At various times, most social media platforms have received criticism for alleged failure to prevent distribution of copyright-infringing content. Few, however, have been threatened with widespread blocking more often than Telegram. In a row that seemed ready to boil over last year, Telegram was given an ultimatum by the Malaysian government; come to the negotiating table or face the consequences. A Malaysian minister now says that Telegram is ready to fight piracy.
Too bad Telegram isn’t as ready to fight Nazi propaganda on their service, but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.
but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.
Can you provide a link for this? Interested in reading about it
I rather have free speech, if you don’t like Telegram then use something else.
Putting someone else’s life in danger (unprovoked) is not a free speech
That’s different, free speech is not about putting people on danger.
Promoting nazism IS inherently putting people in danger, that IS their thing
Tolerating intolerance leads to disappearance of tolerance.
With open dialogue, education and respect you can have both.
How does/can dialogue, education, and respect include intolerance? Isn’t intolerance inherently disrespectful, uneducated, and non-dialogue?
It’s with polarization that things spin out of control. When the left thinks the right are nazi’s and the right think the left are commies, that’s when people become less critical of themselves and hatred spirals into a civil war, and the one that’s on top will do anything to prevent the ‘enemy’ taking over. Tolerating verbal intolerance is a good thing. That’s why your own statement is tolerated, it’s literally advocating intolerance (be it indirectly in favor of tolerance). I really don’t believe your statement is correct. Tolerance leads to tolerance. Intolerance leads to more intolerance. Not tolerating intolerance doesn’t make it disappear, it just makes people feel more strongly about it. When I cant think something or people look down on me for it, I am definitely gonna think it some more. Actual violence should of course not be tolerated. Ergo: is it ok to punch a nazi? No ofcourse not… unless the civil war has started yet and all tolerance is gone, but let’s not go there…
I find your point interesting and I agree to some extent.
When I have people around me that express some type of radical view I usually casually mention a slight disagreement or let it slide because I know going into a debate with me won’t really change much.
However expressing opinions and feelings that are inherently based on hatred or lack of understanding, at least from what history has told, will lead to them being acted upon. Having resenting opinions about LGBT, for example, and grouping up with people with that mindset will probably spiral it into more lack of understanding and stronger opinions against it. Eventually leading to a growing and potentially spreading resentment against it. This extends to religion, skin colour, countries, mental diagnoses or anything else really.
What the “core” is so to speak is about things that people can’t inherently control, being born differently, being born in a certain place, etc.
Nazi bullshit isn’t free speech. That’s a trash argument. You need to look inside and find what part of you is broken if you think otherwise. Fuck Nazi anything. They don’t have a right to free speech. They lost that when they became Nazi’s.
Mute or else, it’s that easy.
Lol…is that some kind of threat?
You sound deranged, buddy
If you disagree that’s your opinion buddy
Funny how the .ml admins are so opposed to free speech on their own server, then.
I’m disappointed so many people disagree with this. Yes, now they’re blocking opinions you don’t like, but if they choose to block opinions you agree with, I doubt they’d continue whistling the same tune.
There’s a big difference between blocking baseless, hate-fueled bullshit, and blocking actually credible information proving that people in power are encroaching on the rights and freedoms of others…
It seems this instance is becoming like second Reddit.
First you say you’d rather have freedom of speech when arguing about keeping racial bullshit alive on the platform.
Then you say you’re against freedom of speech when the platform starts to look like Reddit with people calling out that racist troglodytes have no place in modern society.
Hmmm, it’s almost like you don’t want freedom of speech, you want pools to blast diarrhea into.
I want freedom of speech not second reddit
No, you want validation for your shitty ideology, buddy.
Or you.
But you clearly don’t want freedom of speech, because that would allow for people to leave comments exactly in line with those that you’d see on Reddit.
.ml user don’t be a fascist challenge.
Free speech is not about being fascist 🙄
Sure, but what you’re describing isn’t freedom of speech; freedom of speech is the prohibition against the government taking action for the contents of the opinions you express. It has nothing to do with what a non-government platform allows or disallows.
A platform that allows Nazis is a Nazi platform, plain and simple.
I realize you’re probably a dishonest pos, so this is for the benefit of whoever else reads it.
