[southernplaces7]

I guess when you label your mendacious, snooping, encryption-breaking, backdoor sneak schemes created for the sake of easier mass surveillance as "child protection measures", moral alchemy turns them into wholesome good programs that only monsters would object to.

[SXX]

Yeah it's all true except 99% of Telegram is not encrypted by design and majority of content is publicly accessible to anyone with account

I would agree with you if Telegram actually had e2ee like Signal. But it isn't. No encryption breaking required to moderate public content.

[southernplaces7]

So wider encryption should be a requirement of resisting mass surveillance facilitation pushed in the name of "protecting children"? It's amazing how far so many people have gone towards normalizing the idea that the state, or some supranational organization in the case of the EU, deserves the right to simply be able to monitor and access reams of private communications and their media at its whim.

Bad and criminal behaviors always existed. I see no evidence of them having been made any lesser or infrequent by virtue of giving massively powerful legally empowered organizations the right to monitor whatever they like at their self-righteously couched discretion.

[hulitu]

When Stalin did it, it was good. When the "western" "democracies" do it, it is "to protect the children".

[7jjjjjjj]

The state shouldn't be allowed to censor chat services no matter how much encryption is used. E2EE might make the censorship less practical but it doesn't make it OK.