Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

https://telegra.ph/Why-Telegram-had-to-follow-Apple-and-Google-when-they-suspended-a-voting-app-09-25

by noxer • 5 years ago

229 168 5 years ago

noxer10• 5 years ago

There was recently comments about this with questionable reasoning. There is an official statement now so everyone can make their own educated opinion.

Please don't start a "telegram is not encrypted by default" shitstorm like in every other comment section about anything related to Telegram.

peakaboo• 5 years ago

100% this. People sitting in their WhatsApps and Facebook messangers, not understanding why someone would like to use a better chat client because it's actually better, and also because your data doesn't end up at Google or Facebook.

Probably ends up at the nsa though. But I care more about not being a product of Google.

GekkePrutser6• 5 years ago

WhatsApp does have pretty good E2E encryption though.

Its weak point were the backups. They were encrypted but the key was with WhatsApp and the data with Google or Apple. All a friendly secret government request away. Of course you can turn off backups but you don't know whether everyone in your group does.

However they have recently started to shore this up too. You can now choose to keep the key yourself. Of course you still don't know whether everyone in your chat group does this.. But even the alternative password method is much safer than before. According to FB it's stored in a HSM. Yes, we have to take their word for it. But if you use the numeric key only you will have it (and thus no way to recover the data which is a normal consequence of good encryption)

WhatsApp still leaks data for sure. Like all your contacts (even non WhatsApp users), and all your metadata, like when you're talking to whom.

But the content is pretty safe there IMO. Surprisingly so for Facebook. I don't like using it very much either but I'm Europe we simply don't have a choice. I limit its access to my contacts and photos by running it inside a 'work profile' on Android.

Messenger is a different story of course.

GekkePrutser6• 5 years ago

I think for open group chats it doesn't really matter. Because anyone can join anyway. Nobody complains that IRC isn't E2E encrypted and still many people use it every day :) That usecase doesn't benefit from it at all.

For closed (invite only) group chats and 1:1 chats I think it should be encrypted by default though. Like WA and Signal. There's the secret chats of course but they only work on one device and not on group chats. Of course key management is hard in those cases but the others have worked around this very well.

I agree that encryption issue doesn't really have any bearing on this bot ban though. This thing wasn't really about surveillance. But the best way to make this appear in the comments is Telegram fixing it :)

Edit: FWIW I really like Telegram because they're open to integration with other networks (eg Matrix) and that they actually allow and embrace bots. But it would be so much better if they did have E2E.

vbezhenar2• 5 years ago

I trust Telegram E2E implementation more, than Whatsapp. I'm sure that there are no cloud backups (for me and for other person), I'm sure that there's no sync happening (any sync is potential threat to security). All data stays on device and that's about it. It's true end-to-end. Whatsapp and Signal implementations are not End to End. They're something like User to User or Account to Account, with some encrypted copies floating around. They have many ends. That blurs responsibilities.

I hope that their implementation will stay as it is. I'm all for implementing better security for ordinary chats, but they should keep secret chats feature as a restricted high-security channel.

thevinter• 5 years ago

I would like to point out that key management is hard when, like telegram, you can seamlessly access your account on multiple devices. See Signal or WhatsApp asking you to be on the same network with your phone etc. This is the only reason I didn't move to Signal yet and I don't think there's (yet) a clear solution.

webmobdev3• 5 years ago

First, without support from Apple and Google, any fight with a local regulator is lost before it starts ... Our website that hosts Telegram Web and the standalone Telegram app for Android would be blocked by local telecoms in a matter of minutes. Even existing users would lose access to Telegram once Apple and Google turn off notifications for the app (which are used not only to deliver messages to users, but also to distribute unblocked IP addresses and dodge censorship).
Some users wish Telegram was 100% independent from everyone and could ignore Apple, Google and national laws of all countries. I also wish it was possible. But the reality we live in is different. I have warned the public many times of the danger that the Apple/Google duopoly poses for freedom of speech. And, as I wrote in August, the world is becoming more pro-censorship in general, with even democratic countries changing their definitions of free speech due to concerns of election interference from geopolitical rivals.

