711–720 of 1001 posts
the EU is becoming a parody >we've got to save democracy by restricting free speech and enforcing laws and regulations created by unelected officials
[flagged]
Not clear right now if France thinks he was actively complicit with the four horsemen listed, or if just the act of running Telegram makes him complicit in their eyes, or something in the middle, e.g. they asked for help and Telegram turned them down. This will be an interesting case to watch -- I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort -- but generally my un…
> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort But that's what exactly they want no? EU is literally implementing a regulation that will allow to "circumvent end-to-end encryption to address child sexual abuse material". I believe it failed to pass recently, but they will try again - and nothing stops countries to implement it independently. I think France is th…
> I don't believe there are any western nations that want non-locally-backdoored messaging of any sort
means
> I believe every western nation wants all messaging to be locally-backdoored
the EU is becoming a parody >we've got to save democracy by restricting free speech and enforcing laws and regulations created by unelected officials
Throwing these people to jail horner, preventing them from wine and dine in destinations they actually want to go to, that puts a price they have to pay personally.
We need to do more of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> How does an inanimate object incite violence or sell drugs? Please stop being so (seemingly-intentionally) obtuse about this. Certainly the participants of the channel are the ones who incite violence or sell drugs. But some laws also make it illegal to "host" the people who do those sorts of things. A Telegram channel can host these people. > If France can't access these channels, how do they know the violence or…
I'm not being obtuse, I'm exceptionally uncomfortable with someone rather blithely saying a "channel is against the law." I'm probing the depths of that. I'm sorry if this is somehow inconvenient to you but I have no intention of altering my behavior and I find it rude that you would even ask in such a way.
> A Telegram channel can host these people.
Is this the majority of users? Is Telegram intentionally marketing it's services to these users? Does it do internal research to be more appealing to this use case?
> They can access those channels.
So Telegram is not intentionally hiding them from the government or preventing their discovery and infiltration by law enforcement? Then why arrest the CEO?
> and apparently under French law, the host can also be liable.
If you're comfortable saying "well, it's legal in France" then what do you hope to gain from further discussion with someone you believe is going to be intentionally obtuse?
> because Telegram hides their real identities and locations.
They are buying drugs? Doesn't this require two people to meet up and physically exchange goods and money? What good does outlawing the channel do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why stop there? Because we want to, and we can. I don't get how HN consistently fails to understand the actual social and political process by which regulations are made. I constantly see this argument which effectively boils down to "if you ban a thing, you will also need to ban everything else, which is absurd, so you shouldn't ban anything". But in real life we can choose what we ban. Everything is a trade-off;…
Because 'we' want to. Who is this 'we' you are speaking about? Globalist authoritarian elite that you are somehow part of? Democratic voters? Communication application users? Whose this 'we'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All on a telephone, too.
Yes, and telephone operators are required to give law enforcement enough access in order to track down people who do crimes over the telephone. Telegram does not do that, and does not shut down the illegal behavior. The problem isn't that illegal stuff happens on Telegram, the problem is that Telegram won't help law enforcement when that illegal behavior is found.
They are not; however, required to prevent certain people on a prescribed government list or criteria from owning or using a telephone or from dialing certain numbers.
> won't help law enforcement
So it's not because a "channel is against the law."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be surprised to learn who's doing the pushing: https://www.wired.com/story/europes-moral-crusader-lays-down... https://www.statewatch.org/news/2024/july/police-should-have...
Durov 2024 interview, https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcas... [text] & https://tuckercarlson.com/the-tucker-carlson-interview-pavel... [video] > Telegram has been used by protesters in places like Hong Kong, Belarus, Kazakhstan, even in Barcelona back in the day. It's been a tool for the opposition to a large extent. But it doesn't really matter whether it's opposition or the ruling party that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not progressive. It's protectionist. The people they're protecting carry a lot of guilt, and so really like the "progressive" label, it's puts a really nice spin on their particular version of graft and corruption.
Yep. If the Swedish government really cared about children, they would do something to stop the massive underage gang violence problem the country has. 12 year olds being used as hitmen for drug gangs is not normal, yet that's the reality.
A tip is that whenever you reach a ludicrous conclusion "they do nothing to stop underage violence", it's probably your analysis that is ludicrous and not the object being analyzed.