6 ms·

The difference is telegram wasn't cooperating with authorities in the jurisdictions in which it was operating; be that moderation, interception, etc.

dns_snek 2y ago
It's incorrect to say that they weren't cooperating with authorities at all. In the EU, Telegram blocked access to certain channels that the EU deemed to be Russian disinformation, for example.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Really? That’s a really disappointing example of censorship. The state has no business judging the truth.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    One of those was @rtnews which is definitely state-sponsored propaganda and remains inaccessible to this day. They cooperated to some degree, but I'll go out on a limb to say that the authorities wanted Telegram to be fully subservient to western government interests.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      So what if it is state sponsored propaganda? Most media is biased in some way. It shouldn’t be censored. I want to hear their side of the story too.
      - 331c8c71 2y ago
        I think your subtle arguments are wasted on EU's decision to stop the spread of misinformation and manipulation. It's that simple for them. Black and white. Us vs them. Don't think too much, you are taken care of by your "representatives" ...
      - squidbeak 2y ago
        In this instance (RT being banned), it's Russia's quite candid strategy to undermine social cohesion in their enemies' societies, using disinformation. Margarita Simonyan and Vladislav Surkov have each bragged about its success. So yes, for social cohesion, when there's a malign external actor poisoning public discourse with the intention of splitting societies, a responsible government ought to tackle it.
        whatnotests2 2y ago
        The old "enemy of the people" argument.
        squidbeak 2y ago
        Information warfare is a real thing, and if you're suggesting governments shouldn't react to it - on the basis that doing so would fall under 'the old enemy of the people argument' - then what you're actually contending is that governments should neglect national defence.
        hnpolicestate 2y ago
        Fascist lol.
        int_19h 2y ago
        If we start throwing around terms like "social cohesion" to justify censorship in the West, how can we complain about China doing the same in the name of "social harmony"?
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      i should be allowed to watch whatever state propaganda i want, i'm a big boy 15 years ago in the US this would have been uncontroversial
      - carbotaniuman 2y ago
        I'm sure the US government would have been real keen on you reading Kremlin news source 40 year ago...
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        there were multiple Kremlin propaganda outlets you could read in the US 40 years ago, although it is true that (IIRC) there were restrictions on broadcast television
        hnpolicestate 2y ago
        It's legal. We have that right.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
        It's still uncontroversial in the US, where RT remains widely available, although their local TV operations folded after a boycott by cable providers.
      - dns_snek 2y ago
        Don't get me wrong, if you really want to watch it, I think you should be allowed to. Personally I'm undecided about whether these channels should be publicly available on e.g. free TV channels, but that's getting off topic.
      - namdnay 2y ago
        15 years ago watching too much Taliban propaganda would have put you in Guantanamo pretty fast
        whimsicalism 2y ago
    - squidbeak 2y ago
      Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. And rightly.
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        think there is a societal interest in unsnoopable messaging. there are other low-hanging fruit EU governments could do to address crime, NL has basically become a narcostate and they are just sitting by and watching - Telegram is not the problem.
      - logicchains 2y ago
        >Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. Empirically speaking, governments have had absolutely zero success at this, but their attempts to do so have gotten them the kind of legal power over your life that organised crime could only dream about.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Huh? The traditional mafia is almost non-existent in the US today. RICO and its application has been highly successful at taking down the mafia. You could certainly argue that RICO was too powerful and is often misapplied, but I've never before seen anyone argue that it has been ineffective.
        logicchains 2y ago
        Are you implying that after the Italian mafia there were no more organised crime gangs in the US? There's a huge number of organised crime gangs nowadays; who do you think is distributing the drugs responsible for America's massive drug problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_St... . A policy isn't a success if it kills one crime group only for it to be replaced with more, and the overall drug consumption/distribution rate doesn't decrease. More people are using illicit drugs than ever before: https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase
  - layer8 2y ago
    How do you propose jurisdiction to work without judging the truth?
    - MacsHeadroom 2y ago
      It is government's role to protect speech, not to censor.
