Image

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.

  • Kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • AbackDeckWARLORD@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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

    • guts@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I rather have free speech, if you don’t like Telegram then use something else.

      • rando@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Putting someone else’s life in danger (unprovoked) is not a free speech

        • guts@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s different, free speech is not about putting people on danger.

            • guts@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Putting people in danger is banned in Telegram already, there is a line.

      • vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • guts@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          With open dialogue, education and respect you can have both.

        • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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…

          • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Just Google the paradox of tolerance. It’s really not as complicated as you’re making it out to be.

            Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct. If you wouldn’t attack a nazi because they’re not currently threatening you specifically then you won’t develop any additional moral prerogative in time of civil war - you’ll join them, because they’re still not threatening you specifically, while fair and equal redistribution of resources will effect you. You don’t have any sort of morality or ideology underlying your objection, you just think extreme things are bad because you’re not given a choice.

            • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              You don’t have any sort of morality or ideology underlying your objection

              You make a lot of assumptions

              • ProfessorOwl_PhD [any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences.

                You literally talk in your other reply about how you’ll join them. You can’t just sit down and talk about how they want to kill the jews and you don’t - your willingness to hear them out inherently legitimises their ideas as being reasonable and able to be reasoned about.

                I know you don’t fully understand how the way that you say something can be as informative as what you actually say, but I don’t need to assume - you did actually tell me in your comment that you don’t really mind nazis as long as they’re not being violent towards you.

                • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You literally talk in your other reply about how you’ll join them

                  you did actually tell me in your comment that you don’t really mind nazis as long as they’re not being violent towards you.

                  This is becoming quite bizarre. Reading back my comments I don’t even know which line you are misinterpreting cause I don’t think I’ve said anything that even comes close to your accusations. Of course I’m not advocating to join nazi’s. I think you’d be better of sticking to what people actually say, or else every online conversation is going to derail as much as this one apparently already did.

          • Zelaf@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Funny how the .ml admins are so opposed to free speech on their own server, then.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • brax@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          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…

        • guts@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          It seems this instance is becoming like second Reddit.

          • brax@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

          • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

  • Andy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    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?

    • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

        • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Maloyse absolutely can:

          • eavesdrop above Alice’s shoulder
          • be an evil, militarily dressed maid on Bob Alice’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
          • wahming@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            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?

            • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • wahming@monyet.cc
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

    • azalty@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      What if that happens on Session? Can the nodes operators be sued even though they have no access to the content?

      • Mikufan@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Russian software, no end to end encryption by default, a smear campaign against signal, being based in Dubai and censoring LGBT stuff, being more and more for profit (wich wouldn’t be that bad when they wouldn’t be obnoxious about it) and probably more.

        E: seems like i offended some stans.

  • prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    So, we started, or better said, finishing with the enshittification of telegram? Nice to know. Now there will be no difference with WhatsApp…