[HN Gopher] Telegram: We abide by EU laws, including the Digital...
___________________________________________________________________
Telegram: We abide by EU laws, including the Digital Services Act
Author : bpierre
Score : 74 points
Date : 2024-08-25 19:26 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| aa_is_op wrote:
| "It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are
| responsible for abuse of that platform."
|
| What an utter ridiculous and misleading statement from the
| company that LITERALLY REFUSES to take down drug and malware
| shops from its platform.
|
| There's tens of academic studies that have looked at this problem
| and many of them have Telegram as the worst offender.
|
| Here's just one of the studies:
| https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/addressing-distributi...
| ronsor wrote:
| Facebook is also full of drug and malware shops and
| advertisements for such.
| threeseed wrote:
| Meta will take down those ads if reported.
|
| What is important when it comes to regulators is not whether
| you fail to comply or not. It is whether you take your
| responsibility to comply seriously e.g. timely responses to
| information requests, continuous process improvement etc.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| The Via Rail scam card ads have been on facebook for
| months. You can figure out it's a scam with a 2 second
| google search:
|
| https://www.facebook.com/viarailcanada/posts/scam-warning-
| av...
|
| I reported it (like others in this thread), but facebook
| said it didn't break any rules. I requested another review,
| and they said the same thing, with no way for me to make
| any comments or replies.
|
| Perhaps they will remove certain ads if it's instantly
| obvious that it is illegal, but overall they're pretty
| terrible at moderation.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| For the VIA thing, I have legitimately earned VIA
| Preference Points for surveys [0] and have heard of them
| being offered as survey rewards at my alma mater of
| Queen's University (where VIA use is pretty heavy).
|
| [0] https://campaign.askingcanadians.com/faq/via
|
| So I can see some of those offers being legitimate.
| brookst wrote:
| Meta being bad at following their policies is a different
| problem than a platform whose policies say they won't
| stop abuse. You can argue which problem is worse, but I
| don't think it's reasonable to say that the world should
| treat the two problems the same.
| threeseed wrote:
| The priority for regulators are money laundering,
| sanctions evasion, terrorism, CSAM, trafficking etc.
|
| Serious crimes where people's lives are at stake.
|
| Scams in general are towards the bottom on everyone's
| priority list.
| meiraleal wrote:
| Why are you changing the focus to regulators and not meta
| moderation which is what you claimed that is done? (and
| many proved in this thread that no they don't remove
| content that breaks local laws).
| threeseed wrote:
| Because company behaviour is a reflection of the laws in
| the places it operates.
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| I regularly report scam ads as well as obvious catfishing
| friend requests from obviously fake accounts whose only
| post is a sketchy URL to some "sex chat". Almost all of the
| reports are rejected.
|
| It seems obvious to me that Meta's moderation is mostly
| about pretending just enough for regulators to go away, and
| no more. Hell, Meta probably indirectly makes money from
| these scams by targeting more scams at the people who fall
| for them, at a premium. Meta makes money, scammers make
| money, regulators are content. It's a win-win-win.
| meiraleal wrote:
| No they won't. I report all the time and every one of them
| they told me they reviewed it and disagree the ads/posts
| are against the law.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| like they did with Cambridge Analytica I guess...
| amelius wrote:
| Does that justify it then?
| spwa4 wrote:
| It shows what the EU action is about. It's not about
| telegram's supposed crimes, whatever you think they are,
| because other platforms are full of the same crimes.
|
| The difference is that other platforms give EU states
| access to people's private messages. If you go into the
| technicalities of what EXACTLY this means, it started with
| a list of 27 organizations that got blanket access, without
| judicial oversight (because all of the different rules from
| the member states apply. Some do not require judicial
| oversight). Organized long ago by Interpol. It grew from
| there, exactly as people expected.
|
| Oh and in case you're wondering. This already exists. It is
| NOT about the new EU directive ("directive 92"). This is
| about delivering specific individual's messages, when
| specifically asked to, and maybe blocking them.
| tpm wrote:
| Which EU action? France which arrested Durov is not the
| EU. The EU can't arrest anyone, only the member states
| can. Durov was not arrested because of the EU DSA.
| DragonStrength wrote:
| Yep, and I think we're way too soft on Meta for what they
| push and profit from on FB and Instagram.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Instagram and Snapchat is full of illegal shit.
| asqueella wrote:
| What's the source for your "LITERALLY REFUSES" claim?
|
| The study you linked names instagram as "the most important
| platform"...
| miohtama wrote:
| Telegram does not refuse take down content. I have reported
| scams, phishing, selling stolen credit cards and such to
| Telegram and they have all taken down. Maybe not in 24h, but
| still taken down.
|
| Also from your study: "Our investigation finds that large
| networks of accounts, purportedly operated by minors, are
| openly advertising SG-CSAM for sale on social media. Instagram
| has emerged as the primary platform for such networks,
| providing features that facilitate connections between buyers
| and sellers. Instagram's popularity and user-friendly interface
| make it a preferred option for these activities."
| amelius wrote:
| Can't the EU make their own messaging app?
