7 ms·

No, not as far as I have seen. It seems they only describe that Telegram has been used extensively by criminals for the same reasons everyone else use it: Gre

No, not as far as I have seen. It seems they only describe that Telegram has been used extensively by criminals for the same reasons everyone else use it: Great ux, reasonable privacy (for what we needed). Note: all that is in a flux now. Personally I trust Telegram less now as it seems the same exceptions the French has made for themselves can also be used by russia or any other terrorist regime.

goatsi 2y ago
The assumption has been that Telegram provided significantly more access to Russia years ago, as it remains unblocked (with channels even run by the government), and Pavel Durov wasn't arrested when he visited Russia after laws were passed that would apply to Telegram but he claims they were refusing to follow.
- skinkestek 2y ago
  That is a good argument. I have however thought that the actual reason was because Russia depends on it. They seriously even use it to coordinate artillery strikes although lately I have seen evidence they now sometimes use Discord. I am not sure, and being convinced that Pavel Durov has actually visited Russia several times the last few years make me question my assumptions. However I still see Russian opposition being more scared now after Pavels visit to France because now the terms of service has been updated to tell us that they will ahare our ip address and phone number with law enforcement if they feel compelled to or something to that effect.
nullorempty 2y ago
What criteria do you use when calling regime a terrorist regime?
- MSFT_Edging 2y ago
  Targeting civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, water supplies, food supply lines, etc for the purposes of instilling fear in a civilian population to push a particular stance.
  - aethalus 2y ago
    To clarify, is it still a terrorist regime when it's not actually targeting civilians, but only by coincidence civilians and civilian infrastructure are close to the regime's military targets?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - airstrike 2y ago
      Traditionally, no. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians
    - toss1 2y ago
      When the targets, as a matter of publicly stated policy, engage in war crimes of using human shields to both attack civilians and defend themselves, store war munitions and setup command centers in hospitals, schools, etc., and when the country defends itself against those war crimes adhering to legal proportionality rules, then no. If it is actual indiscriminate bombing or targeting of civilian targets not used in war crimes, human shields, storing military equipment & munitions, command& control, etc., then yes.
      - immibis 2y ago
        What's the point of using human shields if your enemy isn't averse to killing the shields at all?
        toss1 2y ago
        Bad publicity against your enemy; it's literally the stated policy of Hamas to make more Palestinian "martyrs". It gets others to scream "genocide", causrs more global division, etc. And, in fact, they are averse to killing the human shields, just not absolutely averse (and definitely less averse after you go on murder, raoe, & kidnapping sprees at music festivals, etc).
rangerelf 2y ago
> Note: all that is in a flux now. Personally I trust Telegram less now as it seems the same exceptions the French has made for themselves can also be used by russia or any other terrorist regime. What made you believe that Russia hasn't had a firehose into Telegram's backend for the longest time?
- eitland 2y ago
  For one the fact that Ukraine used it for a long time and Russia even back before Ukraine told people to shun Telegram for work didn't seem to have very good intelligence. Also because I see over time how hopelessly incompetent Russian authorities are. Also (but this is more shaky, I never verified) because supposedly a good number of Telegram employees are Ukrainian.
blendergeek 2y ago
> Telegram’s encryption and anonymity provide a readymade technological platform for illicit activity, helping people to overcome information barriers and gaps in the circulation of information That sentence is definitely in the "services like Telegram should not exist" camp. I wouldn't call the entire article a "hit piece" but the author is definitely trying to sway minds in favor of more government crackdowns on apps like Telegram.
- hughdbrown 2y ago
  I am not conversant in this field, but this portion of the author's profile made me think that she favors the money launderers on some libertarian grounds: > Her dissertation explores how the illicit market intersects and coexists with Cambodia’s political and economic systems in the cybercrime sector, breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence and intersecting with transnational business networks to form a global illicit network. "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.
  - skinkestek 2y ago
    > "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal. I think that a reasonable and useful distinction can be made between "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" and distributing violence more widely should be a social goal. The first would be every ideological 2nd amendment supporter (as opposed to criminal, practical, contrarian or stick-it-to-the-libs 2nd amendment supporters). The second would be criminals.
    - hughdbrown 2y ago
      Here is a fuller expansion of the thinking behind my sentence you quote. The usual construction is: - in order to have a peaceful and ordered society, citizens renounce the use of violence and interact only by peaceful means - citizens of a city/region/country delegate the use of violence to the government (the "sovereign state") - the government's use of violence is carefully circumscribed by laws and use of governmental laws outside these circumstances is forbidden Which ends up defining government as the agent with the exclusive authority to use violence in a geographic region. And by extension has a monopoly on the use of violence, for the safety and freedom of all concerned. "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence", in this interpretation, would be to say that some or all people have recourse to violence, and in the worst case are not restrained by law or government. It's in this sense that I think that "breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" amounts to distributing access to violence more widely. The consistent application of these ideas would require that citizens not have the right to resist government application of force. In my view, the second amendment is not a carve-out of (i.e. an exception to) this doctrine if it is understood to be applicable to resisting force applied by other citizens, not by government.

