4 ms·

Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russia

by SEJeff 8y ago

Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russian Government, because Telegram didn't make these changes. I'd see thinking otherwise as a form of Victim Blaming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

azangru 8y ago
> Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russian Government, because Telegram didn't make these changes. It is a very strange logic. Telegram did something that no longer was legal under the Russian law. Yes, it may be a stupid law, and yes, it may be very selectively applied, and yes, it is the government that gets to write the law and thus define the rules of the game. I get all that, and I share the hatred towards the Russian government and its legal system. Nevertheless, if we step aside and look at the situation disinterestedly, Telegram could no longer operate in Russia according to the laws of the land. So, according to the twisted Russian legal system, Telegram was in the wrong. It could have just acknowledged the fact and stopped operating in Russia. Instead its position was that it does not recognise the Russian ruling and will keep operating in the country where it officially was no longer welcome. The Russian authorities tried to enforce the law, but due to the lack of either grace or expertise made a mess out of it. Look, I am not arguing from a legalistic perspective. I do not worship the law, nor do I tell others to respect it. I would break it as likely as the next guy if I could get away with it. But what I am saying is that the Russian authorities were within their right. As for victim blaming, you would have been correct if we were discussing Telegram as the victim. But in my analysis, the victims are the public who had to endure broken internet, because a company and an enforcement agency were both making a point.
- frostburg 8y ago
  You're exactly arguing from from a legalistic perspective.
  - azangru 8y ago
    I am alternating between two perspectives: one is that of an internet user who was caught in a fight between a company and an enforcement agency; the other is that of a disinterested observer. This other position tells me that if we disregard for a moment that Telegram is a tech company championing privacy (and therefore a protagonist in most retellings of the story) and the Russian government is an embodiment of thuggishness (and therefore a likely villain of the piece) and just look at the situation as if it occurred elsewhere, we will see that Telegram might also have its share of blame in this story. It's as if a policeman ordered a suspect to freeze, but the suspect ran, and the policeman opened fire and wounded a bystander - well, it sure was the policeman who shot the gun, but is the fleeing suspect completely innocent of the situation? Would it be called victim blaming to suggest that he shares the blame for what happened? Can one be censured for saying that it would have been better if the suspect meekly obeyed the policeman?
    - codedokode 8y ago
      You are misleading people not familiar with Russian legislation. There is no law saying you can ban random IP addresses.
      - azangru 8y ago
        I am not familiar with the Russian legislation myself, to be honest. Are you saying that Roskomnadzor, the Russian governmental agency, actively broke the Russian law? Have there been any articles or legal discussions about it you could reference? Has anyone threatened to sue (I know it’s pointless in Russia, but still)?
        codedokode 8y ago
        Can you read Russian? Then here is the link: [1] A Russian company filed an action against Roskommnadzor demanding to compensate a loss of 5,000,000 RUB (~$75 000). The court dismissed it though. Here is another example: [2] [1] https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2018/08/27/n_11956687.shtml https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2018/08/27/n_11956687.shtml [2] https://www.rbc.ru/society/06/08/2018/5b6848b39a794769383b9ef0 https://www.rbc.ru/society/06/08/2018/5b6848b39a794769383b9e...
- codedokode 8y ago
  If Telegram did something illegal why should other Internet users suffer damages? Even the Russian law doesn't say that. The blocking was not done according to the law. If the Government followed its own laws, there would be a lot of paperwork for every new blocked IP address and they would play cat-and-mouse game with Telegram spending a lot of resources while Telegram could cheaply create new proxies instead of blocked ones. Effectively you cannot block Telegram if you follow the law. So the Government started blocking large networks (like, 256 000 IP addresses at once or even more) whenever it found a single Telegram proxy server there. This is obviously against the law but who cares. If you think I am wrong please point to the article that allows blocking 20 millions random IP addresses.

by SEJeff 8y ago

azangru 8y ago

> Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russian Government, because Telegram didn't make these changes. It is a very strange logic. Telegram did something that no longer was legal under the Russian law. Yes, it may be a stupid law, and yes, it may be very selectively applied, and yes, it is the government that gets to write the law and thus define the rules of the game. I get all that, and I share the hatred towards the Russian government and its legal system. Nevertheless, if we step aside and look at the situation disinterestedly, Telegram could no longer operate in Russia according to the laws of the land. So, according to the twisted Russian legal system, Telegram was in the wrong. It could have just acknowledged the fact and stopped operating in Russia. Instead its position was that it does not recognise the Russian ruling and will keep operating in the country where it officially was no longer welcome. The Russian authorities tried to enforce the law, but due to the lack of either grace or expertise made a mess out of it. Look, I am not arguing from a legalistic perspective. I do not worship the law, nor do I tell others to respect it. I would break it as likely as the next guy if I could get away with it. But what I am saying is that the Russian authorities were within their right. As for victim blaming, you would have been correct if we were discussing Telegram as the victim. But in my analysis, the victims are the public who had to endure broken internet, because a company and an enforcement agency were both making a point.

frostburg 8y ago
You're exactly arguing from from a legalistic perspective.
- azangru 8y ago
  I am alternating between two perspectives: one is that of an internet user who was caught in a fight between a company and an enforcement agency; the other is that of a disinterested observer. This other position tells me that if we disregard for a moment that Telegram is a tech company championing privacy (and therefore a protagonist in most retellings of the story) and the Russian government is an embodiment of thuggishness (and therefore a likely villain of the piece) and just look at the situation as if it occurred elsewhere, we will see that Telegram might also have its share of blame in this story. It's as if a policeman ordered a suspect to freeze, but the suspect ran, and the policeman opened fire and wounded a bystander - well, it sure was the policeman who shot the gun, but is the fleeing suspect completely innocent of the situation? Would it be called victim blaming to suggest that he shares the blame for what happened? Can one be censured for saying that it would have been better if the suspect meekly obeyed the policeman?
  - codedokode 8y ago
    You are misleading people not familiar with Russian legislation. There is no law saying you can ban random IP addresses.
    - azangru 8y ago
      I am not familiar with the Russian legislation myself, to be honest. Are you saying that Roskomnadzor, the Russian governmental agency, actively broke the Russian law? Have there been any articles or legal discussions about it you could reference? Has anyone threatened to sue (I know it’s pointless in Russia, but still)?
      - codedokode 8y ago
        Can you read Russian? Then here is the link: [1] A Russian company filed an action against Roskommnadzor demanding to compensate a loss of 5,000,000 RUB (~$75 000). The court dismissed it though. Here is another example: [2] [1] https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2018/08/27/n_11956687.shtml https://www.gazeta.ru/tech/news/2018/08/27/n_11956687.shtml [2] https://www.rbc.ru/society/06/08/2018/5b6848b39a794769383b9ef0 https://www.rbc.ru/society/06/08/2018/5b6848b39a794769383b9e...
codedokode 8y ago
If Telegram did something illegal why should other Internet users suffer damages? Even the Russian law doesn't say that. The blocking was not done according to the law. If the Government followed its own laws, there would be a lot of paperwork for every new blocked IP address and they would play cat-and-mouse game with Telegram spending a lot of resources while Telegram could cheaply create new proxies instead of blocked ones. Effectively you cannot block Telegram if you follow the law. So the Government started blocking large networks (like, 256 000 IP addresses at once or even more) whenever it found a single Telegram proxy server there. This is obviously against the law but who cares. If you think I am wrong please point to the article that allows blocking 20 millions random IP addresses.