This is the main issue - BigTech have grown too big and have too much influence now on politics since the US decided to sub-contract intelligence gathering and surveillance to them (as Snowden revealed). The author is right that democratic countries are now increasingly becoming pro-censorship and have an anti-privacy attitude.

echelon6• 5 years ago

Who is downvoting you?

We should never support censorship or the erosion of privacy. Preservation of these two is essential for our democracy and freedom.

echelon6• 5 years ago

I've just lost the ability to edit posts.

I was in the middle of an edit to add more commentary, and it failed. This hasn't ever happened to me on HN before.

Can a moderator explain what is going on or why I'm being targeted?

Edit button is completely gone on the above post. https://i.imgur.com/BnYuqx6.jpg

webmobdev3• 5 years ago

Yesterday I could only make two posts on HN before HN temporarily banned me with the message "Please slow down. You are posting too fast." This kind of ban is only for a few hours. I don't know if this ban is automatically triggered or mod initiated but believe the trigger for it is when some comments of mine receive high upvotes and downvotes (perhaps "flagging" the comment as "controversial / inflammatory"). And I guess it is part of HN's moderation tactic to ensure quality of content, and while it is annoying sometimes, I don't see any conspiracy in it.

However, like you noticed, I do believe that some of my posts are targeted as part of the online marketing / "reputation management" that happens regularly all over the internet by BigTech. I am vocal about right to privacy, right to repair and need for government regulation of BigTech, and have noticed that if my posts on these subjects specifically mention Google, Apple, Microsoft or Amazon they are often downvoted (I once noticed a post go from 10 upvotes to 10 downvotes, in real-time, and that's when I realised what's happening).

(Anyway, HN doesn't like this kind of discussion as it doesn't add much value due to its speculative nature and it tends to distract us from the main topic.)

echelon6• 5 years ago

This is why apps suck.

Steve Jobs got us into this mess by trying to monopolize the iPhone processor (and only allowed the web to bootstrap his platform). Complete control can be strong armed by dictators, and our spineless capitalists will bend to their will.

The W3C needs to develop a standard for non-DOM, immediate mode painted, fully WASM apps that can access all of a device's hardware. Storage, cameras, network, GPS, multithreading, gyros, all of it. Native apps over web.

We need a web-based drive by app that we can run sandboxed and install without the Apple/Google duopoly, and the US, EU, and Asia need to mandate support.

Edit: downvoters, seriously, we need to talk. You're walking the evil line.

Labo333• 5 years ago

Totally agree. Web apps are actually more efficient in the long run because there are so many apps people use infrequently and yet use storage and receive updates.

kstrauser• 5 years ago

I could go along with the idea of it, but the idea of the US mandating what I'd have to include in a browser is a bridge too far for me. If the US, EU, and Asia (like, all of Asia, en bloc?) want features, they can develop 'em themselves.

jeroenhd2• 5 years ago

What's even the point in making native apps work over the web? Just use native apps, period. You can install native applications on most operating systems already (iOS notably lacking support for persistent "sideloading").

If you want, I'm sure you can cross-compile WASM into some kind of native application or even just leverage a WebView component to make your "app" an HTML page with just a <canvas>.

All of this is already possible today, and yet this problem still persists. Open access to your own hardware is important, but it doesn't solve political problems like these. Web applications can quickly be blocked by censors as China and Russia have shown. The technology arms race doesn't solve the political root cause of the problem.

echelon6• 5 years ago

Native apps aren't a cross platform standard, when the truth is that they should be. They do the same things on all platforms.

They're also tightly controlled and taxed, which they shouldn't be.

cybernautique• 5 years ago

I agree with the spirit of your post; however, I don't understand why it needs to be drive-by, browser-delivered-and-run apps. It almost seems like you're proposing a cross-platform sandbox and app store, which I'm all for! but I'd like it to stay as far away from modern web browsers as possible.

vbezhenar2• 5 years ago

W3C have zero power. Apple and Google have power.

