9 ms·

A very objective article, actually, and goes well to explain how this request to block the "voting app" isn't at all as controversial as portrayed in the Wester

by cnst 5y ago

A very objective article, actually, and goes well to explain how this request to block the "voting app" isn't at all as controversial as portrayed in the Western MSM: > Second, this particular demand of the Russian authorities wasn't obviously unconstitutional, as they referred to a law that restricts campaigning after people start casting their votes. Laws against political campaigning while voting is underway exist in many countries and the Russian counterpart had been introduced a long time ago. Had we received a similar demand from any European country, we would have complied with it. On the contrary, had Russia or any other country demanded something that is in clear violation of human rights, we would rather face an outright ban of Telegram in that country than compromise our values.

Y_Y 5y ago
But Telegram doesn't distribute apps, they blocked a "user" related to the app from using their network. The article does seem very reasonable, but I'd disagree that it's objective, since the author, Durov, runs Telegram and is writing to justify their actions.
- raman162 5y ago
  Not the OP but I would say it's "objective" from telegrams perspective. They shared their decision making process which I agreed with, not too sure what would have been a better choice in that situation.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    > it's "objective" from telegrams perspective. that's another way to say subjective if you aren't willing to admit it. the whole point of objective/subjective is that its supposed to be POV neutral.
    - cnst 5y ago
      How's it not objective, though? What if the request came from the EU or the US, to ban an account that was campaigning in local elections in violation of local election finance laws? Note that the ban is not even permanent! It's only for the last 2 days of the 3-day voting window. Campaigning was supposed to have been illegal throughout the whole 3-day period.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Because it is from his point of view. It doesn't make the content false just colored by the authors point of view.
        blitzar 5y ago
        I am the greatest ever, it is an objective fact.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        The greatest ever what, though?
- timmit 5y ago
  Yeah, true, the problem is basically becoming Whether an app should block a bot/user when the app store blocks the bot app? => Whether an app / telegram with third party extension/bot ability would be considered as similar to an app store? => Whether a bot built on a private application ecosystem should be considered as an independent app?
- cnst 5y ago
  But why do you think any justification is needed in the first place? It's basically the same law as in many other countries. The only difference is that citizens of most other countries don't dare to do these tricks, because there are severe consequences for playing with election integrity in the Western world. For example, look at what happened with Dinesh D'Souza when he tried donating to a campaign of a friend more than what the law allowed, using another friend as a lame duck to make the donation to avoid personal limits.
- stkdump 5y ago
  How does the author running telegram make the argument not objective? Would the same argument made by someone else be objective?
sega_sai 5y ago
Except that law does not apply for these elections that last several days https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 The law allowing campaigning was passed in May 2021.
- lotusmars 5y ago
  Yes, and this is the most puzzling lie in Durov’s post. He knows he’s lying. Personally I think he’s found a common ground with Kremlin behind the scenes.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    I kinda doubt that part. If he was in their good graces again I think we'd hear more about it But I think Russia is a much bigger market for Telegram than Iran was. It's where they started after all. I'm pretty sure that'll play a part in it too. Easy thing to throw away 0.5% of your marketshare, another when it's 20%. Ps I made those numbers up :)
    - noxer 5y ago
      When Russia wanted some kind of encryption keys he could not hand over because they dont exist, Telegram was banned in Russia but people found ways to use it anyway. So I dont think Russia has anything to "force" Durov other than via Apple/Google. He doesn't live there or owns anything there and according to past posts of him and there are no Telegram servers there either. + The proxy stuff to circumvent Russia's ban is already implemented if they would block the IPs again. It seems very likely that Apple/Google is actually the problem here. I encourage everyone to download the app from the website or F-Droid not form Google.
      - sprafa 5y ago
        Family
      - SergeAx 5y ago
        There is a sideloaded version of Telegram for Android which can be installed from it's website and even is able to auto-update itself. It allows access to content blocked on iOS. But it was unable to access voting bot.
spindle 5y ago
I agree. And I love that Durov carefully says > Telegram gives its users more freedom of speech than any other popular mobile application. (emphasis added by me)
- theshrike79 5y ago
  That's just to stop the Well Ackshually's of the world presenting their 500 peak user end-to-end encrypted chat platforms. It doesn't count when you're too small for anyone to bother taking you to court.
galaxyLogic 5y ago
> On the contrary, had Russia or any other country demanded something that is in clear violation of human rights Isn't voting right a human right? If people don't have right to fair elections then any other rights they might have aren't guaranteed either.
- twelve40 5y ago
  The specific case that is described in this post is the law to stop campaigning during an ongoing vote, which seems like a reasonable request. Why is Telegram getting held responsible for everything else that is wrong in this world, is not clear.
lostmsu 5y ago
The specific law application and that article are both bullshit. Let's start with the law application. If you want to apply it like that, you'd have to remove every single positive post about every single candidate from the entire Internet. In case of Telegram it is even more bullshit because unlike web browsers which (in a common folk sense) show what is available to public and therefore could be compared to public advertisement like a billboard, Telegram bot will only respond to a direct question (yes, I know technically there's no difference).

