[igloofoo]

There may be political motive to this.

Why is Telegram X issued by "Telegram Messenger LLP" while the original Telegram is issued by "Telegram LLC"?

Telegram LLC, which issues the original Telegram app on the App Store has been undergoing litigation with regards to its ownership. It is based out of Russia and a company called UCP with Krelim ties who 'bought' VKontakte has been suing Durov for full Telegram ownership pursuant to VKontakte 'purchase'.

Telegram Messenger LLP however is based in London and seemingly wholly owned by Durov crew. In 2014, Telegram Messenger LLP launched Telegram HD, a separate app from Telegram-LLC-issued-Telegram. Now it is launching Telegram X , another separate app (which was until very recently Challegram, an open source Telegram client, winner of Telegram contest, and purchased by Durov) .

Draw your own conclusions.

EDITED for clarity and details

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/the-telegram-lawsuits-ex...

http://www.ewdn.com/2014/07/29/pavel-durov-has-cloned-telegr...

https://rusletter.com/articles/ucp_requires_to_recognize_tel...

http://www.frandroid.com/android/applications/securite-appli...

[jimrandomh]

For an app which demands as much trust as Telegram does, that level of intrigue is pretty scary.

[vxNsr]

My understanding is that it all comes back to the fact that Durov has upset Putin, so anything that gains traction in Russia must be controlled by someone close to the Kremlin (ie Putin). It's scary but I'd be surprised if any other app didn't suffer a similar fate if it gained a popular following in Russia.

[oakesm9]

Interestingly the companies are the other way around on the Google Play Store. Not sure why that might be...

[Theodores]

I think the 'moral panic' about crypto is a far more likely political reason. Nobody had heard of Telegram before, now it is where you go to find out what coin is going to the moon next.

Yesterday Facebook took down all crypto-gambling adverts. There is a duty of care to not be the company responsible for making your customers crypto bag-holders. The gig is up with crypto in its current scam incarnation.

[module0000]

>> There is a duty of care to not be the company responsible for making your customers crypto bag-holders.

Are you saying that Facebook is responsible to make decisions for us - because all it takes is one advertisement to override the average human's discipline and self control?

[794CD01]

If Facebook didn't have the power to affect the decisions of their users they wouldn't have a business.

The advertisements are just what they sell. As the platform owners, they can do a lot more in terms of information curation.

[jsmthrowaway]

You realize you're alleging that Apple is moderating its App Store based on conversations people are having within an app? Given the gravity of your claim, and the fact that there are cryptocurrency-related applications all over the App Store, you really need to think about whether your possibility is more likely. (It isn't.)

Facebook taking down cryptocurrency gambling ads is much different than Apple removing a general purpose instant messenger. You're finding a connection you want to find, I'm guessing based on your knowledge of PnD groups being on Telegram, that being your sole exposure to Telegram, and your opinion on cryptocurrency.

Apple is very conservative with adult content which I consider the far more likely reason, be that buggy image search, some kind of trending view that porn snuck into, that kind of thing.

[debt]

Apple would be held liable if someone uses Telegram to coordinate a terrorist attack or if it's used for human trafficking or whatever highly illegal activity it could be used for. Potentially both in the court of law and the court of public opinion; the latter Apple has no control over.

It's just not worth it financially for Apple to assume that liability.

[bovermyer]

So, to carry your argument to a slightly (but only slightly) more extreme version, doesn't that mean that postal mail could be held liable if someone coordinated a terrorist attack by letter?

Think about what you're suggesting.

[escherize]

Should they pull their Messages app for the same reason? How about any ios email clients?

[debt]

Maybe?

[teddyfrozevelt]

No, they definitely should not.

Telegram isn't even responsible for what people send using their service as long as they take reasonable steps towards stopping abuse. Apple has no liability here at all.

[jsmthrowaway]

Are you sure? ISIS has been coordinating operations and attacks via Telegram for its entire existence, and I don't see a lot of Apple backlash in either of your courts. (Rightly, I believe. Would you go after HTC or Sprint for a phone being used as a detonator?)

[debt]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute

Apple got sued for encryption-related reasons. In theory these types of lawsuit don't stop after one time.

[jsmthrowaway]

Apple was not sued, and that case is irrelevant to your point.

[eitland]

If this was a problem then Whatsapp and every other secure chat app should be banned as well.

[debt]

I think that's not unlikely or at least, it may be necessary for apps to remove that component from the apps.

Anytime you submit an app to the App Store you have to check a box that asks if you're complying with all necessary encryption export laws. In theory, those laws could change in the future and they just simply won't let you publish apps using strong encryption.

[michaelmrose]

By your logic sprint could be held liable based on providing a phone network, or google for providing free email which can be used with encryption.

[Proof]

So I could you liable (by your own creation argument) for having a car of yours(hypothetically you are a Owner of a car dealer) be used in a hit and run? That does really sound like a world you want to live in mate?

[debt]

This seems controversial, but my original point stands. If Apple believes they may be liable for providing access to Telegram, then maybe that's why they removed it in the first place.

Y'all are right, there a probably very could counterarguments to that, but I don't think that makes Apple potentially any less liable.

[michaelmrose]

Liable based on what law? You really need to support your arguments.