Also I don't think that DOM presents any problem to security. It makes no sense to cut DOM or JS engine from your sandbox. You can use Canvas/WebGL/WebGPU to access GPU and draw anything in browser window. You can use WASM to have good speed. Tech is already there, you don't need W3C for it and DOM or JS is not really in the way. Storage, Cameras, GPS, Mulththreading, Gyros are available for web apps. Everything is already there.

Web apps miss notifications on Apple platform, home screen installation via API on Apple platform, better integration with OS on Apple platform (not sure about Android), but probably you want your password manager to be native app anyway.

noxer10• 5 years ago

Wouldn't that move the power from the app store owners to the browser owner? These are the same companies just a bit different market shares.

foxfluff2• 5 years ago

If you want something that can't be strong armed by governments, the web sucks too. There's virtually nothing in it to resist censorship.

I'm sure this voting app could've been a website, and I'm sure it was or could have been blocked in Russia.

achikin• 5 years ago

Second, this particular demand of the Russian authorities wasn't obviously unconstitutional, as they referred to a law that restricts campaigning after people start casting their votes.

The problem is that according to the recent federal law - campaigning ban does not apply in case when voting lasts for several days.

twelve403• 5 years ago

yes it does, they just removed an extra day before that, here is a link: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223

cnst7• 5 years ago

A very objective article, actually, and goes well to explain how this request to block the "voting app" isn't at all as controversial as portrayed in the Western MSM:

Second, this particular demand of the Russian authorities wasn't obviously unconstitutional, as they referred to a law that restricts campaigning after people start casting their votes. Laws against political campaigning while voting is underway exist in many countries and the Russian counterpart had been introduced a long time ago. Had we received a similar demand from any European country, we would have complied with it. On the contrary, had Russia or any other country demanded something that is in clear violation of human rights, we would rather face an outright ban of Telegram in that country than compromise our values.

Y_Y• 5 years ago

But Telegram doesn't distribute apps, they blocked a "user" related to the app from using their network.

The article does seem very reasonable, but I'd disagree that it's objective, since the author, Durov, runs Telegram and is writing to justify their actions.

raman1623• 5 years ago

Not the OP but I would say it's "objective" from telegrams perspective.

They shared their decision making process which I agreed with, not too sure what would have been a better choice in that situation.

timmit2• 5 years ago

Yeah, true, the problem is basically becoming

Whether an app should block a bot/user when the app store blocks the bot app?

=> Whether an app / telegram with third party extension/bot ability would be considered as similar to an app store? => Whether a bot built on a private application ecosystem should be considered as an independent app?

cnst7• 5 years ago

But why do you think any justification is needed in the first place?

It's basically the same law as in many other countries. The only difference is that citizens of most other countries don't dare to do these tricks, because there are severe consequences for playing with election integrity in the Western world. For example, look at what happened with Dinesh D'Souza when he tried donating to a campaign of a friend more than what the law allowed, using another friend as a lame duck to make the donation to avoid personal limits.

stkdump• 5 years ago

How does the author running telegram make the argument not objective? Would the same argument made by someone else be objective?

sega_sai2• 5 years ago

Except that law does not apply for these elections that last several days https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 The law allowing campaigning was passed in May 2021.

lotusmars• 5 years ago

Yes, and this is the most puzzling lie in Durov’s post.

He knows he’s lying. Personally I think he’s found a common ground with Kremlin behind the scenes.

cnst7• 5 years ago

As I understand the article, it used to be that campaigning has been disallowed as early as one day before the voting day.

Now it's disallowed starting from the voting day.

