4 ms·

Ignoring the fact that you're talking about a government that uses nerve agents on targets in foreign countries, the distinction you're making is spurious (if t

Ignoring the fact that you're talking about a government that uses nerve agents on targets in foreign countries, the distinction you're making is spurious (if the collateral damage is predictable even for the other party, it's hostage-taking, if it's not predictable obviously it cannot be taken into account) and even if we doubt the motives of the Telegram people calling not submitting to censure and spying "baiting" as if the issue was morally neutral is dishonest.

azangru 8y ago
How did we get here? :-) From the discussion of whether it's preferable to move away from a country that is demanding of you what you are not willing to give, or to ignore the official orders and bet on the country’s inability to enforce their ban — to Nazis — and then to “a government that uses nerve agents on targets in foreign countries” (at least you could have said "radioactive substances", referring to the case for which the inquiry has been held and for which the factual basis is pretty well known, instead of the case about which very little information has been shared with the public), within just a couple of posts? By leaving the Russian market Telegram wouldn’t have submitted to censorship and spying. They wouldn't have collaborated with the Russian special services. They would have kept their integrity. Much as what LinkedIn did when the Russians demanded they keep the information about the Russian citizens on the Russian soil and LinkedIn refused. It could all have been peaceful and quiet and dignified. And the problem of privacy vs censorship and spying is by no means limited to Russia. It will resurface in the progressive world. It will be interesting to see what the reaction will be then.
- frostburg 8y ago
  We got there because the arguments that you're using have the same structure. Why should Telegram make it easy for the Russian government? Having them actually look incompetent and oppressive is a bonus.

azangru 8y ago

How did we get here? :-) From the discussion of whether it's preferable to move away from a country that is demanding of you what you are not willing to give, or to ignore the official orders and bet on the country’s inability to enforce their ban — to Nazis — and then to “a government that uses nerve agents on targets in foreign countries” (at least you could have said "radioactive substances", referring to the case for which the inquiry has been held and for which the factual basis is pretty well known, instead of the case about which very little information has been shared with the public), within just a couple of posts? By leaving the Russian market Telegram wouldn’t have submitted to censorship and spying. They wouldn't have collaborated with the Russian special services. They would have kept their integrity. Much as what LinkedIn did when the Russians demanded they keep the information about the Russian citizens on the Russian soil and LinkedIn refused. It could all have been peaceful and quiet and dignified. And the problem of privacy vs censorship and spying is by no means limited to Russia. It will resurface in the progressive world. It will be interesting to see what the reaction will be then.

frostburg 8y ago
We got there because the arguments that you're using have the same structure. Why should Telegram make it easy for the Russian government? Having them actually look incompetent and oppressive is a bonus.