goatsi 2y ago

The assumption has been that Telegram provided significantly more access to Russia years ago, as it remains unblocked (with channels even run by the government), and Pavel Durov wasn't arrested when he visited Russia after laws were passed that would apply to Telegram but he claims they were refusing to follow.

skinkestek 2y ago
That is a good argument. I have however thought that the actual reason was because Russia depends on it. They seriously even use it to coordinate artillery strikes although lately I have seen evidence they now sometimes use Discord. I am not sure, and being convinced that Pavel Durov has actually visited Russia several times the last few years make me question my assumptions. However I still see Russian opposition being more scared now after Pavels visit to France because now the terms of service has been updated to tell us that they will ahare our ip address and phone number with law enforcement if they feel compelled to or something to that effect.

nullorempty 2y ago

What criteria do you use when calling regime a terrorist regime?

MSFT_Edging 2y ago
Targeting civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, water supplies, food supply lines, etc for the purposes of instilling fear in a civilian population to push a particular stance.
- aethalus 2y ago
  To clarify, is it still a terrorist regime when it's not actually targeting civilians, but only by coincidence civilians and civilian infrastructure are close to the regime's military targets?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - airstrike 2y ago
    Traditionally, no. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians
  - toss1 2y ago
    When the targets, as a matter of publicly stated policy, engage in war crimes of using human shields to both attack civilians and defend themselves, store war munitions and setup command centers in hospitals, schools, etc., and when the country defends itself against those war crimes adhering to legal proportionality rules, then no. If it is actual indiscriminate bombing or targeting of civilian targets not used in war crimes, human shields, storing military equipment & munitions, command& control, etc., then yes.
    - immibis 2y ago
      What's the point of using human shields if your enemy isn't averse to killing the shields at all?
      - toss1 2y ago
        Bad publicity against your enemy; it's literally the stated policy of Hamas to make more Palestinian "martyrs". It gets others to scream "genocide", causrs more global division, etc. And, in fact, they are averse to killing the human shields, just not absolutely averse (and definitely less averse after you go on murder, raoe, & kidnapping sprees at music festivals, etc).

rangerelf 2y ago

> Note: all that is in a flux now. Personally I trust Telegram less now as it seems the same exceptions the French has made for themselves can also be used by russia or any other terrorist regime. What made you believe that Russia hasn't had a firehose into Telegram's backend for the longest time?

eitland 2y ago
For one the fact that Ukraine used it for a long time and Russia even back before Ukraine told people to shun Telegram for work didn't seem to have very good intelligence. Also because I see over time how hopelessly incompetent Russian authorities are. Also (but this is more shaky, I never verified) because supposedly a good number of Telegram employees are Ukrainian.

blendergeek 2y ago

> Telegram’s encryption and anonymity provide a readymade technological platform for illicit activity, helping people to overcome information barriers and gaps in the circulation of information That sentence is definitely in the "services like Telegram should not exist" camp. I wouldn't call the entire article a "hit piece" but the author is definitely trying to sway minds in favor of more government crackdowns on apps like Telegram.

hughdbrown 2y ago
I am not conversant in this field, but this portion of the author's profile made me think that she favors the money launderers on some libertarian grounds: > Her dissertation explores how the illicit market intersects and coexists with Cambodia’s political and economic systems in the cybercrime sector, breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence and intersecting with transnational business networks to form a global illicit network. "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.
- skinkestek 2y ago
  > "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal. I think that a reasonable and useful distinction can be made between "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" and distributing violence more widely should be a social goal. The first would be every ideological 2nd amendment supporter (as opposed to criminal, practical, contrarian or stick-it-to-the-libs 2nd amendment supporters). The second would be criminals.
  - hughdbrown 2y ago
    Here is a fuller expansion of the thinking behind my sentence you quote. The usual construction is: - in order to have a peaceful and ordered society, citizens renounce the use of violence and interact only by peaceful means - citizens of a city/region/country delegate the use of violence to the government (the "sovereign state") - the government's use of violence is carefully circumscribed by laws and use of governmental laws outside these circumstances is forbidden Which ends up defining government as the agent with the exclusive authority to use violence in a geographic region. And by extension has a monopoly on the use of violence, for the safety and freedom of all concerned. "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence", in this interpretation, would be to say that some or all people have recourse to violence, and in the worst case are not restrained by law or government. It's in this sense that I think that "breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" amounts to distributing access to violence more widely. The consistent application of these ideas would require that citizens not have the right to resist government application of force. In my view, the second amendment is not a carve-out of (i.e. an exception to) this doctrine if it is understood to be applicable to resisting force applied by other citizens, not by government.