Is that not so?

peoplefromibiza• 5 years ago

tangential and not against your point, but isn't this proof that relying on applications provided by private companies for politics and public sensitive matters, is the best way to end like this?

especially when the only way to get the app is through a bunch of privately held "stores"

simias2• 5 years ago

Your link contradicts what you're saying, no?

Согласно закону, предвыборная агитация должна быть завершена в 00:00 по местному времени первого дня голосования.

spindle• 5 years ago

I agree.

And I love that Durov carefully says

Telegram gives its users more freedom of speech than any other popular mobile application.

(emphasis added by me)

theshrike79• 5 years ago

That's just to stop the Well Ackshually's of the world presenting their 500 peak user end-to-end encrypted chat platforms.

It doesn't count when you're too small for anyone to bother taking you to court.

galaxyLogic3• 5 years ago

On the contrary, had Russia or any other country demanded something that is in clear violation of human rights

Isn't voting right a human right? If people don't have right to fair elections then any other rights they might have aren't guaranteed either.

twelve403• 5 years ago

The specific case that is described in this post is the law to stop campaigning during an ongoing vote, which seems like a reasonable request. Why is Telegram getting held responsible for everything else that is wrong in this world, is not clear.

lostmsu4• 5 years ago

The specific law application and that article are both bullshit.

Let's start with the law application. If you want to apply it like that, you'd have to remove every single positive post about every single candidate from the entire Internet.

In case of Telegram it is even more bullshit because unlike web browsers which (in a common folk sense) show what is available to public and therefore could be compared to public advertisement like a billboard, Telegram bot will only respond to a direct question (yes, I know technically there's no difference).

jefftk2• 5 years ago

This is why the web is so important: no app stores to pressure.

It looks to be like this particular telegram bot could have been a web site?

raman1623• 5 years ago

The web is not open for everyone some countries block certain traffic. I guess one can use a VPN, thankfully that's becoming more mainstream.

timmit2• 5 years ago

If the app is a website or a webapp.

I am pretty sure the pressure will be given to the host and domain register.

jeroenhd2• 5 years ago

A website which would get blocked instantaneously. Russia has an extensive censorship toolset available. They've blanket blocked a whole range of Cloudflare IPs at some point because they wanted a certain website behind Cloudflare shut down and didn't care about the collateral damage.

Of course, such a block is easy to circumvent with a VPN, but if you need a VPN to access it then the service is essentially unavailable to non-techs, greatly reducing its effectiveness.

There is a website[0] and I don't know why they didn't just launch a similar web app. Running on Google's appspot.com, the website would probably be dealt with the same way the apps were dealt with. No big hosting company (Amazon, Google, OVH, you name it) wants to risk being banned from the Russian internet, after all. A TOR hidden service would probably survive attempts at censorship, but at that point the whole effort is probably not worth the effort because you're not reaching many people locking the information behind TOR.

[0] https://votesmart.appspot.com/

jefftk2• 5 years ago

If your adversary is happy to block arbitrary network requests, why do they need to get the app removed from the app store? Can't they just block all requests it makes?

akomtu• 5 years ago

Why would it matter? If a website tries to undermine a dictator with long hands, the website's owner needs a better defense than tech buzzwords.

raman1623• 5 years ago

I understand their choice, their hands were tied by the distributors; apple and Google. At least for Android phones they make it easy to sideload an apk so I'm little less empathetic on that end but for iOS, you're pretty much at the mercy of apple.

keleftheriou2• 5 years ago

Twitter is currently blocking the sharing of this post: https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1441875098810519558?...

tandav• 5 years ago

Twitter blocks telegra.ph links for the last 3 years

keleftheriou2• 5 years ago

Thanks. Turns out graph.org links are not blocked and can be used instead.

lucb1e• 5 years ago

A friend recently wanted to post something anonymously. Turns out that finding a webhost depends on having an email address, and email hosts depend on having a phone number, and phone numbers depend on a payment mechanism and - in case of prepaid - a government ID needs to be shown. Telegra.ph seems to be one of the few places where you can (with a reasonable amount of markup) just post things at will. I didn't know it was censored on popular media, that's an interesting twist to the degree to which you can still anonymously post things online.

axpy906• 5 years ago

From the looks of it both Android and Apple have a great deal of power, even for Telegram.

vldchk2• 5 years ago

Here is the thing: Durov lies.

