7 ms·

A bunch of people in comments here seem to misunderstand what telegram is. It is not just a messaging app, it is essentially a platform like twitter, with chann

• vhiremath4 2y ago
  Ah very interesting. Thanks for making that distinction! To me, I’m wondering at what critical mass of people should you need to provide a back door to the government? Is it 2? 3? 100? 1000? Are the number of people the right indicator here? Genuinely curious of people’s thoughts. I haven’t though too deeply about this.
  • stogot 2y ago
    You seem to assume there is a “need” to backdoor the people’s communication. Liberty of the people assumes there is not a need nor a right of the State to do so
    • eimrine 2y ago
      No that was sarcasm to GP.
  • kitkat_new 2y ago
    who is talking about backdoors? the chats are public
  • aa_is_op 2y ago
    Yeah. Basically Telegram is the new dark web, but for people to dumb to understand that it logs everything.
  • sega_sai 2y ago
    There is no need for backdoor anything, when there are public channels. I do not know the specifics of French case though, so I don't know if their case is about those or some private chats.
• apopapo 2y ago
  So you endorse governments from the middle-east being in their right to delete anything they see as "illegal" because they are blasphemous for example?
  • wordpad25 2y ago
    There is a large spectrum between total anarchy and totalitarian regime, so in the same way there is a spectrum in free speech.
    • oska 2y ago
      No, there is no spectrum when it comes to Free Speech. Free Speech is an ideal that promotes total freedom to say whatever you want and is against all (state) censorship. (And btw, I'm unaware of anything that exists that is a 'spectrum' apart from the electromagnetic spectrum. To have the quality of being a spectrum, the subject must continuously span a 1-dimensional space. It's a way overused metaphor, in my opinion, especially for political positions which are anything but 1-dimensional.)
      • 3np 2y ago
        > And btw So you correctly identify that modelling it as a one-dimensional spectrum is a gross over-simplification. Then conclude that as it's not a one-dimensonal spectrum, it must be a binary property? Rather than accepting that reality is more complex than is easily captured in common language?
        • oska 2y ago
          > Then conclude that as it's not a one-dimensonal spectrum, it must be a binary property? I can see how you made that interpretation but that's not what I was saying. Free Speech is an ideal (not a binary property). I doubt that that you will find any human society with a system of laws that puts absolutely no restrictions on speech. That still doesn't mean that you can talk about Free Speech as a 'spectrum'. It's an ideal that ppl strive for, to varying degrees and across different domains. (Perhaps similarly to how Truth is an ideal that ppl strive for; Truth is not a 'spectrum'.)
• stiltzkin 2y ago
  So do you endorse if Venezuela or North Korea do the same?
  • aa_is_op 2y ago
    Stupid argument since those countries use Telegram for money laundering
    • pajeets 2y ago
      North Korean meth is sold in bulk on Telegram channels in South Korea. Drug abuse is out of control and crypto currency is used by NK to sell drugs to SK and use funds for its regime.
      • codedokode 2y ago
        How do they get it across the well-guarded border by the way?
        • edm0nd 2y ago
          Since it's NK responsible for manufacturing the meth, I'm sure they have established easy methods to get it into SK, China, and shipping out of ports in NK and into other countries.
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
        • roywiggins 2y ago
          Probably on or under the surrounding waters, at a guess. NK smuggles all sorts of stuff in and out of the country. https://ig.ft.com/north-korea-oil-smuggling/ https://ig.ft.com/north-korea-oil-smuggling/
        • deleted 2y ago
          [deleted]
• akira2501 2y ago
  > I think it is perfectly fair for governments to have some control to take down large channels that are clearly against the law How is a channel "against the law?" Do you mean access to the channel is creating opportunities for lawlessness that simply wouldn't exist otherwise? I'm not sure the French justice system has demonstrated that it has exhausted all options other than to handcuff a CEO of one particular platform.
  • sega_sai 2y ago
    A channel that incites violence is against the law (in some countries). A channel selling drugs is against the law. These are few examples. I do not how the specific details of the French case to comment on the specifics. I could believe the arrest is poorly justified, but I have reasonably belief in their justice system.
    • akira2501 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • kelnos 2y ago
        > How does an inanimate object incite violence or sell drugs? Please stop being so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this. Certainly the participants of the channel are the ones who incite violence or sell drugs. But some laws also make it illegal to "host" the people who do those sorts of things. A Telegram channel can host these people. > If France can't access these channels, how do they know the violence or drugs are actually occurring _in_ France? They can access those channels. > And if they could know that, what does Telegram have to do with it? Telegram is hosting the content, and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable. > Wouldn't they just be able to go and arrest the violent person or the drug dealer? Not if they don't know where the people are, because Telegram hides their real identities and locations.