      - layer8 2y ago
        It’s also the government’s role to take measures against harmful actions. Personal rights end where they start to harm others, or harm society in general. They are not an absolute, and always have to be balanced against other concerns. However, my GP comment was against the claim that “The state has no business judging the truth”. That claim as stated is absurd, because judging what is true is necessary for a state being able to function in the interest of its people. The commenter likely didn’t mean what they wrote. One can argue what is harmful and what isn’t, and I certainly don’t agree with many things that are being over-moderated. But please discuss things on that level, and don’t absolutize “free speech”, or argue that authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not.
        blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        > Personal rights end where they start to harm others, or harm society in general This empty saying is used to justify basically any violation of civil liberty, because it is unprincipled and open ended, so it can be used to respond to any action anyone can take > The commenter likely didn’t mean what they wrote No, I meant what I wrote. The government has no business judging the truth. What is the Russian disinformation from earlier in this thread? For example, is it discussing the illegal 2014 coup in Ukraine that ousted a democratically elected government that was friendly to Russia? To EU overlords, discussing that event is “spreading disinformation” even though it is factually true and deserving of discussion. It’s a great example of political censorship being a problem. > don’t absolutize “free speech”, or argue that authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not. Free speech should be absolutized in day to day discussion, even if there are very limited exceptions in the law. It’s when there is permission from society to limit speech that populations end up propagandized and suppressed by whoever has power over them. That’s what is happening here, where people are coming up with absurd mental gymnastics to justify France’s authoritarian actions. > judging what is true is necessary for a state being able to function in the interest of its people This sounds like support for Soviet or China style control of speech, and labeling of anything that power disagrees with as misinformation. Authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not, because they are biased and corrupted by their agendas and ideologies and incentives. The free exchange of information is foundational to any free and democratic society. That’s what is necessary for a state to be able to function in the interest of its people.
- lxgr 2y ago
  As far as I've heard, they did that only under threat of getting kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores. Supposedly, the non-app-store versions don't have these blocks. In other words, Apple and Google are the only authorities they recognize (see also [1]). I'm not surprised this doesn't sit well with many governments. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348666
- itohihiyt 2y ago
  I don't think you can pick and choose what you comply with.
- holoduke 2y ago
  The real deal channels are still accessible. I follow them every day. Its the only way of getting a clear picture of the situation in Ukraine. Both sides are heavily using it. Also during combat operations.

dns_snek 2y ago

It's incorrect to say that they weren't cooperating with authorities at all. In the EU, Telegram blocked access to certain channels that the EU deemed to be Russian disinformation, for example.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Really? That’s a really disappointing example of censorship. The state has no business judging the truth.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  One of those was @rtnews which is definitely state-sponsored propaganda and remains inaccessible to this day. They cooperated to some degree, but I'll go out on a limb to say that the authorities wanted Telegram to be fully subservient to western government interests.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    So what if it is state sponsored propaganda? Most media is biased in some way. It shouldn’t be censored. I want to hear their side of the story too.
    - 331c8c71 2y ago
      I think your subtle arguments are wasted on EU's decision to stop the spread of misinformation and manipulation. It's that simple for them. Black and white. Us vs them. Don't think too much, you are taken care of by your "representatives" ...
    - squidbeak 2y ago
      In this instance (RT being banned), it's Russia's quite candid strategy to undermine social cohesion in their enemies' societies, using disinformation. Margarita Simonyan and Vladislav Surkov have each bragged about its success. So yes, for social cohesion, when there's a malign external actor poisoning public discourse with the intention of splitting societies, a responsible government ought to tackle it.
      - whatnotests2 2y ago
        The old "enemy of the people" argument.
        squidbeak 2y ago
        Information warfare is a real thing, and if you're suggesting governments shouldn't react to it - on the basis that doing so would fall under 'the old enemy of the people argument' - then what you're actually contending is that governments should neglect national defence.
      - hnpolicestate 2y ago
        Fascist lol.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        If we start throwing around terms like "social cohesion" to justify censorship in the West, how can we complain about China doing the same in the name of "social harmony"?
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    i should be allowed to watch whatever state propaganda i want, i'm a big boy 15 years ago in the US this would have been uncontroversial
    - carbotaniuman 2y ago
      I'm sure the US government would have been real keen on you reading Kremlin news source 40 year ago...