There is no law in Russia which forces him to ban that channel, and no concept of “silent days” anymore.

Russian authorities has NEVER asked Telegram to remove anything. They pushed Google and Apple to remove links to Navalny application from search and from Apple Store (and Apple removes it only for Russia users, btw, unlike Telegram removes it for everyone), and Telegram was absolutely never in the picture and never asked to do a thing publicly. Just search Russian authorities speakers. They never bring Telegram into the picture.

Durov shamelessly lies. He pretends his application is a speech freedom, but it is not.

When there was a Telegram channel posting information about Belarus policemen who torture their own people — they ban it. When there is still a channel where white men posting personal details of women and attack them — no action.

Why Durov lies?

Because after SEC issued a claim that TON is a security and killed TON as a project, he owed ton of money to investors, including American. He had a real risk of being sued.

Where did he find money to pay investors back? He found them in Dubai, Qatar and Russia. He issued Telegram bonds and buyers of those bonds are affiliated with Russia structures like VTB Capital bank or Russian Government investment fund named “Russian Fund of Direct Investments”.

Moreover, few years ago, Russian authorities tried to ban Telegram. There was a massive campaign against the application, but then all things I mentioned happened, and SURPRISE Russia officially removed Telegram from the list of inappropriate applications and stoped attempts to ban it. Even now after the election, Russia published a list of websites whom they are going to ban because they didn’t stop spread of Navalny information. There WhatsApp and Viber in the list. But no Telegram.

For me it sounds very very directly: Durov lies. He takes money from Russia government to cover his costs from TON failure and in return he, for example, bans Navalny Telegram Bot even while he a) wasn’t asked; b) Apple and Google wasn’t asked to ask Telegram; c) law he mentioned doesn’t exist anymore.

There is no more free Telegram. Remove it now and stay safe

seniorivn5• 5 years ago

and buyers of those bonds are affiliated with Russia structures like VTB Capital bank or Russian Government investment fund named “Russian Fund of Direct Investments”.

As far as i know, it's not true(meaning there are no signs/proof of that). It's entirely possible, durov does have connections in russian elite, after all he was the creator of vk.com russian most popular social network. Vk was owned by russian oligarchs most of it's life at least partly. At the end of durov involvement with vk, he had some harsh clashes with oligarchs/regime, but ended up making a deal(and got paid well, even if not as well as he should've been). So he certainly knows how to deal with them, but i seriously doubt he enjoyed it, so he must have been really desperate if he got in bed with them again.

The biggest promise of telegram was that it would become a point of entrance to a decentralized economy based on TON blockchain and it's masternode hosted services. If they succeed to launch and than move telegram itself onto ton masternode hosting, telegram would've become the greatest/freest/(and potentially most secure, if they would implement e2ee key synchronization) messaging service ever

End of TON project, ment an end of telegram's future as a not data harvesting company.

vldchk2• 5 years ago

I can share sources to Russian websites but will it tell you anything?

https://www.rbc.ru/business/23/03/2021/605a3fbc9a79470b2eb35...

They created a very elegant scheme when through a fictional Arabic investment fund they put russian government money (Government fund invests into Arabic fund which invests into bonds). It is kind of Russian classic and they did it a lot in the last.

Nowadays Telegram Bonds are traded at Saint-Petersburg stock exchange and there are a lot of rumors that Durov attends a lot of private parties in Russia for kids of oligarchs.

skinkestek2• 5 years ago

End of TON project, ment an end of telegram's future as a not data harvesting company.

Durov can ask any day of the month for a donation and I'll give it as soon as I have money in hand. $10 - $100, no problem, more in 6 months.

