[RandomThoughts3]

> if you require your information systems to be crime & abuse free, you will not have an information system anyone can use.

No one does and that’s not why Durov was arrested. It’s fine if there is crime on your system providing you are ready to work with law enforcement so that the space can be policed to the best of your ability.

If you don’t, you are basically voluntarily harming society and will be prosecuted. I’m personally fine with that.

I find it very hard to take the discussion about Telegram here seriously anyway because I just opened Telegram right now to check and sure enough the third contact in people nearby right now is called “Weed, Coke, Viagra - Buy now”. At some point, if you don’t see the issue, I think you might be intentionally blind.

[Djdjur7373bb]

> I just opened Telegram right now to check and sure enough the third contact in people nearby right now is called “Weed, Coke, Viagra - Buy now”. At some point, if you don’t see the issue, I think you might be intentionally blind.

Or we just see these discussions as something that shouldn't be criminalized. I'm happy that those who wish to buy drugs can do so on a safer platform than the street corner.

[RandomThoughts3]

Well then lobby for drugs to be legalised because arguing for free expression when you are actually sad that your drug dealer got busted is completely hypocritical.

[Djdjur7373bb]

Which part is hypocritical?

I do support drug legalization and decriminalization of all "victimless" crimes.

But I also realize that libertarian policies are unlikely to be adopted in today's political climate, so I also support technology that gets the government out of personal lives, regardless of the law.

[southernplaces7]

>No one does and that’s not why Durov was arrested. It’s fine if there is crime on your system providing you are ready to work with law enforcement so that the space can be policed to the best of your ability. If you don’t, you are basically voluntarily harming society and will be prosecuted. I’m personally fine with that.

What you say is absurd because you're assuming that what the government requests for being "ready to work with law enforcement" is actually reasonable, fair and considerate to certain rights that most of western society ostensibly takes seriously. You assume that the measures proposed under the guise of protecting some vulnerable group won't be used for other much more self-serving things that also very much harm society.

Both of these assumptions are visibly false in so many cases of such state requests that you can't just be "fine" with that unless you flat out don't give a shit about people's fundamental rights against a powerful state.