Yep, I would never use a registrar called "go daddy". It always sounded like a registrar for noobs that will take adverse actions to "protect" you and this only confirms this.
What’s your beef? The name? Because I’ve been super happy with porkbun but damn, that name… and then the official-sounding ones like network solutions are quite shady. don’t judge a registrar by its name I guess.
The ad is not sexist, it's sexy/sexualized and humourous, which is something else. And of course it is from 2010, just before the great ... cultural shift.
GoDaddy is a shit registrar, but it has nothing to do with the name. You shouldn’t be basing your choices (or your HN recommendations) on product names, domain names, or other similar “vibes-based” reasoning.
Of course we launched our Telegram channel just this weekend, so I am feeling pretty happy that I enforced a 15-year old SOP that says "never email links to 3rd-party domains ; always use a redirect"...
Swapping the redirect now for telegram.me, which hopefully won't go down simultaneously
I think you also misunderstood, they are suggesting OP redirect to a telegram domain that isn't on the .me TLD, as the other .me is potentially at risk of also being taken down.
How about using a gTLD that is not subject to the whims of geopolitics and unstable island nations?
I think it is class-A stupid for whole swaths of the Internet to be depending on these "micronations" who are prostituting themselves for a quick buck. Some perhaps don't even profit from selling these domains, but they suffer years down the road from the reputation hit or the grueling demands of providing a service to people who don't live there and have no interest in the actual success, or even survival, of these nations.
It is hilarious and ironic that people are nitpicking on GoDaddy themselves, when GoDaddy is a perfectly stable and legitimate registry/registrar; GoDaddy is a normal American business based in America and doing business that benefits American citizens, rather than some random banana republic.
These ccTLDs are always a gimmick, and they should be avoided by anyone who is serious about stability, resilience, or organizational reputation on the Internet.
But I strongly disagree with your conclusion. gTLDs are also run by profit-driven companies and operate under ICANN's US-rooted system. ccTLDs at least offer some jurisdictional autonomy and diversity.
And many "trendy" ccTLDs are not actually run by unstable local governments. .me, for example, is operated with GoDaddy and Identity Digital, while .to relies on Tucows, a Canadian company.
So the irony is that these ccTLDs often end up controlled or technically managed by the same North American companies you consider more trustworthy. Very few small/island countries actually manage their ccTLD directly, which is extremely sad.
Didn't the crustacean site temporarily lose its domain a minute ago because someone had to make an in-person payment to whatever Serbian mafia controls .rs?
Vanity domains are beyond stupid and not worth the trouble.
You can read an explanation of the status codes on the icann website.
The explanation for clientRenewProhibited was interesting:
"This status code tells your domain's registry to reject requests to renew your domain. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes or when your domain is subject to deletion."
Similar language for some of the other statuses like serverDeleteProhibited.
“This status code is set by your domain's Registry Operator. Your domain is not activated in the DNS.”
Also the serverDeleteProhibited status is active, which ICANN also admits is a weird and rare one:
“This status code prevents your domain from being deleted. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes, at your request, or when a redemptionPeriod status is in place.”
Mind you, this is ICANN's description, which applies to global domains and not country domains like .me. Country registries can (and do!) assign different meanings to these statuses; for example in .pl clientRenewProhibited has a completely different meaning.
Zulip is amazing. Nothing against that but what are your thoughts on fluxer and the others (recently chatto seems interesting, matrix, stoat are interesting options as well).
Also awesome initiative by the way, how did you end up making it and I'd love to know some backstory about it actually as well.
Not the original commenter, but Matrix is awful. I used it on and off, and self-hosted it too. It's slow, bloated (I'm pretty sure I tried other homeservers). The app UI/UX is not great either. The E2EE stuff got better by the end but adoption-wise I was able to get way more people on Signal.
For matrix, I don't use the original client but rather cinny. This client is so good that I wish that other clients and it looks really good in UI/UX, honestly I have had some serious thoughts of porting this UI sometimes: https://cinny.in, so I would be curious what you think about this as well.
(Side note: Fractal and the matrix element fork called schildichat are interesting as well. It is also possible to run matrix in terminal for what its worth as well, and nhekochat is good as well. Fractal runs on gtk and nheko runs on qt. I do agree though that running matrix homservers is a bit bulky sometimes from what I have heard but the client scene is probably really good so I am curious what you think about cinny :-D )
I agree that Matrix has a lot of problems, at least when used with the Element app, but I've found that voice calls are much better with Matrix compared to Signal over a flaky network. It was as good as WhatsApp in my experience.
