Telegram Reportedly "Ready to Fight Piracy" According to Govt. Official * TorrentFreak

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.

ahriboy,
@ahriboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

RIP OnlyFans leaks on telegram

Andy,
@Andy@programming.dev avatar

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.

alijen,

online color blind test tool. You can absolutely use it easily.

Andy,
@Andy@programming.dev avatar

Huh? Is this relevant, or some kind of bot spam?

prosp3kt,

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

Gimpydude,

Telegram is and always has been shitty. WhatsApp is shitty too. Use Signal instead.

JackGreenEarth,

Signal also has its flaws. Use Matrix.

0x30507DE,
@0x30507DE@lemmy.today avatar

Matrix has flaws as well, use XMPP.

Gimpydude,

For this type of use (larger scale group chat) I would agree. What are the flaws with signal though?

Mikufan,

Telegram is shit anyway.

Vitaly,
@Vitaly@feddit.uk avatar

I agree, but why do you think so?

Mikufan, (edited )

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.

Vitaly,
@Vitaly@feddit.uk avatar

You can’t trust russians after what they did

azalty,
@azalty@jlai.lu avatar

But good for copyrighted stuff

Mikufan,

Not even that, half the stuff you get there signs you into a rusbotnet.

kumatomic,

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.

guts,

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

vulgarcynic, (edited )
@vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works avatar

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,

Mute or else, it’s that easy.

ModsAreCopsACAB,

You sound deranged, buddy

guts,

If you disagree that’s your opinion buddy

vulgarcynic,
@vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works avatar

Lol…is that some kind of threat?

JackGreenEarth,

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.

guts,

It seems this instance is becoming like second Reddit.

brax,

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.

guts,

I want freedom of speech not second reddit

brax,

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.

AreturningPirate,
@AreturningPirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

No, you want validation for your shitty ideology, buddy.

guts,

Or you.

brax,

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…

Leate_Wonceslace,
@Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

.ml user don’t be a fascist challenge.

guts,

Free speech is not about being fascist 🙄

Leate_Wonceslace,
@Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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.

guts,

It’s also censorship if we are speaking of platforms.

Leate_Wonceslace, (edited )
@Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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.

guts,

Good for you and we don’t care

Flatworm7591,
@Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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.

Leate_Wonceslace,
@Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

💝

rando,

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

guts,

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

ProfessorOwl_PhD,
@ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

Ok, but it’s what telegram has. So would you rather keep your “free” speech and put others in danger, or lose it to keep others safe?

guts,

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

jherazob,
@jherazob@beehaw.org avatar

Promoting nazism IS inherently putting people in danger, that IS their thing

wahming,

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

jol,

Tolerating intolerance leads to disappearance of tolerance.

guts,

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

Kissaki,

How does/can dialogue, education, and respect include intolerance? Isn’t intolerance inherently disrespectful, uneducated, and non-dialogue?

96VXb9ktTjFnRi, (edited )

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,
@ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

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.

96VXb9ktTjFnRi,

Also, punching Nazis is always morally correct.

I know the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I’m just saying that at the very least, it’s not as simple as that. There are definitely grey areas, and IT IS complicated. You really miss the bigger picture if you say it’s always ok to punch a nazi. I’d advise you to read up on the Spanish civil war, how that spun out of control, violence from both sides leading to more violence. You shouldn’t just look at the act of punching a Nazi no it’s own, you should take a helicopter view and see that a punch, will lead to counter punches, which will lead to potentially full blown civil war. You shouldn’t pride yourself in taking a firm stance if doing so is ultimately counterproductive. So what’s the alternative? The alternative is sitting down, having a talk, drinking some tea and talking about our differences. And simultaneously trying to take away the breeding ground for fascism, for instance an upper class that’s treating society as their farm animals, getting all the riches, while looking down on them from their high horses. Punching these people and limiting their freedoms is putting oil on the fire.

veniasilente,

, you should take a helicopter view and see that a punch, will lead to counter punches, which will lead to potentially full blown civil war.

You got that wrong. Nazis are already being violent; punching a nazi is not starting violence, it’s a defensive measure, it’s a response to violence. But sure if your response to violence is “let’s sit with the nazis and make a nazi bar” then sure, you do you.

96VXb9ktTjFnRi,

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

You make a lot of assumptions

ProfessorOwl_PhD,
@ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

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.

96VXb9ktTjFnRi,

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.

ProfessorOwl_PhD,
@ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net avatar

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

You really don’t understand that the things you say have meanings, do you?

96VXb9ktTjFnRi,

I never said I don’t mind them, and I also never said I’d join them. I’m just suggesting we keep the conversation going and settle things with words rather than violence. It’s difficult to have a conversation when you are unable to understand a point someone is making. Not saying you should agree at all. It’s fair to have a difference of opinion. But you just misrepresent what I’m saying, that doesn’t really lead to an interesting conversation in my opinion, so I’m out.

Zelaf,

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.

AbackDeckWARLORD,

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

TheHobbyist,

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?

veniasilente,

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.

Gimpydude,

This is the correct answer. Both Alice and Bob approve.

wahming,

In a group chat, M wouldn’t be a 3rd party.

veniasilente,

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,

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?

veniasilente,

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,

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.

veniasilente,

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.

wahming, (edited )

Not sure why you’re citing US law when we’re discussing foreign govts. Also the obvious thing signal can do, that most complainants would probably expect as a minimum, is banning their accounts and closing the group.

azalty,
@azalty@jlai.lu avatar

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

DebatableRaccoon,

These fucks just can’t stop spoiling everything for people

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • GTA5RPClips
  • tester
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • cisconetworking
  • megavids
  • khanakhh
  • normalnudes
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • tacticalgear
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • provamag3
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •