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

Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

netzpolitik.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 228 posts

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#181

Post by ailef »

YEwSdObPQT wrote: post #159
hutzlibu wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People can say anything they like to me or about me. What they cannot do is vandalise my property, take my property or assault me." So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? I don't think so. This is the line I mean, which…

> So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? Yes > And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? If people are likely to assault someone because someone else told them over social media. They would have probably done it anyway. > You claimed they killed more than the naz…

That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source. From the page itself:

> Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions, and the idea to group together different countries such as Afghanistan and Hungary has no adequate explanation.

There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition. One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#182

Post by irtigor »

mannerheim wrote: post #177
irtigor wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they didn't have a parent company with even more economic presence than just them (serving American-centric news with ads), but they would like to have that path still easily open in the future, after all its a big market and... that's the point. Off course you can literally ignore all legal requests for compliance from all foregein countries until they do the worst that they can legally do to you which isn't much…

Should Belarus be allowed to arrest a blogger who enters their airspace because somebody else made a critical comment about Lukashenko on their blog?

"Should" has no place in what I'm trying to explain to you. I have never said laws are always fair or anything like it. The point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, by saying "but my servers are in the usa, just like the physical office", "but it is truly impossible to stop every German user to use my site" and stuff like that you will only sound extremely naive, what they (you or anybody) can do is ignore the request to comply with foregein law and suffer the consequences (be blocked there and/or several others) or comply with the foreign law and that doesn't mean necessarily removing the content (focusing in this case), they can opt to make a honest attempt at blocking Germany users from using the app (leave the German market).

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#183

Post by [deleted] »

mannerheim wrote: post #170
zaarn wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you don't. Telegram blocked the channel in germany. So I don't get what your anger is all about then. Telegram Operators were given the choice of leaving germany entirely and blocking users there, be blocked by germany or remove the channel. They choose their favorite option.

Germany forced Project Gutenberg to block them for a time as well. This should not be the responsibility of the website owner to comply with the laws of a country they don't have a presence in, presumably under threat of either extradition or arrest if they one day happen to enter the borders of the country. If the website doesn't comply with the laws of the country, that country should block it, and that should be t…

[deleted]

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#184

Post by mannerheim »

irtigor wrote: post #182
mannerheim wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Belarus be allowed to arrest a blogger who enters their airspace because somebody else made a critical comment about Lukashenko on their blog?

"Should" has no place in what I'm trying to explain to you. I have never said laws are always fair or anything like it. The point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, by saying "but my servers are in the usa, just like the physical office", "but it is truly impossible to stop every German user to use my site" and stuff like that you will only sound extremely naive, what they (you or anybody) can do is ign…

If the consequence is blocking, that's completely acceptable. If the consequence is that I have to comply with the laws of 200 jurisdictions and probably more or otherwise get arrested if I step foot on their soil (or pass through their airspace), that's completely unacceptable.

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#185

Post by xtracto »

anthk wrote: post #68

Ah, yes, "censoring" neonazis. Eh no. The US would do the same with a Telegram/Snapchat group hosting AlQaeda supporters.

Right, wasn't an app called Parler banned just for giving a voice to right-wing people in the USA?

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#186

Post by zaarn »

Zak wrote: post #178
zaarn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is clearly a bait and switch. If illegal actions are being perpetrated (e.g., death threats) then prosecute them. They are. The operators of the channel have an open arrest warrant for inciting hatred, denying the holocaust and death threats against public and private persons. > wholly based in the USA because it does not like things on the website that are no only legal in the USA, protected by the fundamental…

It seems to me there are three possible ways law on the internet can work, to include ill-defined hybrids between them. Please let me know if I've missed any: 1. The law where a service is hosted applies. Entities in other legal jurisdictions may not be allowed to do business with the service (e.g. run ads on it) if it doesn't follow the law where they're located. Cost: people may be able to access content that's ill…

If you do business in a country, laws of that country apply to you. Selling apps in that country would count I presume. Part of the threat from the german government was to have GPlay and Apple delete the app from german storefronts.

I don't see how that is much of an issue.