Matrix the protocol is just fine, and all features you expect are there. Their problem is with actual apps that either don't support most of good features, are unpolished to the degree of being unusable, or both.
Didn't t.me also support showing previews of entire channels? Perhaps they got hit with a take-down of sorts due to content (e.g., CSAM) on any particular channel?
Telegram is currently the target of legal/regulatory investigations by Russia (alleged extremism), France (likewise), and India (alleged facilitation of national exam leaking/cheating). I'm guessing the latter since it's the most recent and arguably has the most fiscal heft.
Also very surprised to see Telegram was reliant on GoDaddy, notorious for its lack of transparency.
Montenegro (.me) seems to be aligned with the EU. But I would have expected there to see a legal ruling in France before Montenegro would do this sort of thing.
I wouldn't be surprised if GoDaddy caved to request. They are known for giving up domains to anyone with a badge and a fax machine!
serverHold status means registry, not registrar, hold (the protocol has the registry as the server, as you'd expect). But you are right about GoDaddy and they are a strange choice.
But Telegram hasn't engaged in that, some of their users have.
I think the issue might be that although Telegram has a lot of abuse takedown activity, they do not permit access or direct action by authorities. If I recall, they have reiterated many times that some level or types of messages always remain private.
Maybe that's the issue is that a lot of illicit activity is going on in private channels and whether or not their filtering addresses it at all, authorities see the activity and have no access for court cases or direct action against it, so they can imagine it is quite rampant.
I always figured telegram got the screws turned on them all the time because their lack of E2E encryption meant it was viable to demand they proactively police the platform in the first place. Maybe Signal would just be outright blocked in these locales if it was anywhere near as popular, though.
I've been in quite many Telegram chats, none of which has enabled it. For most practical purposes you can just consider Telegram not to have e2e since it's no good if it's not used.
Signal is already well known to governments. In fact a few years ago there was a report in the UK media about how some governments used signal instead of official channels like email and did so because of Signals disappearing messages feature (ie making those MPs less accountable).
More recently, a Signal chat record leaked, between US national security advisor Mike Waltz, US VP JD Vance and others, regarding the ongoing illegal assassinations in Yemen:
They generally don't have to proactively police it, but they have to answer court orders in every country that has courts, or they'll be in trouble in that country. And countries are free to cooperate with each other to enforce these.
Pavel Durov was arrested when he traveled to France because Telegram was noncompliant with French court orders. You can ignore them in Russia... you can't ignore them in France. And you can ignore Russian court orders in France but not in Russia. And the Russian or Indian court is free to ask the Montenegrin government to suspend your domain name and the Montenegrin government is free to agree or disagree.
I don't think anyone cares about E2E encryption as much as tech people think.
For all of the much-vaunted complains about their lack of it, I am not aware of any proof or credible claims that Telegram the company has ever revealed the contents of non-encrypted messages or group chats.
Meanwhile, I don't think any authorities actually care about to what extent E2E Encryption makes it harder for Signal the corporation to extract message data. There's plenty of other ways to skin that cat - on-device compromises, abuse of backup mechanisms, abuse of mechanisms to manage linked devices, etc. They'd go after them just the same if they thought there was anything they really wanted on there.
If there's any real difference, I think it's most likely because many more of the group chats that such authorities are aware of and find "interesting" are on Telegram because basically nobody really does E2E well in medium-large groups right now.
That's vague to the point of being completely meaningless. Do you have any examples of a time they've been in "very big trouble", whatever that means? Exactly how often constitutes "all the time"? Do you have an example of a valid court order in any jurisdiction that they have failed to comply with? Do you have any examples of a court not mandating similar compliance for Signal, iMessage, or any other E2EE platform due to that? There is no exception in the law for E2EE and it will not save you from consequences from failing to comply with a valid court order.
Famously, Pavel Durov (owner of Telegram) was arrested in France a couple of years ago and held in custody until he complied with one he'd received earlier.
Famously, Signal complies with court orders by giving up all the data that's requested that it has, which isn't very much. This is what you expect from E2EE platforms.
A court order to do the impossible is invalid. Telegram gets in trouble because it's possible for them to comply but thry choose not to. Subpoenas are usually worded as "you must provide all information you have, relating to ..."
But as long as Signal controls the client app, there are very possible court orders to provide access to "encrypted" user chats even if courts haven't made use of those yet (as far as is publicly known).
