> so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this I'm not being obtuse, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable with someone rather blithely saying a "channel is again

> so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this I'm not being obtuse, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable with someone rather blithely saying a "channel is against the law." I'm probing the depths of that. I'm sorry if this is somehow inconvenient to you but I have no intention of altering my behavior and I find it rude that you would even ask in such a way. > A Telegram channel can host these people. Is this the majority of users? Is Telegram intentionally marketing it's services to these users? Does it do internal research to be more appealing to this use case? > They can access those channels. So Telegram is not intentionally hiding them from the government or preventing their discovery and infiltration by law enforcement? Then why arrest the CEO? > and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable. If you're comfortable saying "well, it's legal in France" then what do you hope to gain from further discussion with someone you believe is going to be intentionally obtuse? > because Telegram hides their real identities and locations. They are buying drugs? Doesn't this require two people to meet up and physically exchange goods and money? What good does outlawing the channel do?