| ben_w wrote:
| They did it's called Skype it got bought.
|
| Also, what's that supposed to even solve?
| throwaway48540 wrote:
| They could put more people in prison.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| Their "censorship czar" tried to hype up some app as a "safer
| alternative" to X on one of Elon's tweets. Can't remember the
| app's name.
| hnhg wrote:
| There was/is also Wire: https://wire.com/en
| tptacek wrote:
| Wasn't Matrix in the running for this? And Threema is the
| standard in Switzerland, I believe.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Well, Matrix is incorporated in the UK, not a member state of
| the EU, and Switzerland also isn't a member state of the EU.
| kitkat_new wrote:
| well, when Matrix was founded, UK was still part of the EU
| Gravityloss wrote:
| IIRC France sponsored open source secure messaging platforms
|
| There are things like this:
| https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Maybe they dont need to
|
| >The European Commission has told its staff to start using
| Signal, an end-to-end-encrypted messaging app, in a push to
| increase the security of its communications.
|
| https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-commission-to-staff-switc...
| vindex10 wrote:
| I think this recent thread shows a good example, why it might
| be difficult to implement in EU:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41348659
| miohtama wrote:
| We literally can't, because startups are regulated out of
| existence in the EU.
| ben_w wrote:
| > It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are
| responsible for abuse of that platform
|
| As the law places certain responsibilities onto platforms, if you
| (any platform not just Telegram) say this kind of thing, are you
| sure you're following the law right, or are you just saying the
| law is wrong and bad?
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > > It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are
| responsible for abuse of that platform
|
| Didn't some crypto mixer coin network creator just get found
| guilty for this?
| stefan_ wrote:
| Not a good start if they start shouting about the Digital
| Services Act, which of course has nothing to do with their CEO
| being arrested at an airport.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| The more the French authorities delay in releasing official
| information about Durov's arrest, the worse it looks for them.
|
| I mean the West has always accused the East of employing similar
| tactics wrt arresting journalists/freedom fighters etc, how do we
| not see the irony here...
| euroderf wrote:
| Your point is valid. We cannot reason about events based on
| intentions. We must reason based on capabilities, and on
| actions.
| Muromec wrote:
| But he is not journalist, neither he is a freedom fighter
| jdasdf wrote:
| They shouldn't.
| fredgrott wrote:
| hmm gee setting up shell companies to avoid government subpoenas
| probably is not good at collaborating that narrative.
| jMyles wrote:
| At some point, the adults in the room (and specifically, a few
| brave and seasoned elder statesmen/women) need to stand up and
| state the obvious:
|
| On sufficiently long time scales, the internet will not tolerate
| states, and states will not be able to withstand the influence of
| the internet.
|
| The ability to copy and send bytes around the world, to capture
| and disseminate media in such a way that forces transparency, but
| also to facilitate and democratize private conversation, to route
| around censorship... these are qualities that make what are today
| fundamental aspects of statecraft, such as state secrets,
| intellectual property, control over money supply and trade,
| surveillance, and censorship, impossible.
|
| It's time to acknowledge that we need to transition our methods
| for ensuring each other's safety, well-being, freedom, justice,
| and prosperity via stateless channels and stop regarding states
| as having any jurisdiction over the internet.
| mgaunard wrote:
| Sounds like anti-statist propaganda.
| wmf wrote:
| Basically Barlow's Declaration of the Independence of
| Cyberspace from the 1990s. I think history has shown it to be
| more wrong than right.
| greenthrow wrote:
| You are delusional my dude. Servers and routers exist in
| meatspace. The meatspace laws win out.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| the only problem in your manifesto is that no internet can
| exist without connectivity.
|
| _He who controls the cables controls the (cyber)universe_
| grujicd wrote:
| If anything states are much more involved in policing internet
| than 20 years ago. As more and more stuff goes online, I don't
| see governments reversing this trend, quite the oposite.
| ben_w wrote:
| > On sufficiently long time scales, the internet will not
| tolerate states, and states will not be able to withstand the
| influence of the internet
|
| To the extent that this is correct, it means states cannot
| tolerate the internet, and will transition to not using or
| allowing it.
|
| > these are qualities that make what are today fundamental
| aspects of statecraft, such as state secrets, intellectual
| property, control over money supply and trade, surveillance,
| and censorship, impossible.
|
| State secrets are primarily voided by cheap surveillance, e.g.
| that a laser microphone is now a high school project.
|
| IP is covered by international agreements, though may be voided
| by AI.
|
| Control over money is done by requiring residents pay taxes in
| whichever currency, nothing about the internet changes that.
|
| Supply and trade correspond to people with guns on the borders,
| that's only going to change with personal nanoscale 3D printing
| and delivery by orbital bombardment, not the internet.
|
| Surveillance is likely to get much more prevalent rather than
| become impossible, e.g. aforementioned laser microphones.
|
| Censorship might become impossible. Or perhaps we'll find new
| ways to do it. Jamming works by increasing the noise so you
| can't get a signal, GenAI may do that easily.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-25 23:00 UTC)