22 ms·
insanity. it almost undercuts everything they do.
by Brushfire 2mo ago
insanity. it almost undercuts everything they do.
- zuzululu 2mo agoi think it makes perfect sense if you understand what telegram is and which country it benefits
- gruez 2mo agoSince when did registars care about the political positions of its clients? They could have registered on cloudflare or namecheap and I doubt they'd bat an eye. Telegram is mainstream enough that nobody is going to cancel them, unlike kiwi farms or 4chan.
- zuzululu 2mo agoregistrars are bound by the political whims of those that allow them to exist there have been multiple domains that have been shut down at the behest of certain governments even when its well beyond their jurisdiction kiwi farms and 4chan are relatively harmless compare to what Telegram enables yet kiwi farms was taken offline at the behest of a political camp that has certain opinions about very basic stuffs that shouldn't even be grounds to be considered.
- gruez 2mo ago>kiwi farms and 4chan are relatively harmless compare to what Telegram enables yet kiwi farms was taken offline at the behest of a political camp that has certain opinions about very basic stuffs that shouldn't even be grounds to be considered. For most people, the % of content that's "harmful" matters more than absolute harm numbers. This is a good thing, because otherwise after telegram, the next app to be canceled would be signal.
- applfanboysbgon 2mo ago> kiwi farms and 4chan are relatively harmless compare to what Telegram enables yet kiwi farms was taken offline at the behest of a political camp that has certain opinions about very basic stuffs that shouldn't even be grounds to be considered. Literally what the fuck is this take? Kiwifarms' central purpose for existing is to organize doxxing and harassment efforts. It has harassed multiple people into committing suicide, and celebrates these murders as achievements. It is shameless to downplay that in the way you're doing. 4chan and Telegram are completely unrelated. They are low-censorship platforms. People can misuse them to commit harm, as they can misuse any place they're allowed to speak with privacy/anonymity, but the platforms do not exist for the explicit purpose to cause harm.
- etc-hosts 2mo agoNews outlets have been reporting on how the Terrorgram, O9A, 764, and murder loving European fascist groups have been organizing on Telegram (it's in the name!) for years. Discord at least attempts to do some moderation about this. Telegram's strategy to deal with violent extremist groups on its platform is to not ban them but just make it hard to discover. But this doesn't stop someone already in the groups from inviting their buddies. I bet they actually prefer it this way.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- applfanboysbgon 2mo agoThey subscribe to a belief that private speech should not be surveilled. I'm partial to their views. For all of human history, any two people could get together and privately talk. Talk about anything, including committing crimes. Now communication methods have changed but people still want to get together and talk about things, privately. Some of those things include crime, sure. The problem is it's not your freaking business what anyone is talking about privately. As soon as you open the door to surveillance "because crime", now you also have surveillance because you disagree with the government. And when it comes to internet surveillance, everything is preserved forever and also sold/leaked routinely, so you're really committing to leaking everyone's private life to anyone who is interested, forever. The internet is such an integral part of how most people communicate that "just don't say anything personal on the internet, ever" is not in any way reality. I think this is not a line that can afford to be crossed. It is better for criminals and terrorists to be able to communicate privately than it is for no human anywhere ever to be able to communicate privately. It is not worth stripping the rights of billions of people to target a tiny minority of bad actors. And, given the trivial potential for authoritarian governments to misuse the power of absolute surveillance, I think the world we end up in would be much, much worse. Allowing nobody to privately communicate opposition to the government will lead to much worse outcomes than allowing nobody to privately communicate about crime, despite best intentions in short-term-thinking harm reduction. In addition to the criminal groups you mention it being wanted in Europe for, Telegram is also being prosecuted in Russia for harboring anti-Putin-regime activists! Such is the inherent nature of private communication.
- vlian2088 2mo ago[flagged]
- ikt 2mo ago> namecheap actually went full retard and indiscriminately booted all Russian customers in the first days of the invasion I actually rep namecheap more now
- vlian2088 2mo ago[flagged]
- wewxjfq 2mo agoYou accuse them of being hypocrites for staying silent about some other wars, while you are here downplaying the importance of a large scale war ("I support current thing" /pol/ lingo implies there is no valid reason to be against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you have to be a brainwashed sheep to do that)? Sounds hypocritical to me. PS: The blog blanners and all that were so powerless, yet they still trigger you 4 years later?
- kelipso 2mo agoI think the accusation is more that they are propagandized sheep doing what the sheep are expected to do instead of actually thinking about what they are doing from a wider perspective.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- vlian2088 2mo ago>"I support current thing" /pol/ lingo implies there is no valid reason to be against Russia's invasion of Ukraine "I support current thing" /pol/ lingo implies their Ukraine banners were a reskin of BLM banners from a year before. >PS: The blog blanners and all that were so powerless, yet they still trigger you 4 years later? like I said, I found them amusing, especially those custom geofences on obscure blogs. a fucking John Johnson (they/them) from Oregon oblast goes out of his way to scold Ivan Ivanov (он/им) from Orenburg oblast for something John's own country did so many times in Ivan's lifetime he'd lost count. also, all tech-adjacent Russians had VPNs by that point because of Taliban-tier morality policing, so bypassing those blocks took an eyeroll and two clicks.
- sneak 2mo agoWait until you hear that the chats aren’t end to end encrypted.
- pylotlight 2mo agowait until you hear why, and that you can optionally use e2e but lose other functionality.
- SXX 2mo agoAnd end-to-end encryption not supported on web client and doesn't sync properly between devices. Useless.
- lesostep 2mo ago>> doesn't sync properly between devices which is good, actually. We don't want a way through which a server could tell a new device all the information it needs to decrypt messags
- WmWsjA6B29B4nfk 2mo agoMake it device-to-device then
- asqueella 2mo agoI thought this was a long solved problem: the server syncs encrypted data, and the user provides the decryption key from another device (via QR codes, BLE, …)
- grayhatter 2mo agoyeah, it is good! I hate usability features too!
- inigyou 2mo agoYou either have E2EE or you don't. If you have usability, you don't have E2EE.