[nabc45]

I did not say that. I said that Telegram moved to their clouds to evade the sentence of a judge, which means Russian ISPs resorted to banning entire IP ranges, which means law-abiding customers are now affected by it. This is, because of the malicious actions of Telegram, now Russian citizens can't access law-abiding websites hosted in Google and Amazon. That should bother Google and Amazon, who should guarantee the connectivity of their law-abiding customers by kicking out Telegram so the IP range bans are lifted.

In the end Google and Amazon will kick out Telegram, it's probably a matter of days, so I don't understand what this fuss is about.

[Molaxx]

Which malicious actions by telegram? Providing their customers with private communication not eavesdropped by the russian government? A government linked with the murder of political oposition personalities? If the Russian government decided to ban Amazon and make law abiding Russian businesses suffer the responsibility lays on the Russian government,not Amazon. I personally think that if Amazon would ban telegram and succumb to the heavy handed Russian policy it'll hurt the law abiding Russian citizen ability to express any dissatisfaction with their government and decisions. This would directly lead to a government that governs for the sake of its own existance and not for the betterment of its citizens. How could it if it doesn't allow the citizens to express their wishes and plights? But that is an internal Russian issue which I believe the Russians should deal with however they like. My interest in Amazon not succumbing is the effect it'll have around the world. I would not like my government to get such ideas because it directly affects my rights.

[codedokode]

> In the end Google and Amazon will kick out Telegram,

Telegram invented a nice trick. Durov wants to reward people hosting proxies so Google and Amazon will have to identify them and kick them out too.

[codedokode]

Telegram has no authority to ban anything so it cannot be at fault. Trying to make your service work cannot be called "malicious activity".

> That should bother Google and Amazon, who should guarantee the connectivity of their law-abiding customers by kicking out Telegram so the IP range bans are lifted.

This might increase an influx of complaints from other governments. If they kicked out Telegram, why not kick out someone else?

[amarkov]

> Telegram has no authority to ban anything so it cannot be at fault. Trying to make your service work cannot be called "malicious activity".

Telegram knew the Russian government was trying to censor them. So they disguised their traffic as Google traffic. Now, because Telegram did this and Russia called their bluff, some Google clients who have nothing to do with Telegram can no longer reach the Russian market.

Why isn't this just as malicious as any other denial of service attack? It sucks for Telegram, but it's not reasonable or sustainable to let anyone who needs to evade censorship impersonate Google.