The published reports of the exact things requested of them in the French arrest seem pretty vague. If they're related to the security of private messages and chats, it would seem to prove the point that they do infact refuse to provide that for anybody. The details around his release seem even more vague. We have only speculation and no actual proof that he or Telegram caved on such a request. As far as I know, we've never seen any charges that definitely came from Telegram revealing the messages of a private group chat.
Meanwhile, if you believe that any Governments actually refrain from prosecuting Signal executives due to their refusal and/or inability to produce the messages from private chats because they have E2EE, well, I've got a nice bridge to sell you.
If they actually are refraining from going after Signal executives in a similar fashion, most likely either 1. Nobody is actually using it for anything interesting, 2. They are actually secretly cooperating somehow, or 3. Governments are already happy with other technical means of extracting the contents of Signal chats they are interested in. See the US FBI's curious sudden lack of interest in Apple's ability, or lack thereof, to extract a wanted suspect's iMessage messages.
>But Telegram hasn't engaged in that, some of their users have.
Yeah, but government workers just want a legal slam dunk and it's always easier to go after the platform where the crimes are being discussed, rather than after the individual users actually committing the crimes.
I'm not making an argument about who's right or whether these disputes have any merit, I'm just trying to guess who might have had the inclination and legal resources to make this happen.
Other platforms either don't have the requested data (Signal) or willingly hand it over when they get a court order to (Facebook). When Telegram gets a court order it ignores the court order and then makes Pavel Durov hard to physically find and therefore arrest. One can only guess what motivations he has for this.
So courts seek alternative enforcement mechanisms.
In Russia, "extremism" is being against Putin or the war. For example, posting photo of Alexey Navalny is "displaying extremism symbol". Also, there are people charged with extremism for posting a link to instagram/facebook domains (Meta is an extremist organization).
Also "facilitation of exam cheating" is the most stupid accusation. Why they cannot keep exam question in secret? Also why they do not shutdown scammer call centers which scam Westerners? So they want Telegram to be blocked but scammer call center to continue operating?
>In Russia, "extremism" is being against Putin or the war.
In Russia, "extremism" is whatever the state decides it to be. "Give me the man, and I will find the crime" has always been its modus operandi. the last people who might have got fair trial were nobles under the Tzar.
> So they want Telegram to be blocked but scammer call center to continue operating?
Obviously yes, follow the money. Call centers use BSNL which is a state-owned telco, the government gets a cut of every call made. Telegram doesn't give the government any incentive to keep it around.
Since 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.
registrars 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.
>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.
> 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. I want to try to remain calm writing this but all I can really think is "fuck you".
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.
News 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.
They 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 if 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 is 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.
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.
Do you want privacy, or do you want back doors into everything?
Usually, the backdoor on apply to "regular" citizens, while the governments and military get exemptions from it.
If the balance of power wasnt so asymmetrical I would be inclined to emphasize with the position that E2EE is a bit of an over-correction. We would be remiss to ignore the practical concerns about nefarious actors using it to organize.
HOWEVER, we would ALSO be remiss to ignore the imbalance of power it would cause if ONLY the governments are privy to secrecy...
Violent extremist groups can also meet in parks and go to a bars. Police should follow everyone around and make everyone wear mandatory surveillance devices. Let's call them portable telescreen.
> You won't die just because someone posts your passport online.
Jesus, do you have the object permanence of a 3-year-old? This part alone, no. But this then directly leads to hundreds of people harassing you, everyone you know, blackmailing you, etc. People get fired because their workplace doesn't want to deal with it, for fuck's sake.
oh, there were so many of those during the first months of the war! most websites had simply put up a "I support the current thing" banner, but some really went out of the way. it was actually amusing to click a link to some fuckass blog that probably gets 5 visitors a day and get greeted with "NO RUSSIANS ALLOWED". I think it's safe to say by now that those measures weren't enough to incite a revolution or trigger an economic collapse, but hey, if it made those people feel like they were helping, who am I to judge?
sometimes I wonder if they did the same thing during Israel's carpet bombing of Palestinian civilians, or when America killed more children in a single strike than Russia did in several years of an all-out war. probably not, it's different after all.
You 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?
I 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.
And I think this is a fair critique of a lot of NAFO types who spend all day on X.
Especially ones who are also pro Israel - that position (pro Ukraine + pro Israel) in particular is basically impossible to defend logically, can only be the result of swallowing propaganda
>"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, just like Ukraine's flag replaced the syringes in current thing enthusiasts' twitter handles around the same time.
>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 random 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.
