Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

thephonesgsm.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 276 posts

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#241

Post by EGreg »

Karunamon wrote: post #217
EGreg wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the right to privacy should not be absolute, it must be balanced against other rights. Same goes for the right to free speech. For example, if someone is broadcasting to 1 million people, their message should adhere to some standards. If something is really a popular message, it can be spread using "totally protected" speech to up to 1000 people at a time. I think giving a platform to ISIS and others to easil…

if someone is broadcasting to 1 million people, their message should adhere to some standards. I don't agree with that statement at any level! Those 1 million people have absolute freedom to listen or to not listen. This puts you in the position of telling people they can't hear something they want to hear. As a bonus, those standards you mention can easily become a cudgel against people the government wants to impli…

No, they have freedom to listen or not, but is it not automatically clear that the broadcaster should have that freedom.

The government won't be able to silence a true message that doesn't "hijack mass media" and spreads by 1-to-1000 at a time.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#242

Post by ppadron »

PauloManrique wrote: post #220
jacquesm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First time I've read something by you I completely disagree with. That's scary. Well, there is a first time for everything. > Simply stating that they are upholding the law of the country, which WhatsApp decided to ignore. Have a read: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/brazi... Brazil is not exactly a paragon of virtue when it comes to police force and legal affairs. Let's give the GGP a free p…

Most of the numbers about brazilian police are totally out of place and don't count the way our country is right now about violence. We got the highest homicide count on the planet, being a country that banned guns. That, for sure, makes police more agressive.

How can those numbers be 'out of place'? Just last month the state of São Paulo started to remove assassinations by the police from the official murder stats [1] to make it look like things are getting better.

Also:

"Between January and November in 2014, 816 people were murdered by military police officers in the state of São Paulo." - and it did not reduce crime [2]

[1] http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2015/11/1704292-morte...

[2] http://ponte.org/pm-de-sp-bate-recorde-de-mortes-e-nao-reduz...

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#243

Post by AndrewKemendo »

dang wrote: post #223
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #150

I'm a judge in Brazil. Your comment history says otherwise: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4167143 Seem to be a run of the mill dev to me. I'm surprised you got as many credulous responses as you did.

What you did here is not cool. On HN, we start from the benefit of the doubt. A person can be both a programmer and a judge. pqdbr's comment was coherent and plausible. The null hypothesis is therefore that pqdbr is making a valuable contribution. It's fine and interesting to look through someone's comment history for background. It can also be ok to ask questions based on that, but this is always delicate and must b…

Totally respect moving it as it is a distraction at this point.

That said, my comment wasn't particularly harsh and I think it's reasonable to be suspect of such lofty claims, especially with basically no proof to be found anywhere in a cursory search. One commenter did some serious research to find Portuguese language proof and that is why this was even an issue.

Had the commenter been full of BS, which is the overwhelming majority in these cases, nobody would have made much of a fuss about it.

I also expressed my gratitude for pointing out the errant conclusion to the other poster who did research, so I have no problem admitting a false conclusion. Being wrong with a lot of support (upvotes) seems to be my primary sin here.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#244

Post by Retra »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #180
Retra wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question is what does it matter to you? Nothing a person says is correct just because they have the right title or label.

If the goal is to simply make a compelling argument then stating your title immediately induces bias.

My point is that you have nothing to gain by calling into question the title. You give people the benefit of the doubt because that's the way to maintain civil discourse.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#245

Post by teekert »

EGreg wrote: post #186
teekert wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it." You determine who is a criminal so you determine who has the right to privacy? Maybe you are a reasonable person but I think it is naive to operate under the assumption that governments/judges will always be reasonable. I think indeed that you may be spied upon when you are suspect of a crime but to force Wha…

I think the right to privacy should not be absolute, it must be balanced against other rights. Same goes for the right to free speech. For example, if someone is broadcasting to 1 million people, their message should adhere to some standards. If something is really a popular message, it can be spread using "totally protected" speech to up to 1000 people at a time. I think giving a platform to ISIS and others to easil…

I find it very dangerous if anyone would capable of -or should have the power to- determine the standards that messages should adhere to. That is precisely the type of behavior that will once prevent a resistance from speaking out against its oppressor.

