Here's a cartoon I found years ago that says it better than a thousand words. I posted it like a half dozen times, and it keeps being spot on. https://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/control-of-i...
[deleted]
Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
21–30 of 46 posts
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#22I guess when you label your mendacious, snooping, encryption-breaking, backdoor sneak schemes created for the sake of easier mass surveillance as "child protection measures", moral alchemy turns them into wholesome good programs that only monsters would object to.
Yeah it's all true except 99% of Telegram is not encrypted by design and majority of content is publicly accessible to anyone with account
I would agree with you if Telegram actually had e2ee like Signal. But it isn't. No encryption breaking required to moderate public content.
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#23Backdooring a social media platform to undermine encryption "in the name of children"... It's for child safety alone. Sure. ::insert eye roll::
Telegram is not really encrypted. No one blame Signal that you can send whatever on it.
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#24[flagged]
Well, not to play the devils advocate but there have been several instances where most of Europe, including France, made efforts to protect children. Just in the recent conflicts: EU is against genocide in Ukraine, where more than 500 children were killed and +25.000 children were kidnapped and filtrated in Russia. A deliberate action to eliminate Ukrainians and the Ukrainian culture. In this case, Putin has several…
[flagged]
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#25From the french gov's perspective, telegram is a worldwide web of underground tunnels that are inaccessible to the gov. And the gov, being a paranoidal control-freak, gets really upset when you're hiding something from it.
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#26> Another norm that Telegram does not conform to in the usual way Seems beyond a "norm" if your CEO is jailed for not "conforming"
"He was jailed for not following norms and we know he was not following norms because he was jailed" is maybe slightly circular
Good thing they have judges in France no?
But let's face it many on HN deny the norm and couldn't care less if Telegram is used for criminal content. It's undeniable that the app has a certain reputation.
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#27Backdooring a social media platform to undermine encryption "in the name of children"... It's for child safety alone. Sure. ::insert eye roll::
Telegram is not really encrypted. No one blame Signal that you can send whatever on it.
It's Telegram's "groups" channels that make it popular.
I'm not sure if Signal has that feature?
Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#28Re: Telegram repeatedly refuses to join child protection schemes
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
"He was jailed for not following norms and we know he was not following norms because he was jailed" is maybe slightly circular
Good thing they have judges in France no? But let's face it many on HN deny the norm and couldn't care less if Telegram is used for criminal content. It's undeniable that the app has a certain reputation.
I’ll take this bait.
For those who have built or participated in building large scale social networks (nvm global scale), you learn the Tim Ferris rule very quickly: 1 in a million is a common occurrence.
As soon as you have a social network you’ll experience a massive industry, trained over decades & with plenty of financial backers, farming it for victims.
Government bodies are hand-waving in the same way companies are - moderation is a difficult, unsolved problem and if you solved it you’d have a new set of difficult problems (opposing sides feeling they are getting more censored than others). No one has a solution to this, which is why regulations are entirely “doing enough to prevent the problem.” Can’t be done.
What I’ve seen expressed on HN has been the central posit of information systems since the beginning - if you require your information systems to be crime & abuse free, you will not have an information system anyone can use.
My personal stance is that an issue does not become a moral one until there is an actual solution on the table or the will to fund its development for the public good.
Where is the EU grants to solve this problem?
It’s seems fairly clear that the EU has invented a revenue engine that collects rent from tech to alleviate pressure on its own unpopular cost burden on its member countries. It’s smart, probably inevitable, and a reality for tech companies to contend with for the foreseeable future.