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#187

Post by stjohnswarts »

zaarn wrote: post #175
stjohnswarts wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're a US citizen or not but if you are then you know regardless of your opinion then there is nothing you can do about Naziism as long as they stay within parameters of the law. From a legal standpoint you're wrong, they absolutely can and do operate in the USA up and until the point they break the law. That's why there is a 1st amendment to protect our opinions from government intervention as long…

I think the USA Standpoint on allowing Nazis is wrong. Plain and simple. It should be illegal to have publicly expressed opinions like "the holocaust never happened" and "jews ought to be exterminated". I would also point out that Nazis didn't "collude to overthrow the government" until they were well in control of the police, the courts and the military. So don't think your 1st amendment rights or any rights protect…

Again, I respect that is your opinion. I am glad you have the freedom to say it openly. I'll err on the side of freedom every time over government telling me how to think. Have a great day, I am through here.

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#188

Post by irtigor »

mannerheim wrote: post #184
irtigor wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Should" has no place in what I'm trying to explain to you. I have never said laws are always fair or anything like it. The point is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, by saying "but my servers are in the usa, just like the physical office", "but it is truly impossible to stop every German user to use my site" and stuff like that you will only sound extremely naive, what they (you or anybody) can do is ign…

If the consequence is blocking, that's completely acceptable. If the consequence is that I have to comply with the laws of 200 jurisdictions and probably more or otherwise get arrested if I step foot on their soil (or pass through their airspace), that's completely unacceptable.

Well you always have the option of not doing business in 200 countries, just because the internet made that easier it doesn't mean you must... About consequences for completely ignoring the courts that will depend on what exactly you are being accused of facilitating/doing, who's accusing you... Just as usual.

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#189

Post by YEwSdObPQT »

ailef wrote: post #181
YEwSdObPQT wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So can "they" openly say, that they think, you deserve to be robbed and assaulted? Yes > And for the sake of it, let "them" be a famous antifa influencer, so you can expect that other people do as their influencer told them is the right thing? If people are likely to assault someone because someone else told them over social media. They would have probably done it anyway. > You claimed they killed more than the naz…

That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source. From the page itself: > Any attempt to estimate a total number of killings under communist regimes depends greatly on definitions, and the idea to group together different countries such as Afghanistan and Hungary has no adequate explanation. There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with ta…

> That page is what I would definitely not characterize as a proper source

Obfuscate the discussion with numbers when it entirely misses the point I was making. So I will spell it out for you.

It is totally okay to bring into question the numbers and whether it happened when it comes to the crimes of the communist regimes. However if you deny the holocaust that is too much and must be criminalised. That is a double standard.

Either let everyone deny any event occurred or don't let them deny any genocide. If you are going to denounce Nazism and essentially make it illegal, you must also do the same for Communist, Jihadism or any other extremist group. But it is only done for Nazis because they must justify curtailing your freedoms by pointing to the very small amount of people that still think the Failed Austrian Artist with a Charlie Chaplin moustache might have had some good ideas.

> There doesn't seem to be a real consensus on what actually should be counted or not. But I'm ok with taking the widest, most encompassing definition.

Whether or not the Communists regimes killed more or not doesn't really matter. The problem is that there is a double standard. That wearing a Nazi Swastika is somehow beyond the pale, but waving a communist flag with Che T-Shirt is somehow acceptable. Both the Nazi and Communist regimes committed atrocities.

BTW Far-right apologists do the same. Try to obfuscate the issue by talking about numbers and whether the numbers were true. I've been to the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Cambodia. I know what I saw there.

> One should wonder then, what number would we get if we apply the same definition to pro-Western/capitalist countries?

I am essentially a Anarchist (I don't like putting labels on myself, but for most intents and purposes that is what I am). So I am completely on board with criticising the state's wars done in the name of "spreading democracy and freedom". I was against the Iraq War, The War in Afghanistan, Drone Strikes. People bring this up as some sort of gotcha. I don't support any War other than one of purely defence.

Re: Telegram now censoring channels in Germany for “violating local laws”

#190

Post by anthk »

xtracto wrote: post #185
anthk wrote: post #68

Ah, yes, "censoring" neonazis. Eh no. The US would do the same with a Telegram/Snapchat group hosting AlQaeda supporters.

Right, wasn't an app called Parler banned just for giving a voice to right-wing people in the USA?

"Right wing". Nazis, not just plain conservatives.
Post reply on HN