by cnst 5y ago

Y_Y 5y ago

But Telegram doesn't distribute apps, they blocked a "user" related to the app from using their network. The article does seem very reasonable, but I'd disagree that it's objective, since the author, Durov, runs Telegram and is writing to justify their actions.

raman162 5y ago
Not the OP but I would say it's "objective" from telegrams perspective. They shared their decision making process which I agreed with, not too sure what would have been a better choice in that situation.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  > it's "objective" from telegrams perspective. that's another way to say subjective if you aren't willing to admit it. the whole point of objective/subjective is that its supposed to be POV neutral.
  - cnst 5y ago
    How's it not objective, though? What if the request came from the EU or the US, to ban an account that was campaigning in local elections in violation of local election finance laws? Note that the ban is not even permanent! It's only for the last 2 days of the 3-day voting window. Campaigning was supposed to have been illegal throughout the whole 3-day period.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Because it is from his point of view. It doesn't make the content false just colored by the authors point of view.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        I am the greatest ever, it is an objective fact.
        LegitShady 5y ago
        The greatest ever what, though?
timmit 5y ago
Yeah, true, the problem is basically becoming Whether an app should block a bot/user when the app store blocks the bot app? => Whether an app / telegram with third party extension/bot ability would be considered as similar to an app store? => Whether a bot built on a private application ecosystem should be considered as an independent app?
cnst 5y ago
But why do you think any justification is needed in the first place? It's basically the same law as in many other countries. The only difference is that citizens of most other countries don't dare to do these tricks, because there are severe consequences for playing with election integrity in the Western world. For example, look at what happened with Dinesh D'Souza when he tried donating to a campaign of a friend more than what the law allowed, using another friend as a lame duck to make the donation to avoid personal limits.
stkdump 5y ago
How does the author running telegram make the argument not objective? Would the same argument made by someone else be objective?

sega_sai 5y ago

Except that law does not apply for these elections that last several days https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 The law allowing campaigning was passed in May 2021.

lotusmars 5y ago
Yes, and this is the most puzzling lie in Durov’s post. He knows he’s lying. Personally I think he’s found a common ground with Kremlin behind the scenes.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  I kinda doubt that part. If he was in their good graces again I think we'd hear more about it But I think Russia is a much bigger market for Telegram than Iran was. It's where they started after all. I'm pretty sure that'll play a part in it too. Easy thing to throw away 0.5% of your marketshare, another when it's 20%. Ps I made those numbers up :)
  - noxer 5y ago
    When Russia wanted some kind of encryption keys he could not hand over because they dont exist, Telegram was banned in Russia but people found ways to use it anyway. So I dont think Russia has anything to "force" Durov other than via Apple/Google. He doesn't live there or owns anything there and according to past posts of him and there are no Telegram servers there either. + The proxy stuff to circumvent Russia's ban is already implemented if they would block the IPs again. It seems very likely that Apple/Google is actually the problem here. I encourage everyone to download the app from the website or F-Droid not form Google.
    - sprafa 5y ago
      Family
    - SergeAx 5y ago
      There is a sideloaded version of Telegram for Android which can be installed from it's website and even is able to auto-update itself. It allows access to content blocked on iOS. But it was unable to access voting bot.

spindle 5y ago

I agree. And I love that Durov carefully says > Telegram gives its users more freedom of speech than any other popular mobile application. (emphasis added by me)

theshrike79 5y ago
That's just to stop the Well Ackshually's of the world presenting their 500 peak user end-to-end encrypted chat platforms. It doesn't count when you're too small for anyone to bother taking you to court.

galaxyLogic 5y ago

> On the contrary, had Russia or any other country demanded something that is in clear violation of human rights Isn't voting right a human right? If people don't have right to fair elections then any other rights they might have aren't guaranteed either.

twelve40 5y ago
The specific case that is described in this post is the law to stop campaigning during an ongoing vote, which seems like a reasonable request. Why is Telegram getting held responsible for everything else that is wrong in this world, is not clear.

lostmsu 5y ago

The specific law application and that article are both bullshit. Let's start with the law application. If you want to apply it like that, you'd have to remove every single positive post about every single candidate from the entire Internet. In case of Telegram it is even more bullshit because unlike web browsers which (in a common folk sense) show what is available to public and therefore could be compared to public advertisement like a billboard, Telegram bot will only respond to a direct question (yes, I know technically there's no difference).