> Telegram did something the government didn't like, so the government tried to ban it and failed. All of the mess this caused is entirely the fault of the Russian Government, because Telegram didn't make these changes.
It is a very strange logic.
Telegram did something that no longer was legal under the Russian law. Yes, it may be a stupid law, and yes, it may be very selectively applied, and yes, it is the government that gets to write the law and thus define the rules of the game. I get all that, and I share the hatred towards the Russian government and its legal system.
Nevertheless, if we step aside and look at the situation disinterestedly, Telegram could no longer operate in Russia according to the laws of the land. So, according to the twisted Russian legal system, Telegram was in the wrong.
It could have just acknowledged the fact and stopped operating in Russia.
Instead its position was that it does not recognise the Russian ruling and will keep operating in the country where it officially was no longer welcome.
The Russian authorities tried to enforce the law, but due to the lack of either grace or expertise made a mess out of it.
Look, I am not arguing from a legalistic perspective. I do not worship the law, nor do I tell others to respect it. I would break it as likely as the next guy if I could get away with it. But what I am saying is that the Russian authorities were within their right.
As for victim blaming, you would have been correct if we were discussing Telegram as the victim. But in my analysis, the victims are the public who had to endure broken internet, because a company and an enforcement agency were both making a point.