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        there were multiple Kremlin propaganda outlets you could read in the US 40 years ago, although it is true that (IIRC) there were restrictions on broadcast television
      - hnpolicestate 2y ago
        It's legal. We have that right.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      It's still uncontroversial in the US, where RT remains widely available, although their local TV operations folded after a boycott by cable providers.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Don't get me wrong, if you really want to watch it, I think you should be allowed to. Personally I'm undecided about whether these channels should be publicly available on e.g. free TV channels, but that's getting off topic.
    - namdnay 2y ago
      15 years ago watching too much Taliban propaganda would have put you in Guantanamo pretty fast
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
  - squidbeak 2y ago
    Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. And rightly.
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      think there is a societal interest in unsnoopable messaging. there are other low-hanging fruit EU governments could do to address crime, NL has basically become a narcostate and they are just sitting by and watching - Telegram is not the problem.
    - logicchains 2y ago
      >Eliminating child pornography and organised crime is a societal rather than 'government' interest. Empirically speaking, governments have had absolutely zero success at this, but their attempts to do so have gotten them the kind of legal power over your life that organised crime could only dream about.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Huh? The traditional mafia is almost non-existent in the US today. RICO and its application has been highly successful at taking down the mafia. You could certainly argue that RICO was too powerful and is often misapplied, but I've never before seen anyone argue that it has been ineffective.
        logicchains 2y ago
        Are you implying that after the Italian mafia there were no more organised crime gangs in the US? There's a huge number of organised crime gangs nowadays; who do you think is distributing the drugs responsible for America's massive drug problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gangs_in_the_United_St... . A policy isn't a success if it kills one crime group only for it to be replaced with more, and the overall drug consumption/distribution rate doesn't decrease. More people are using illicit drugs than ever before: https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase https://www.ibanet.org/unodc-report-drug-use-increase
- layer8 2y ago
  How do you propose jurisdiction to work without judging the truth?
  - MacsHeadroom 2y ago
    It is government's role to protect speech, not to censor.
    - layer8 2y ago
      It’s also the government’s role to take measures against harmful actions. Personal rights end where they start to harm others, or harm society in general. They are not an absolute, and always have to be balanced against other concerns. However, my GP comment was against the claim that “The state has no business judging the truth”. That claim as stated is absurd, because judging what is true is necessary for a state being able to function in the interest of its people. The commenter likely didn’t mean what they wrote. One can argue what is harmful and what isn’t, and I certainly don’t agree with many things that are being over-moderated. But please discuss things on that level, and don’t absolutize “free speech”, or argue that authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        > Personal rights end where they start to harm others, or harm society in general This empty saying is used to justify basically any violation of civil liberty, because it is unprincipled and open ended, so it can be used to respond to any action anyone can take > The commenter likely didn’t mean what they wrote No, I meant what I wrote. The government has no business judging the truth. What is the Russian disinformation from earlier in this thread? For example, is it discussing the illegal 2014 coup in Ukraine that ousted a democratically elected government that was friendly to Russia? To EU overlords, discussing that event is “spreading disinformation” even though it is factually true and deserving of discussion. It’s a great example of political censorship being a problem. > don’t absolutize “free speech”, or argue that authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not. Free speech should be absolutized in day to day discussion, even if there are very limited exceptions in the law. It’s when there is permission from society to limit speech that populations end up propagandized and suppressed by whoever has power over them. That’s what is happening here, where people are coming up with absurd mental gymnastics to justify France’s authoritarian actions. > judging what is true is necessary for a state being able to function in the interest of its people This sounds like support for Soviet or China style control of speech, and labeling of anything that power disagrees with as misinformation. Authorities shouldn’t care about what is true or not, because they are biased and corrupted by their agendas and ideologies and incentives. The free exchange of information is foundational to any free and democratic society. That’s what is necessary for a state to be able to function in the interest of its people.
lxgr 2y ago
As far as I've heard, they did that only under threat of getting kicked out of the Apple and Google app stores. Supposedly, the non-app-store versions don't have these blocks. In other words, Apple and Google are the only authorities they recognize (see also [1]). I'm not surprised this doesn't sit well with many governments. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348666 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348666
itohihiyt 2y ago
I don't think you can pick and choose what you comply with.
holoduke 2y ago
The real deal channels are still accessible. I follow them every day. Its the only way of getting a clear picture of the situation in Ukraine. Both sides are heavily using it. Also during combat operations.