It’s also censorship if we are speaking of platforms.
Hopefully the package containing all the fucks I give doesn’t get lost in the mail.
Edit: There’s either a bunch of Nazis supporting this fucker or they’re using alt accounts.
He’s got a temp ban and I’ve banned a suspected alt account upvoting him from our instance. It’ll be a permanent ban if he comes back for more.
Good for you and we don’t care
RIP OnlyFans leaks on telegram
These fucks just can’t stop spoiling everything for people
So far, this isn’t much of anything.
Telegram already closes public channels reported for copyright violations.
Some excerpts from this post:
Compared to other platforms, we do not see the seriousness of Telegram to cooperate.
. . .
In May 2023, progress appeared to be going in the wrong direction. Telegram was reportedly refusing to cooperate with the Ministry of Communications and Digital on the basis it did not wish to participate in any form of politically-related censorship.
. . .
With no obviously public comment from Telegram on the matter, it’s hard to say how the social platform views its end of what appears to be an informal agreement.
Telegram will be acutely aware, however, that whatever it gives, others will demand too. That may ultimately limit Telegram’s response, whatever it may be, whenever it arrives – if it even arrives at all.
Removed by mod
Huh? Is this relevant, or some kind of bot spam?
How much responsibility would a service like Signal have, if they were to inadvertently host a private group for pirated content? I believe signal groups can have up to 1000 members, and these members can be pretty anonymous given the need to only share an ephemeral username which can not be linked to a phone number or any other identity? Can they claim plausible deniability and not do anything?
IANAL and all the other anals, but my understanding is Signal wouldn’t be liable and wouldn’t have to do anything. They designed their service so they can’t know the content of the messages, so if a third party Maloyse (see what I’m doing there?) is reporting a message between Alice and Bob that Maloyse thinks to be illegal, Signal would be within legal grounds to bring into question how did M got that message, and it can’t be used as proof against Signal because there is no legal mechanism by which Signal could have acquired that message and act upon it - in fact, Signal has grounds to suspect Maloyse is crafting those messages, since neither Alice nor Bob have reported such message.
This post is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Feel free to contact me to negotiate for an alternative license.
In a group chat, M wouldn’t be a 3rd party.
Maloyse absolutely can:
- eavesdrop above Alice’s shoulder
- be an evil, militarily dressed maid on
BobAlice’s home - have remote administrative permissions on Bob’s phone
- (“accidentally”) get a full-workspace snapshot of Charlie’s desktop while he has the group open in Signal Desktop
- Sneak around and check the phone while Alice and Donny are having sex
- Hit Charlie with a $5 wrench
Yes, but we’re discussing group chats disseminating piracy links. Do you think it’s harder to join such a group chat and report it to signal than it is to do all the cloak and dagger nonsense?
Which one is harder has zero relevance upon how much work Signal has to do to vet the contents transmitted on the channels, which is zero, nil, because they can’t. Even if it was Charlie who reported the channel, Signal intentionally has no practical means to verify neither the accused contents nor the authenticity of the report. And this is actually good.
Infrastructure-wise, Signal (mostly) limits itself to only being a carrier. In a just world, a carrier who has been set up to take the limited responsibility of a carrier is not liable for the contents of carried things that are protected so that the carrier can not peek into. Sure, they can be legally pressed to change that and “upgrade” their lawyer plan to “content vetter”, but as far as I know that hasn’t happened yet.
I don’t get what you’re trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.
Yes, they’re a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action. Whether or not that’s fair is a pretty large topic, though I’m inclined to think so myself.
But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action.
And the action Signal can take is pretty clear: “Okay thanks for reporting, feel free to file a lawsuit against Alice and or Bob instead, have a nice day.” Remember: even if Signal had Charlie’s credentials to view the chat, unless Charlie is an admin of the chat Signal can’t do anything other than log Charlie off the group. Plus each participant still has their own message store. So by this point Signal has complied with the law. It’s literally Section 230.
What if that happens on Session? Can the nodes operators be sued even though they have no access to the content?
So, we started, or better said, finishing with the enshittification of telegram? Nice to know. Now there will be no difference with WhatsApp…
