Live data from Hacker News

Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

telegra.ph

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#41
Apple pushing requirements on apps is also (supposedly) why a lot of apps (such as Instagram, which had explicitly come out to blame Apple for this) banned content of women breastfeeding, as Apple (due to Steve Jobs: there is some interesting stuff you can find on this) is so puritan.

You can also find tons of other examples of Apple's influence making decisions about what large numbers of people can experience, often without even realizing it is Apple pulling the strings, whether it be content about drugs, guns, or the use of sweat shops in the manufacturing of smart phones (a category of app I find particularly egregious for Apple to be censoring as it is so self-serving).

The core problem is really that there is no alternative: if your app isn't allowed to be accepted by Apple, you simply don't get to address something like half of Americans with your product. Users generally don't own multiple phones and they can't take an extra trip to "visit" another phone for your product, so attempts to draw analogies to supermarkets or Walmart tend to be unhelpful.

It is more akin to a physical region of the country... imagine more as if all Apple users happened to live West of the Mississippi River or whatever and you weren't allowed to sell there because they had a monopoly, and for users to use your product they have to take on massive switching costs (of moving across the country).

This centralized bottleneck on software development and distribution then plays out in tons of ways, and tends to make Apple a patsy for local government interference. People like to claim "they have to follow local laws!"... but they didn't have to build a product that puts them in so much centralized control in the first place, as except for in the most authoritarian of regimes (such as North Korea) pretty much everywhere is ok with relatively open devices (such as computers or phones that support sideloading).

Apple has thereby made an active choice to build a product that is bad for democracy around the world (including here in the west!) in no small part because it makes them a ton more money than one that they would have less centralized control over (and thereby manage to charge their extreme overheads on all use cases for)... this profits before people approach should be familiar, as it is also similar to the playbook used by Big Oil and Big Tobacco.

And, as we see in situations like this, maybe that Google merely allows sideloading isn't sufficient, given how they actively discourage it with functionality barriers (alternative stores not supporting automatic updates), discouraging messaging (telling users that side loading is dangerous), complex activation paths (sometimes requiring switches in hidden developer-only settings panels), and even stronghanding users back into their happy path (such as with their anti-virus-like tool that tends to flag alternative stores as if some kind virus).

We need to stop allowing this sort of behavior. If a company is doing something that puts them in a situation where they are making decisions to support authoritarian regimes, we should not only be morally judging them--and of course this includes everyone who works at these companies on these products: you don't get some moral pass for "merely" being a foot soldier if you have the skills to take on another job--but maybe putting in place laws that prevent our companies from tolerating these kinds of decisions.

And again: this is not to say that "you are asking Apple to violate the laws of Russia" or "you are requiring Apple to not sell to Russia"... the laws in Russia or China or wherever we tend to be talking about when these issues come up do not make it illegal to sell a device that lets users install this software: Apple, and in a different (though I do think lesser, if only for being more indirect) way Google, have gone out of their way to build a product that puts them in that position.

(To the extent to which anyone finds any of these thoughts interesting, I gave a talk at Mozilla Privacy Lab back four years ago on "That's How You Get a Dystopia", citing numerous examples of how centralized systems lead directly to the problem of gatekeepers either themselves becoming corrupt over time or being forced to corrupt themselves to satisfy external pressures, with numerous concrete examples--every slide is a citation--across the entire industry. The saddest part is that it feels like I am constantly writing down new examples of the issue I could use to make this long talk even longer, as this is a never-ending problem.)

https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for open group chats it doesn't really matter. Because anyone can join anyway. Nobody complains that IRC isn't E2E encrypted and still many people use it every day :) That usecase doesn't benefit from it at all. For closed (invite only) group chats and 1:1 chats I think it should be encrypted by default though. Like WA and Signal. There's the secret chats of course but they only work on one device and not on…

I would like to point out that key management is hard when, like telegram, you can seamlessly access your account on multiple devices. See Signal or WhatsApp asking you to be on the same network with your phone etc. This is the only reason I didn't move to Signal yet and I don't think there's (yet) a clear solution.

The Signal desktop application doesn't have such a requirement. Unlike WhatsApp, it doesn't connect to your phone. You just scan a QR code for the initial setup and after that it's completely independent.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#43
post #29

Twitter is currently blocking the sharing of this post: https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1441875098810519558?...

Twitter blocks telegra.ph links for the last 3 years

Thanks. Turns out graph.org links are not blocked and can be used instead.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#44
post #13

This is why the web is so important: no app stores to pressure. It looks to be like this particular telegram bot could have been a web site?

Why would it matter? If a website tries to undermine a dictator with long hands, the website's owner needs a better defense than tech buzzwords.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#46
post #29

Twitter is currently blocking the sharing of this post: https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1441875098810519558?...

Twitter blocks telegra.ph links for the last 3 years

A friend recently wanted to post something anonymously. Turns out that finding a webhost depends on having an email address, and email hosts depend on having a phone number, and phone numbers depend on a payment mechanism and - in case of prepaid - a government ID needs to be shown. Telegra.ph seems to be one of the few places where you can (with a reasonable amount of markup) just post things at will. I didn't know it was censored on popular media, that's an interesting twist to the degree to which you can still anonymously post things online.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#47
post #12

A very objective article, actually, and goes well to explain how this request to block the "voting app" isn't at all as controversial as portrayed in the Western MSM: > Second, this particular demand of the Russian authorities wasn't obviously unconstitutional, as they referred to a law that restricts campaigning after people start casting their votes. Laws against political campaigning while voting is underway exist…

Except that law does not apply for these elections that last several days https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 The law allowing campaigning was passed in May 2021.

Yes, and this is the most puzzling lie in Durov’s post.

He knows he’s lying. Personally I think he’s found a common ground with Kremlin behind the scenes.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#48
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A website which would get blocked instantaneously. Russia has an extensive censorship toolset available. They've blanket blocked a whole range of Cloudflare IPs at some point because they wanted a certain website behind Cloudflare shut down and didn't care about the collateral damage. Of course, such a block is easy to circumvent with a VPN, but if you need a VPN to access it then the service is essentially unavailab…

If your adversary is happy to block arbitrary network requests, why do they need to get the app removed from the app store? Can't they just block all requests it makes?

He mentioned that Telegram used Google and Apple's notifications to push fresh ip addresses to the app. Russian authorities can't block notifications selectively to the Telegram app, only to all apps that use Google's and Apple's infrastructure.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but I would say it's "objective" from telegrams perspective. They shared their decision making process which I agreed with, not too sure what would have been a better choice in that situation.

> it's "objective" from telegrams perspective. that's another way to say subjective if you aren't willing to admit it. the whole point of objective/subjective is that its supposed to be POV neutral.

How's it not objective, though?

What if the request came from the EU or the US, to ban an account that was campaigning in local elections in violation of local election finance laws?

Note that the ban is not even permanent! It's only for the last 2 days of the 3-day voting window. Campaigning was supposed to have been illegal throughout the whole 3-day period.

Re: Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

#50
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A website which would get blocked instantaneously. Russia has an extensive censorship toolset available. They've blanket blocked a whole range of Cloudflare IPs at some point because they wanted a certain website behind Cloudflare shut down and didn't care about the collateral damage. Of course, such a block is easy to circumvent with a VPN, but if you need a VPN to access it then the service is essentially unavailab…

If your adversary is happy to block arbitrary network requests, why do they need to get the app removed from the app store? Can't they just block all requests it makes?

Yes and in fact this is exactly what they did to Telegram for a while. But they found ways around it like those changing IPs.
Post reply on HN