You should probably try replacing the name of the country in the phrase “<nation> is not allowed” with your own nationality to understand what the problem is here.
> You accuse them of being hypocrites
They are.
> while you are here downplaying the importance of a large scale war
I 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, …)
165 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 46.4 ms ] threadSo I can't imagine any serious organisation wanting to do business with them, unless they're a sleazy organisation themselves.
Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_GoDa...
If you are set on Namecheap anyway, Spaceship is a suggested replacement. It's run by Namecheap but with a new codebase.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45243123
- The site was suspended but now it's ok - The site was not suspended - There is other information about telegram suspended
Right?
We're going to end up with a system of layers of DNS if such arbitrary blocking of continues.
Still, Pirate Bay still exists.
Swapping the redirect now for telegram.me, which hopefully won't go down simultaneously
thanks
They updated op-s-domain.com/telegramchat -> redirect telegram.me.
You don't have to be an Icelandic national to register a .is
I think it is class-A stupid for whole swaths of the Internet to be depending on these "micronations" who are prostituting themselves for a quick buck. Some perhaps don't even profit from selling these domains, but they suffer years down the road from the reputation hit or the grueling demands of providing a service to people who don't live there and have no interest in the actual success, or even survival, of these nations.
It is hilarious and ironic that people are nitpicking on GoDaddy themselves, when GoDaddy is a perfectly stable and legitimate registry/registrar; GoDaddy is a normal American business based in America and doing business that benefits American citizens, rather than some random banana republic.
These ccTLDs are always a gimmick, and they should be avoided by anyone who is serious about stability, resilience, or organizational reputation on the Internet.
But I strongly disagree with your conclusion. gTLDs are also run by profit-driven companies and operate under ICANN's US-rooted system. ccTLDs at least offer some jurisdictional autonomy and diversity.
And many "trendy" ccTLDs are not actually run by unstable local governments. .me, for example, is operated with GoDaddy and Identity Digital, while .to relies on Tucows, a Canadian company.
So the irony is that these ccTLDs often end up controlled or technically managed by the same North American companies you consider more trustworthy. Very few small/island countries actually manage their ccTLD directly, which is extremely sad.
Vanity domains are beyond stupid and not worth the trouble.
https://blorn.com/post/29851770158/beware-cutesy-two-letter-...
Little TLDs may be poorly run. Would not trust again.
The future is domain resiliency - whether that’s via apps or other methods.
This couple checked all the domain zones money can buy and... ended up using different sets, with zero intersection
The explanation for clientRenewProhibited was interesting:
"This status code tells your domain's registry to reject requests to renew your domain. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes or when your domain is subject to deletion."
Similar language for some of the other statuses like serverDeleteProhibited.
https://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited
“This status code is set by your domain's Registry Operator. Your domain is not activated in the DNS.”
Also the serverDeleteProhibited status is active, which ICANN also admits is a weird and rare one:
“This status code prevents your domain from being deleted. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes, at your request, or when a redemptionPeriod status is in place.”
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-...
Also awesome initiative by the way, how did you end up making it and I'd love to know some backstory about it actually as well.
(Side note: Fractal and the matrix element fork called schildichat are interesting as well. It is also possible to run matrix in terminal for what its worth as well, and nhekochat is good as well. Fractal runs on gtk and nheko runs on qt. I do agree though that running matrix homservers is a bit bulky sometimes from what I have heard but the client scene is probably really good so I am curious what you think about cinny :-D )
Also very surprised to see Telegram was reliant on GoDaddy, notorious for its lack of transparency.
I wouldn't be surprised if GoDaddy caved to request. They are known for giving up domains to anyone with a badge and a fax machine!
clientHold = registrar (GoDaddy)
serverHold = registry (Montenegrin Registry)
I think the issue might be that although Telegram has a lot of abuse takedown activity, they do not permit access or direct action by authorities. If I recall, they have reiterated many times that some level or types of messages always remain private.
Maybe that's the issue is that a lot of illicit activity is going on in private channels and whether or not their filtering addresses it at all, authorities see the activity and have no access for court cases or direct action against it, so they can imagine it is quite rampant.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/24/politics/yemen-strikes-jo...
and it didn't leak because of Signal's security, but because an Atlantic maganize journalist was added to the group chat by Waltz.
Pavel Durov was arrested when he traveled to France because Telegram was noncompliant with French court orders. You can ignore them in Russia... you can't ignore them in France. And you can ignore Russian court orders in France but not in Russia. And the Russian or Indian court is free to ask the Montenegrin government to suspend your domain name and the Montenegrin government is free to agree or disagree.
