171–180 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does telegram have employees in Germany? Why would the German government have control over any corporation on the planet?
Usually when you offer services in other countries, you have to obey their laws as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument is not honest. There already are laws against doxing and threats. We don't need to censor a whole platform because of that. Especially if it's done just so we can conveniently muzzle groups that just want to protest against masks, vaccines, or lockdowns.
Okay you have clearly no clue what you are talking about. Its not about "querdenker" putting there bullshit on and promoting there products. It's about the far right and people are getting more aggressive every day and writing death threats and leaking addresses and a lot of nasty shit. It's not about selling your homeopathic sugar pills. It's not about stupid people spreading fake news. It's about people calling oth…
In order to institute fascism, Hitler needed a crumbling economy, not an encrypted messenger!!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it defined by you who is allowed to participate and what makes a protest legitimate? If people there make illegal actions, the police has to intervene. That's it.
Every protest has someone organizing it. It is their job to distance themselves from certain groups and to send them off. And if those groups don't comply, the police is happy to help. But instead of doing that, they happily walk side by side with those groups and participate in protests that are organized by those. They want to be accepted by the majority? Then they need to stop walking with literal Nazis.
BTW I just found this https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236205086/Ver... by accident.
So even the Verfassungsschutz is saying that the majority of the protesters are "usual citizens".
I don't want to persuade you of anything. You can think what you want. You should just leave the same freedom to others and not frame them because some nutjobs are part of a protest..
Have a nice day.
"I want to ban the other guy's political speech" is business as usual for centuries even in the "free" west. Whats new is "I want to band all criticism of my religion", that aspect is new for the "free" west.
So leaking addresses of politicians you don't like and calling on your day by day getting more aggressive and extreme far right telegram group is okay for you?
Ok, a lot of the points raised here come up all the time; maybe it helps if I summarize some more of them: - Argument: States cannot ban/close platforms - sure they can, as soon as you kick an app off the app store it's over for most of the users. That's a severe step though, and could be legally contested; my personal opinion is that it's realistic a court could deem a complete shutdown unconstitutional. - Argument:…
It's a tradeoff and before you know it, you are the one sitting on the wrong side of the table. Watcha gonna do then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, cutting out Germany means that you'd eventually have to cut out the entire EU. If you just block Germany they're going to push on the EU to take up this fight for them. It'll all be in the name of "stopping online abuse" or something like that. Germany, in general, seems to be a very poor country to do digital business compared to most other places. This is the same country that required (requires?) streamers…
It's the other way around, if it's not going through local legislation it gets pushed to the EU level. Doing digital business doesn't seem to be that hard considering that in the end everyone still tries to get german customers/subscribers. And the ruling on broadcasting licenses for streamers was relaxed a lot, it's required if you had more than 20 000 viewers on average over the last 6 months, only very few german…
That doesn't make it any better. You have +20k viewers on avg last 6 months and the government doesn't like what you are saying for any reason, they revoke your license. If this isn't a control over freedom of speech (and I'm not saying freedom to call violence on people or anything here), I don't know what is really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is censorship - not really, censorship in the German legal context [...] Censorship, and the legal concept of censorship, are such very different things that using one as the response to the other is silly! The local lawmaker's definition of censorship in a legal context, when transposed in a non-legal discussion, is just one country's opinion, not an authoritative answer to whether something is censorship.
I'm not sure I follow - the definition of censorship is in some way the most important question here. It's absolutely vital to understand that prohibiting some speech has been a core feature of Germany's democracy since 1945. At the same time, the public use of the word "censorship" has diluted so much (especially online) that it's hardly useful. So I'd argue that it totally makes sense to try and define what we're t…
> Argument: This is X - not really, X defined legally (..)
Which is in itself an often occurring argument which (in my opinion) isn't extremely useful.
You are transposing the legal definition of censorship into this argument. This is perfectly alright, except most people who make the argument "this is censorship" aren't referring to the legal definition of censorship. So your counterpoint is moot.
I'm not trying to say that those people are right necessarily, just that arguing against these points requires other arguments than this one.
(edited for clarity)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will banning Telegram limit these harmful activities? Won't bad actors just switch to a different communication channel?
It is about Telegram ignoring German Law and not answering any letters which by EU Law they have to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the mailman who carried the coordinating communications is not guilty of participating in that coordination, doesn't open and read the mail, and the postal service is not shut down when the activity is discovered. Perhaps some would say "Ah but it's possible to intercept and open someone's mail, and that's the difference!" Probably with a warrant an individual's mail can be intercepted, but if the letter inside w…
> has never been and cannot be illegal to communicate by code This is a very sweeping statement that is false for lots of places and times; while Germany is at the supportive end of encryption various other EU countries have mandatory key disclosure to law enforcement. Even in the US it's illegal to make encrypted radio transmissions on certain bands. It is a poor argument to make the it would be impossible for Germa…
If you write a letter, and there is no way to prove that it is in code, or not in code, then there is no way to make it either explicitly legal or explicitly illegal. You could only do so arbitrarily which is invalid.
I already acknowledged that this does not stop anyone from writing a law that says anything. But it's the same as writing a law that pi is 3 from now on.
The sweeping appearance is irrelevant.
The collective panic and Luddism about Telegram in Germany is really scary. I watch Tagesschau (probably most respected news show) every evening. Any time Telegram is mentioned it's always being attacked, as if it's only purpose was to enable crime and terrorism.
say what you want there are stickers all over Hamburg asking you to join telegram channels if you need drugs, if you are racist or a so called "querdenker". It may not be the main use of telegram but if you are a member of the public only seeing these kind of stickers everywhere would make me worry as well.