4 ms·
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 disagre
by 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 agoNot 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 agoHow'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 agoBecause it is from his point of view. It doesn't make the content false just colored by the authors point of view.
- blitzar 5y agoI am the greatest ever, it is an objective fact.
- LegitShady 5y agoThe greatest ever what, though?
- timmit 5y agoYeah, 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 agoBut 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 agoHow does the author running telegram make the argument not objective? Would the same argument made by someone else be objective?