example.
With the situation in Ukraine being what it is, wouldn't they be cracking down on Telegram usage in their country if this were true? They don't seem to be doing so, and the usage seems to be quite high.
https://www.ft.com/content/b1e76905-29f2-4ac0-99e0-7af07cef2...
this is false, it's kind of funny you are using all caps to lie. Something that resembles what you described may happen in November, but doesn't exist yet.
That basically counters ur whole point
You don’t see “the West” whatever that means go after WhatsApp, Signal or Matrix. That should tell you something.
The “people nearby” feature is literally “find me a dealer close by”.
I don't use this feature as I don't really want to send my precise location to Telegram but I can imagine it being in someone else's usability complain against Signal, too.
Considering how everyone reporting their actual experience with Telegram here is downvoted to death, it seems to really hurt some users to actually consider that maybe the reason Durov got arrested is because Telegram welcomes criminals with open arms and does absolutely nothing to moderate the platform.
I’m sorry?
Operating a platform facilitating crime on a large scale is a very valid reason to arrest someone.
The uberisation of drug dealing is a major issue in France right now and striking Telegram would be a huge blow to that.
Obviously legalisation would be even better but that door is shut due to the US influence on international treaties.
Not saying you’re wrong, just that it’s not something in your face and you need to actively search for this (now that I know this exists, it took me a minute to find it).
From what I'm hearing through the grapevine (from people who actually use Telegram for this), some of the dealers on there actually use bots to take your order / address. You can't really do this on any other messaging app, at least not easily.
WhatsApp is a good corporate puppy of the West; Signal is a crazy nothingburger that recently burned its reputation by going into cryptocurrencies; Matrix, like with all FLOSS, has approximately zero users and is way under the radar of authorities. Still, you do occasionally see talk and moves against the first two.
I'm in France. I use Telegram extensively for chatting with friends (1:1 or group chats) because its UX was vastly better than any of the alternatives when we started a few years ago (stuff like polls to decide when to meet, location sharing to find one another in a crowded place), custom bots, being able to edit messages to fix typos, etc. Nowadays WhatsApp does those too, but UX is still worse, especially on non-mobile.
Meanwhile I know people buying drugs off WhatsApp.
I know absolutely no one using Telegram as a chat app however. Pretty much everyone uses WhatsApp for everything here.
Hi, pleased to meet you. I have around 15 people I only chat with via Telegram just in France.
In our company all of the work chats are on Telegram although it's 100% legal, audited, and does nothing wrong. It's just the most convenient way to communicate. We use Slack only when some client heavily insists on it.
I am pretty staunchly pro-privacy, but this arrest has little to do with
> permits the sharing of information and ideas that are in opposition to Western domestic and foreign policy(Israel, Ukraine, China etc)
It is about drug sales and extremism, that last one being about alt right / anti-vaccine crazies / terrorism, whatever else extremism du jour.
You are very mistaken. Democracy requires defense. Everyone can have its own stupid opinion, but that is not the point.
Actively sabotaging society via campaigns is something any sane democratic society should defend against (all western "social" media are relentlessly hit by troll bots and disinformation campaigns, funded by your favorite dictatorships like Russia and China).
It is no wonder that Twitter for example got in the hands of Apartheid Musk.
The paradox of tolerance, read it up. It is a __paradox__.
With that vigilance, it helps to be able to accurately assess the problem. In this case, Durov wasn't arrested for non-Western aligned subject matter. He was arrested for tacitly allowing drug trade and extremism on his app. Yes, Telegram is deleting many of these groups, but it is a token effort at best.
If Telegram ramps up the moderation of these efforts, perhaps the charges against Durov will be dropped. But if they continue to allow these whilst upping the moderation against.. say.. pro-Russian groups, Durov stays jailed. Hence, accurately assess the problem, and choose to work on it.
For what its worth, I lean libertarian with a progressive bent, so in my book anything that is not overly dangerous should be allowed to be communicated.
- Weapon sales? Probably not.
- XTC sales? Go ahead.[0]
- Nutella boycot? Go ahead.
- Infiltrating a local government to sabotage it? No.
[0] Yes, I am fully aware drug production funds violent organisations and there are tonnes of externalities like chemical waste dumping. That needs to be fixed via legalizing, it is not an inherent problem of drug sales.
(Do not take notice that China vaccinated their own people though, or the cognitive dissonance might be too much).
__
1. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-china-covid-disinformation-ca...
So yes, the alt-right is an anti-democratic extremist group.
As for anti-vaccine groups, their contribution to the death toll of past pandemics is no secret to any moderately informed person.
As for what happened on January 6th, it was in practical terms a concentrated bit of aggressive protest theater, and far from anything seriously resembling an attempted coup. You'd have to be deluded by ideology to call it something so serious. For example, that event was much smaller than the enormous amount of government property damage and calls to topple governments made by a much larger number of people during the earlier Floyd protests across the US and other countries. Would you call those extremist too?
In any case, by naming the most radical actions of a certain subset of a wider belief system as a reason for considering all aspects of that wider belief system as extremist and worthy of banning, you're just another garden variety autocratic monkey at heart, looking for ways justify banning whatever concept doesn't fit your tribal identity.
By your ridiculous logic, any belief system could be justifiably banned because in some ambiguous way, it's "responsible" for the specific activities of certain people who hold to its most extreme version, though the two things (a wider system of beliefs and specific people's active choices) are separate.
They gathered in front of politicians their houses in large groups, sometimes even with torches, hoping to scare even the kids inside the house.
They sent myriad of death threats.
Totally not extremist.
Seems like you're the one living on a different planet.