And we are not talking 0.1%, we are talking about a lot less than 1 in 1000 and that is important here. I strongly believe that taking freedom away, i.e. by prescribing what the standards are that messages should adhere to, will breed disrespect, anger, hate, feelings of oppression.

A mind virus does not ignite among happy, free people, it ignites among oppressed people. We should avoid oppressing people.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#246

Post by teekert »

EGreg wrote: post #241
Karunamon wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if someone is broadcasting to 1 million people, their message should adhere to some standards. I don't agree with that statement at any level! Those 1 million people have absolute freedom to listen or to not listen. This puts you in the position of telling people they can't hear something they want to hear. As a bonus, those standards you mention can easily become a cudgel against people the government wants to impli…

No, they have freedom to listen or not, but is it not automatically clear that the broadcaster should have that freedom. The government won't be able to silence a true message that doesn't "hijack mass media" and spreads by 1-to-1000 at a time.

You are saying freedom of speech is a bad thing. You are endorsing state censorship.

Do you realize that at one point you yourself could be in a position where you disagree with your government and you want to speak up only to find your message being silenced constantly?

Either all people are equal or they are not, some people can not be more equal than others.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#247

Post by sneak »

noir-york wrote: post #97
sneak wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No right is absolute What about the right to life, or the right to not be tortured?

Right to life is not absolute, otherwise there would be no army; nice thought, but not going to happen. Right to not be tortured is debatable No right is absolute, and there is no single hierarchy of rights. Read Isaiah Berlin's seminal Four Essays on Liberty on why.

If the right to not be tortured is debatable, why do you refuse to debate me when I assert that it is absolute?

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#248

Post by caskance »

siculars wrote: post #145
kbart wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don't have it." The problem is, that by definition, you can't take away privacy from criminals without taking it away from everyone else. Especially when term criminal varies from country to country -- in this case it might be a drug lord, but i.e. in Russia it might be an opposition leader or journalist that dug too deep.

...or a gay person. Or a Jewish person. Or a Christian. Or a woman. Take your pick, somewhere on this planet it's against someone's law to be that and communicate freely.

Then fix the real problem of the bad law. Deflection only makes things worse.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#249

Post by EGreg »

teekert wrote: post #246
EGreg wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they have freedom to listen or not, but is it not automatically clear that the broadcaster should have that freedom. The government won't be able to silence a true message that doesn't "hijack mass media" and spreads by 1-to-1000 at a time.

You are saying freedom of speech is a bad thing. You are endorsing state censorship. Do you realize that at one point you yourself could be in a position where you disagree with your government and you want to speak up only to find your message being silenced constantly? Either all people are equal or they are not, some people can not be more equal than others.

Yes I realize that. If I disagree with my government and my message cannot spread by any method other than hijacking mass media, then perhaps most people don't feel as I do. And that is super significant. Everyone is equal, and giving random people the chance to control a huge megaphone makes you LESS equal, not more. The one who gets their megaphone spreads their message more. And with great power comes great responsibility. Think of Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and others who control a platform. Think of FOX and others. Can they do absolutely anything they want?

When you let mass media be used by ISIS and others in the name of free speech, you're giving them a free way to do super-untargeted advertising to their new recruits.

Re: Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban

#250

Post by caskance »

ethbro wrote: post #102
_jgdh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its absurdly simple to make someone an alleged criminal. You simply need to accuse them of a crime. There are many countries where the government does exactly this - they accuse people such as human rights activists of crimes like "fomenting discord" and "promoting unrest" and lock them up. Under your enlightened regime of revoking the human right of privacy from alleged criminal, these people would have no recourse.…

I think the reasoning proceed from two different opinions of the citizenry. It's my opinion that in any reasonably developed and old democracy a majority of the population are currently criminals in the sense that they have broken at least one law. In reality, that law is either trivial, inconsistently enforced, or generally ignored. But the important thing is that it's still on the books as the law of the land , and…

You've described a problem privacy only exacerbates. Complete enforcement is the best way to get bad laws adjusted or removed. Privacy makes that harder.
Post reply on HN