The difference is telegram wasn't cooperating with authorities in the jurisdictions in which it was operating; be that moderation, interception, etc.
In the EU, Telegram blocked access to certain channels that the EU deemed to be Russian disinformation, for example.
In other words, Apple and Google are the only authorities they recognize (see also [1]). I'm not surprised this doesn't sit well with many governments.
They cooperated to some degree, but I'll go out on a limb to say that the authorities wanted Telegram to be fully subservient to western government interests.
15 years ago in the US this would have been uncontroversial
Personally I'm undecided about whether these channels should be publicly available on e.g. free TV channels, but that's getting off topic.
Empirically speaking, governments have had absolutely zero success at this, but their attempts to do so have gotten them the kind of legal power over your life that organised crime could only dream about.
You could certainly argue that RICO was too powerful and is often misapplied, but I've never before seen anyone argue that it has been ineffective.
there are other low-hanging fruit EU governments could do to address crime, NL has basically become a narcostate and they are just sitting by and watching - Telegram is not the problem.
However, my GP comment was against the claim that “The state has no business judging the truth”. That claim as stated is absurd, because judging what is true is necessary for a state being able to function in the interest of its people. The commenter likely didn’t mean what they wrote.
One can argue what is harmful and what isn’t, and I certainly don’t agree with many things that are being over-moderated. But please discuss things on that level, and don’t absolutize “free speech”, or argue that authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not.
The state can judge truth without censoring; and of course it should.
I suspect the other commenter isn't a censorship apologist and meant what they said. But feel free to decide what is likely true for the rest of us.
This empty saying is used to justify basically any violation of civil liberty, because it is unprincipled and open ended, so it can be used to respond to any action anyone can take
> The commenter likely didn’t mean what they wrote
No, I meant what I wrote. The government has no business judging the truth. What is the Russian disinformation from earlier in this thread? For example, is it discussing the illegal 2014 coup in Ukraine that ousted a democratically elected government that was friendly to Russia? To EU overlords, discussing that event is “spreading disinformation” even though it is factually true and deserving of discussion. It’s a great example of political censorship being a problem.
> don’t absolutize “free speech”, or argue that authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not.
Free speech should be absolutized in day to day discussion, even if there are very limited exceptions in the law. It’s when there is permission from society to limit speech that populations end up propagandized and suppressed by whoever has power over them. That’s what is happening here, where people are coming up with absurd mental gymnastics to justify France’s authoritarian actions.
> judging what is true is necessary for a state being able to function in the interest of its people
This sounds like support for Soviet or China style control of speech, and labeling of anything that power disagrees with as misinformation. Authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not, because they are biased and corrupted by their agendas and ideologies and incentives. The free exchange of information is foundational to any free and democratic society. That’s what is necessary for a state to be able to function in the interest of its people.