Founder and CEO of Telegram messaging service arrested in France

The issue I see with Telegram is that they retain a certain control over the content on their platform, as they have blocked channels in the past. That's unlike for example Signal, which only acts as a carrier for the encrypted data.

If they have control over what people are able to share via their platform, the relevant laws should apply, imho.

I agree but its not even an encrypted messenger. Almost no one uses the weak encryption and im pretty sure they offer decryption to governments considering they were threatened to be banned in russia and avoided it

What has encryption got to do with it?

Most of telegram is not encrypted. There are unencrypted channels on telegram right now hosting child pornography. Telegram never removes them.

Yes, but... I mean, it is being used for all of that.

The catch-22 is that it’s impossible to make this tool freely available as-is without also enabling the child abuse. You can’t pry the apart, or at the very least nobody has managed to yet.

So do we accept the abuse and let it proliferate, in the name of privacy? Or do we sacrifice privacy to make sure theres not a safe place for abusers?

There is no answer where no one gets hurt. It sucks when the interests of good align with the interests of bad, and it’s a shit show one way or the other.

Yeah but how am I supposed to know what my knee jerk reaction to this story should be if someone doesn't tell me whether it's a left or right publication?

Everyone hates it because it's bad data.

Edit: no, strike that, it's not even data, it's just one guy's opinion.

What happens when the bias checker is biased?

The mbfc site should not be used for anything. It's just the subjective opinions of the site owner (who is misleadingly talking about "we" and "our" in his methodology page), aided by a few unknown volunteers who do some of the "checking". The site claims to be objective, but there's been enough examples to show that it isn't (fe, it says that Fox News is as trustworthy as The Guardian or that CNN is somehow center left).

The so called methodology that is used, is just a lot of words that boil down to "several facets were checked by a human and that human gave a subjective rating to each facet, we then count up those subjective ratings and claim to be objective because we use a point system".

For checking the trustworthiness of a source, I'd say that the mbfc site is about as useful as using CPU Userbenchmark for chosing a CPU. Yes, it's easy to read and more convenient to use than other sources, but it's also a load of horseshit and unless you drill down into the underlying "data", you're just going to draw the wrong conclusions because of how misleading the site is.