this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
85 points (100.0% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

1443 readers
15 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com
85
Telegram Reportedly "Ready to Fight Piracy" According to Govt. Official * TorrentFreak (torrentfreak.com)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Glass0448@lemmy.today to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Image

At various times, most social media platforms have received criticism for alleged failure to prevent distribution of copyright-infringing content. Few, however, have been threatened with widespread blocking more often than Telegram. In a row that seemed ready to boil over last year, Telegram was given an ultimatum by the Malaysian government; come to the negotiating table or face the consequences. A Malaysian minister now says that Telegram is ready to fight piracy.

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Too bad Telegram isn't as ready to fight Nazi propaganda on their service, but they would have to start with the white supremacist symbolism their own blog was slipping into release posts.

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

I rather have free speech, if you don't like Telegram then use something else.

[–] rando@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Putting someone else's life in danger (unprovoked) is not a free speech

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's different, free speech is not about putting people on danger.

[–] jherazob 23 points 5 months ago

Promoting nazism IS inherently putting people in danger, that IS their thing

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Tolerating intolerance leads to disappearance of tolerance.

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

With open dialogue, education and respect you can have both.

[–] Kissaki@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

How does/can dialogue, education, and respect include intolerance? Isn't intolerance inherently disrespectful, uneducated, and non-dialogue?

[–] 96VXb9ktTjFnRi@feddit.nl 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It's with polarization that things spin out of control. When the left thinks the right are nazi's and the right think the left are commies, that's when people become less critical of themselves and hatred spirals into a civil war, and the one that's on top will do anything to prevent the 'enemy' taking over. Tolerating verbal intolerance is a good thing. That's why your own statement is tolerated, it's literally advocating intolerance (be it indirectly in favor of tolerance). I really don't believe your statement is correct. Tolerance leads to tolerance. Intolerance leads to more intolerance. Not tolerating intolerance doesn't make it disappear, it just makes people feel more strongly about it. When I cant think something or people look down on me for it, I am definitely gonna think it some more. Actual violence should of course not be tolerated. Ergo: is it ok to punch a nazi? No ofcourse not... unless the civil war has started yet and all tolerance is gone, but let's not go there.....

[–] Zelaf@sopuli.xyz 1 points 5 months ago

I find your point interesting and I agree to some extent.

When I have people around me that express some type of radical view I usually casually mention a slight disagreement or let it slide because I know going into a debate with me won't really change much.

However expressing opinions and feelings that are inherently based on hatred or lack of understanding, at least from what history has told, will lead to them being acted upon. Having resenting opinions about LGBT, for example, and grouping up with people with that mindset will probably spiral it into more lack of understanding and stronger opinions against it. Eventually leading to a growing and potentially spreading resentment against it. This extends to religion, skin colour, countries, mental diagnoses or anything else really.

What the "core" is so to speak is about things that people can't inherently control, being born differently, being born in a certain place, etc.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

.ml user don't be a fascist challenge.

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Free speech is not about being fascist 🙄

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but what you're describing isn't freedom of speech; freedom of speech is the prohibition against the government taking action for the contents of the opinions you express. It has nothing to do with what a non-government platform allows or disallows.

A platform that allows Nazis is a Nazi platform, plain and simple.

I realize you're probably a dishonest pos, so this is for the benefit of whoever else reads it.

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's also censorship if we are speaking of platforms.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Hopefully the package containing all the fucks I give doesn't get lost in the mail.

Edit: There's either a bunch of Nazis supporting this fucker or they're using alt accounts.

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

Good for you and we don't care

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He's got a temp ban and I've banned a suspected alt account upvoting him from our instance. It'll be a permanent ban if he comes back for more.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 7 points 5 months ago

Funny how the .ml admins are so opposed to free speech on their own server, then.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm disappointed so many people disagree with this. Yes, now they're blocking opinions you don't like, but if they choose to block opinions you agree with, I doubt they'd continue whistling the same tune.

[–] guts@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

It seems this instance is becoming like second Reddit.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 24 points 5 months ago

These fucks just can't stop spoiling everything for people

[–] ahriboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 5 months ago

RIP OnlyFans leaks on telegram

[–] Andy@programming.dev 18 points 5 months ago

So far, this isn't much of anything.

Telegram already closes public channels reported for copyright violations.

Some excerpts from this post:

Compared to other platforms, we do not see the seriousness of Telegram to cooperate.

. . .

