7 ms·

I had this exact conversation with some friends yesterday, and here was my response to them edited for clarity: And the difference between Parler and Signal is

I had this exact conversation with some friends yesterday, and here was my response to them edited for clarity: And the difference between Parler and Signal is that Parler is a social media platform, Signal is a messaging platform. It's the difference of having a group of terrorists[0] in your restaurant everyday audibly planning a terrorist attack versus being the site of a message drop that occurs discreetly. Accessory charges are likely in the former unlikely in the latter.[1] [0]Replace terrorists with criminals or whatever is palatable to you, it was the example we were using at the time. [1]Standard disclosure I am not a lawyer/prosecutor/etc.

rmsaksida 6y ago
I don't know about Signal, but Telegram blurs the lines between a messaging app and a more general purpose social network. Telegram has public groups (supporting 100s of thousands of users) and channels that feature comment sections. It wouldn't surprise me if Telegram ends up getting banned by app stores because of their resilience and respect of privacy.
- siver_john 6y ago
  Admittedly, I don't know about Telegram. But I would probably guess the distinction is still there because if I had to guess Telegram doesn't advertise those groups, you have to look for them, which decreases the condition of "audibly hearing the discussion." Where as Parler being a social media platform first wants to encourage the network effect and engagement among it's users, thus encouraging this open discussion and connection among potentially dangerous elements. Again in my non legal estimation of the law (not that I think anything I'm currently suggesting has been tried in court).
- selykg 6y ago
  The reason Parler was banned was not being willing or able to moderate the content. Telegram would only be banned, based on this info, if they weren't going to do the same thing.
- joshxyz 6y ago
  I'd say telegram isn't likely to get banned from app stores as there is intentionally no support for e2ee in group chats, and dm's aren't also e2ee by default.
  - unicornporn 6y ago
    This. No one I know uses the E2EE chats in Telegram. They go with the default and they heard Telegram is "secure". To add to the inconvenience the secure chats do not sync between devices.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Also, you just can't use E2EE on the desktop clients, and they have stated that they have no intention of fixing that. https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/118#issuecomment-72011592 https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/118#issue...
      - unicornporn 6y ago
        Works on the native macOS client though.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Didn't Apple get pushed to tell Telegram to get rid of posts in Belarus? If they hadn't made a deal out of it while also refusing to delete the posts, a ban could have been in their future.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Parler wasn't e2e encrypted.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> It's the difference of having a group of terrorists[0] in your restaurant everyday audibly planning a terrorist attack versus being the site of a message drop that occurs discreetly. If we are making a restaurant analogy, I think a more accurate one is that the restaurant provides a sound proof room where a group can enter and discuss anything they want without anybody overhearing. The restaurant does not know what anybody uses that room for. It could be people planning a birthday surprise, it could be a group of terrorists.
- siver_john 6y ago
  Except for in Parler it isn't a soundproof room? It's literally a social media site where the admins (owner of the restaurant) can see what is going on. So it is the audible example I mentioned above. The sound proof room would be more apt for the later comparison to signal.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - godelski 6y ago
    Let's say that the restaurant goes to KKK and Neo-Nazi rallies handing out fliers saying that the restaurant is where "anyone can feel welcome." But they never advertise to the general public or to groups of opposing views. Is that restaurant for the general public or is it for a specific type of people? They said it was for anyone, but I'm not sure people are going to believe that.
- godelski 6y ago
  More importantly there is a difference if you advertise that sound proof room to the public (maybe for business meetings) vs the mafia. Let's say that anyone was technically allowed to reserve the room but you only told mafia members about it then it is reasonable to believe that the room is intended to be used for nefarious activities and not as a general private room. Calling it a general private room and saying it is for businessmen or government officials to talk in private would be a coverup for its real intent.
HaloZero 6y ago
Wasn't WhatsApp used for forwarding tons of disinformation in Myanmar and India? I imagine the same thing can happen in Signal no? https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17594156/whatsapp-limit-forwarding-fake-news-violence-india-myanmar https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17594156/whatsapp-limit-forwar...

rmsaksida 6y ago

I don't know about Signal, but Telegram blurs the lines between a messaging app and a more general purpose social network. Telegram has public groups (supporting 100s of thousands of users) and channels that feature comment sections. It wouldn't surprise me if Telegram ends up getting banned by app stores because of their resilience and respect of privacy.

siver_john 6y ago
Admittedly, I don't know about Telegram. But I would probably guess the distinction is still there because if I had to guess Telegram doesn't advertise those groups, you have to look for them, which decreases the condition of "audibly hearing the discussion." Where as Parler being a social media platform first wants to encourage the network effect and engagement among it's users, thus encouraging this open discussion and connection among potentially dangerous elements. Again in my non legal estimation of the law (not that I think anything I'm currently suggesting has been tried in court).
selykg 6y ago
The reason Parler was banned was not being willing or able to moderate the content. Telegram would only be banned, based on this info, if they weren't going to do the same thing.
joshxyz 6y ago
I'd say telegram isn't likely to get banned from app stores as there is intentionally no support for e2ee in group chats, and dm's aren't also e2ee by default.
- unicornporn 6y ago
  This. No one I know uses the E2EE chats in Telegram. They go with the default and they heard Telegram is "secure". To add to the inconvenience the secure chats do not sync between devices.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Also, you just can't use E2EE on the desktop clients, and they have stated that they have no intention of fixing that. https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/118#issuecomment-72011592 https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/118#issue...
    - unicornporn 6y ago
      Works on the native macOS client though.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Didn't Apple get pushed to tell Telegram to get rid of posts in Belarus? If they hadn't made a deal out of it while also refusing to delete the posts, a ban could have been in their future.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Parler wasn't e2e encrypted.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> It's the difference of having a group of terrorists[0] in your restaurant everyday audibly planning a terrorist attack versus being the site of a message drop that occurs discreetly. If we are making a restaurant analogy, I think a more accurate one is that the restaurant provides a sound proof room where a group can enter and discuss anything they want without anybody overhearing. The restaurant does not know what anybody uses that room for. It could be people planning a birthday surprise, it could be a group of terrorists.

siver_john 6y ago
Except for in Parler it isn't a soundproof room? It's literally a social media site where the admins (owner of the restaurant) can see what is going on. So it is the audible example I mentioned above. The sound proof room would be more apt for the later comparison to signal.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 6y ago
  Let's say that the restaurant goes to KKK and Neo-Nazi rallies handing out fliers saying that the restaurant is where "anyone can feel welcome." But they never advertise to the general public or to groups of opposing views. Is that restaurant for the general public or is it for a specific type of people? They said it was for anyone, but I'm not sure people are going to believe that.
godelski 6y ago
More importantly there is a difference if you advertise that sound proof room to the public (maybe for business meetings) vs the mafia. Let's say that anyone was technically allowed to reserve the room but you only told mafia members about it then it is reasonable to believe that the room is intended to be used for nefarious activities and not as a general private room. Calling it a general private room and saying it is for businessmen or government officials to talk in private would be a coverup for its real intent.

HaloZero 6y ago

Wasn't WhatsApp used for forwarding tons of disinformation in Myanmar and India? I imagine the same thing can happen in Signal no? https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17594156/whatsapp-limit-forwarding-fake-news-violence-india-myanmar https://www.vox.com/2018/7/19/17594156/whatsapp-limit-forwar...