        • calf 2y ago
          It's not so much obtuseness as different assumptions about what is "normal" law: most young American computer-science trained programmers probably believe that ISPs or even Pirate Bay websites are not responsible for online crimes such as piracy, the authorities should go after the distributors of pirated material, and so this event does not fit the prior mental schema. It's a difference due to values, expectations, context having to do with how we reason about technology and in large part this depends on one's background technical culture, which varies depending on country as well as the type of university of study, exposure to Silicon Valley attitudes, etc.
• bun_terminator 2y ago
  It's also perfectly fair to believe that no written (or spoken) word should be illegal
  • 39896880 2y ago
    There is no place on earth which has laws that abide by this principle.
    • kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Most peoples homes would count. Most people don’t enforce their governments laws on each other. They have their own moral code and logic that takes precedence over whatever the politicians have actually penned on paper.
    • bun_terminator 2y ago
      Probably true, but unrelated
• can16358p 2y ago
  The moment you put even the option of backdoors, some governments will abuse it heavily. What might be essential right to human communication might suddenly become "illegal" according to the government. So there should never ever be, under no circumstances, even the code and infra to be there to provide backdoor/censorships, otherwise it _will_ be abused by limiting people's communication in the moment they literally need the most.
  • andybak 2y ago
    GP didn't mention backdoors.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • birksherty 2y ago
      That's exactly what control by gov is, otherwise they can already see public channels groups.
      • nstart 2y ago
        Even in WhatsApp which has E2EE they have reporting mechanisms so if someone starts a broadcast channel with the explicit intention of promoting illegal behaviour, it can at least be taken down by reporting. Personal experience and second hand accounts tell us that Telegram was known to mismanage these things in ways that a company of its size and impact cannot ignore. There’s a lot of false dichotomy in the ongoing discussions here which assumes there’s a binary “control to the gov” or “freedom for all” choice. It’s a spectrum where at the most basic level, a robust process to handle reports of illegal activity should be accepted.
        • can16358p 2y ago
          "Illegal" according to who? Government? The same government which can decide something else that we would consider fundamental right is also "illegal" at any time?
• fahrenheit154 2y ago
  I am long done with commenting on this platform, as most of Russian people, who cannot write here (and most of other western internet forums) what they think. I will make an exception in this case, however. 1. "I think it is perfectly fair for governments to take down large channels that are clearly against the law" Telegram obviously acts upon such requests Here in Italy I cannot access the channels of RIA and Sputnik, obviously a request was made to Telegram on behalf of EU /Italy, and Telegram complied. 2. I think that you, in your US bubble, which you THINK guarantees free speech, misunderstand yourself what Telegram is. Right now, it is the ONLY wide audience platform in the world, where Russian people can freely (as opposed to, say, HN) write what they really think. And it is true as much for the people who are "pro", as for the people who are "against Putin", (I use these nonsense labels to adapt what I write to the general american level of "understanding" Russia).
  • hkpack 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • lxgr 2y ago
    > [...] your US bubble, which you THINK guarantees free speech [...] That's a very common misunderstanding (even among Americans) of what the First Amendment actually guarantees: It protects you from government censorship of speech, but does absolutely nothing to compel private individuals or corporations to carry your speech. (In fact, compelled speech has been ruled to be a violation itself.) That absence of such legal protections can definitely be seen as having a chilling effect on free speech in practice, but as I interpret it, currently the assumption seems to be that legal intervention is not necessary due to market forces achieving the same or a similar outcome implicitly. There's also strong resistance from a value perspective against the idea, since these provisions themselves might be incompatible with the FA for reasons mentioned above. You can definitely have some discussions around whether additional "duty to contract" rules should apply, e.g. in the same way as there's a law in Europe that makes it illegal for banks to not give somebody a bank account in certain circumstances, but nothing like this exists at the moment. > Right now, it is the ONLY wide audience platform in the world, where Russian people can freely (as opposed to, say, HN) write what they really think Hackernews has always been very strictly moderated to maintain a specific type and culture of discussion. By necessity, that excludes certain types of comments. In that sense, it's always been very far away from a "free speech platform".
• hn1986 2y ago
  This is no different than a Tor server being shut down for sharing illegal content, like CSAM, which is what Telegram was doing. Pavel Durov not taking action to shut down CSAM is an illegal offense and should be punished.
• remram 2y ago
  Telegram doesn't have E2EE except for 1-on-1 chats where you enable it.