In May 2023, progress appeared to be going in the wrong direction. Telegram was reportedly refusing to cooperate with the Ministry of Communications and Digital on the basis it did not wish to participate in any form of politically-related censorship.

. . .

With no obviously public comment from Telegram on the matter, it’s hard to say how the social platform views its end of what appears to be an informal agreement.

Telegram will be acutely aware, however, that whatever it gives, others will demand too. That may ultimately limit Telegram’s response, whatever it may be, whenever it arrives – if it even arrives at all.

[–] TheHobbyist@lemmy.zip 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

How much responsibility would a service like Signal have, if they were to inadvertently host a private group for pirated content? I believe signal groups can have up to 1000 members, and these members can be pretty anonymous given the need to only share an ephemeral username which can not be linked to a phone number or any other identity? Can they claim plausible deniability and not do anything?

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

IANAL and all the other anals, but my understanding is Signal wouldn't be liable and wouldn't have to do anything. They designed their service so they can't know the content of the messages, so if a third party Maloyse (see what I'm doing there?) is reporting a message between Alice and Bob that Maloyse thinks to be illegal, Signal would be within legal grounds to bring into question how did M got that message, and it can't be used as proof against Signal because there is no legal mechanism by which Signal could have acquired that message and act upon it - in fact, Signal has grounds to suspect Maloyse is crafting those messages, since neither Alice nor Bob have reported such message.

This post is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Feel free to contact me to negotiate for an alternative license.

[–] Gimpydude@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 5 months ago

This is the correct answer. Both Alice and Bob approve.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In a group chat, M wouldn't be a 3rd party.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Maloyse absolutely can:

  • eavesdrop above Alice's shoulder
  • be an evil, militarily dressed maid on ~~Bob~~ Alice's home
  • have remote administrative permissions on Bob's phone
  • ("accidentally") get a full-workspace snapshot of Charlie's desktop while he has the group open in Signal Desktop
  • Sneak around and check the phone while Alice and Donny are having sex
  • Hit Charlie with a $5 wrench
[–] wahming@monyet.cc 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but we're discussing group chats disseminating piracy links. Do you think it's harder to join such a group chat and report it to signal than it is to do all the cloak and dagger nonsense?

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which one is harder has zero relevance upon how much work Signal has to do to vet the contents transmitted on the channels, which is zero, nil, because they can't. Even if it was Charlie who reported the channel, Signal intentionally has no practical means to verify neither the accused contents nor the authenticity of the report. And this is actually good.

Infrastructure-wise, Signal (mostly) limits itself to only being a carrier. In a just world, a carrier who has been set up to take the limited responsibility of a carrier is not liable for the contents of carried things that are protected so that the carrier can not peek into. Sure, they can be legally pressed to change that and "upgrade" their lawyer plan to "content vetter", but as far as I know that hasn't happened yet.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't get what you're trying to say at all. If a party is in a group chat and reports it, they can provide their credentials to Signal to enable Signal to view the contents of the chat.

Yes, they're a carrier that does not know the content of what they carry. But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don't take action. Whether or not that's fair is a pretty large topic, though I'm inclined to think so myself.

[–] veniasilente@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But once they are made aware, the legal system considers them to now bear responsibility if they don’t take action.

And the action Signal can take is pretty clear: "Okay thanks for reporting, feel free to file a lawsuit against Alice and or Bob instead, have a nice day." Remember: even if Signal had Charlie's credentials to view the chat, unless Charlie is an admin of the chat Signal can't do anything other than log Charlie off the group. Plus each participant still has their own message store. So by this point Signal has complied with the law. It's literally Section 230.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Not sure why you're citing US law when we're discussing foreign govts. Also the obvious thing signal can do, that most complainants would probably expect as a minimum, is banning their accounts and closing the group.

[–] azalty@jlai.lu 2 points 5 months ago

What if that happens on Session? Can the nodes operators be sued even though they have no access to the content?

[–] prosp3kt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

So, we started, or better said, finishing with the enshittification of telegram? Nice to know. Now there will be no difference with WhatsApp...

[–] Gimpydude@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Telegram is and always has been shitty. WhatsApp is shitty too. Use Signal instead.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Signal also has its flaws. Use Matrix.

[–] 0x30507DE@lemmy.today 6 points 5 months ago

Matrix has flaws as well, use XMPP.

[–] Gimpydude@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 5 months ago

For this type of use (larger scale group chat) I would agree. What are the flaws with signal though?