For all of the much-vaunted complains about their lack of it, I am not aware of any proof or credible claims that Telegram the company has ever revealed the contents of non-encrypted messages or group chats.
Meanwhile, I don't think any authorities actually care about to what extent E2E Encryption makes it harder for Signal the corporation to extract message data. There's plenty of other ways to skin that cat - on-device compromises, abuse of backup mechanisms, abuse of mechanisms to manage linked devices, etc. They'd go after them just the same if they thought there was anything they really wanted on there.
If there's any real difference, I think it's most likely because many more of the group chats that such authorities are aware of and find "interesting" are on Telegram because basically nobody really does E2E well in medium-large groups right now.
Famously, Signal complies with court orders by giving up all the data that's requested that it has, which isn't very much. This is what you expect from E2EE platforms.
A court order to do the impossible is invalid. Telegram gets in trouble because it's possible for them to comply but thry choose not to. Subpoenas are usually worded as "you must provide all information you have, relating to ..."
Meanwhile, if you believe that any Governments actually refrain from prosecuting Signal executives due to their refusal and/or inability to produce the messages from private chats because they have E2EE, well, I've got a nice bridge to sell you.
If they actually are refraining from going after Signal executives in a similar fashion, most likely either 1. Nobody is actually using it for anything interesting, 2. They are actually secretly cooperating somehow, or 3. Governments are already happy with other technical means of extracting the contents of Signal chats they are interested in. See the US FBI's curious sudden lack of interest in Apple's ability, or lack thereof, to extract a wanted suspect's iMessage messages.
Yeah, but government workers just want a legal slam dunk and it's always easier to go after the platform where the crimes are being discussed, rather than after the individual users actually committing the crimes.
Other platforms either don't have the requested data (Signal) or willingly hand it over when they get a court order to (Facebook). When Telegram gets a court order it ignores the court order and then makes Pavel Durov hard to physically find and therefore arrest. One can only guess what motivations he has for this.
So courts seek alternative enforcement mechanisms.
Also "facilitation of exam cheating" is the most stupid accusation. Why they cannot keep exam question in secret? Also why they do not shutdown scammer call centers which scam Westerners? So they want Telegram to be blocked but scammer call center to continue operating?
In Russia, "extremism" is whatever the state decides it to be. "Give me the man, and I will find the crime" has always been its modus operandi. the last people who might have got fair trial were nobles under the Tzar.
Obviously yes, follow the money. Call centers use BSNL which is a state-owned telco, the government gets a cut of every call made. Telegram doesn't give the government any incentive to keep it around.
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.
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. I want to try to remain calm writing this but all I can really think is "fuck you".
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.
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.
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 if 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 is 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. 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.
Usually, the backdoor on apply to "regular" citizens, while the governments and military get exemptions from it.
If the balance of power wasnt so asymmetrical I would be inclined to emphasize with the position that E2EE is a bit of an over-correction. We would be remiss to ignore the practical concerns about nefarious actors using it to organize.
HOWEVER, we would ALSO be remiss to ignore the imbalance of power it would cause if ONLY the governments are privy to secrecy...
Oh extremists can also buy knives...
And now Europeans want everyone to send a selfie and a passport to register at sites, which only makes doxxing easier. Clowns.
Also, doxxing is relatively harmless. You won't die just because someone posts your passport online.
Jesus, do you have the object permanence of a 3-year-old? This part alone, no. But this then directly leads to hundreds of people harassing you, everyone you know, blackmailing you, etc. People get fired because their workplace doesn't want to deal with it, for fuck's sake.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812
alas, it appears that screeching and throwing rocks at powerless peasants didn't help to end the war.
I actually rep namecheap more now
sometimes I wonder if they did the same thing during Israel's carpet bombing of Palestinian civilians, or when America killed more children in a single strike than Russia did in several years of an all-out war. probably not, it's different after all.
PS: The blog blanners and all that were so powerless, yet they still trigger you 4 years later?
Especially ones who are also pro Israel - that position (pro Ukraine + pro Israel) in particular is basically impossible to defend logically, can only be the result of swallowing propaganda
"I support current thing" /pol/ lingo implies their Ukraine banners were a reskin of BLM banners from a year before, just like Ukraine's flag replaced the syringes in current thing enthusiasts' twitter handles around the same time.
>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 random 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.
> You accuse them of being hypocrites
They are.
> while you are here downplaying the importance of a large scale war
They aren't.
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