In fact even if he bust released a dumb sticker collection I'd buy it just to support Telegram even if I don't use stickers.

I guess this holds true for many other ex-Whatsapp enthusiasts as well.

Investments are a bit harder for me right now since I don't have capacity to do that right now.

But I think saying he has nowhere to go except data harvesting that shows you don't know how important Telegram is to how many people.

noxer10• 5 years ago

Sorry but this is you first post here and what you claim doesn't make much sense.

He didn't have to pay back the TON investors because the deal included that if the network does not go live by a set date (and the reason isn't telegrams fault) he would return the remaining of the investment not the part used for the development. This is the risk the investors took and they lost. telegram itself only had to pay the sec fine which was peanuts for Durov.

Don't know anything about you other claims so I cant debunk but please post sources so we can check for our self.

cnst7• 5 years ago

Remove it and replace it with what exactly?!

Telegram remains the only mainstream free speech platform on the web today, with the least amount of censorship and the most resiliency against being taken down.

seniorivn5• 5 years ago

there is matrix, the best option, both secure and reasonably well made(element and alternative clients), but it miles behind telegram in terms of UI/UX even though it's on par with whatsapp/signal/etc

twelve403• 5 years ago

what you wrote in the first part is incorrect.

The law that prohibits campaigning during the election is still very much there, just like in many other countries, just not one day in advance like it used to be - this is debunked in the other thread - https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4800223 Btw, strange you didn't quote any sources for your claim - just a claim.

Russian authorities has NEVER asked Telegram to remove anything

Yes, he starts the article by saying "has to follow rules set by Apple and Google", so he is not even talking about the Russian authorities. Apple and Google have been well known for swiftly taking down the apps that they think are troublesome for them.

Finally, Telegram was a massive channel for Belarus protests - in fact, Telegram was probably the main coordination mechanism for those - have you ever heard about Nexta?

SergeAx5• 5 years ago

Do you read Nexta recently? It became a travel news feed with videos of Canaries volcano and ads.

jwond• 5 years ago

When there is still a channel where white men posting personal details of women and attack them — no action.

I’m not familiar with the situation you are referring to, but I’m curious why you specifically mentioned the race of these men. How is their race relevant?

effffggew• 5 years ago

You are 100% right

Nasreddin_Hodja2• 5 years ago

law he mentioned doesn’t exist anymore.

Also that law is applicable to certified mass media like TV, radio, magazines, news papers e.t.c., but not social media, chats, apps, forums e.t.c.

saurik2• 5 years ago

Apple pushing requirements on apps is also (supposedly) why a lot of apps (such as Instagram, which had explicitly come out to blame Apple for this) banned content of women breastfeeding, as Apple (due to Steve Jobs: there is some interesting stuff you can find on this) is so puritan.

You can also find tons of other examples of Apple's influence making decisions about what large numbers of people can experience, often without even realizing it is Apple pulling the strings, whether it be content about drugs, guns, or the use of sweat shops in the manufacturing of smart phones (a category of app I find particularly egregious for Apple to be censoring as it is so self-serving).

The core problem is really that there is no alternative: if your app isn't allowed to be accepted by Apple, you simply don't get to address something like half of Americans with your product. Users generally don't own multiple phones and they can't take an extra trip to "visit" another phone for your product, so attempts to draw analogies to supermarkets or Walmart tend to be unhelpful.

It is more akin to a physical region of the country... imagine more as if all Apple users happened to live West of the Mississippi River or whatever and you weren't allowed to sell there because they had a monopoly, and for users to use your product they have to take on massive switching costs (of moving across the country).

This centralized bottleneck on software development and distribution then plays out in tons of ways, and tends to make Apple a patsy for local government interference. People like to claim "they have to follow local laws!"... but they didn't have to build a product that puts them in so much centralized control in the first place, as except for in the most authoritarian of regimes (such as North Korea) pretty much everywhere is ok with relatively open devices (such as computers or phones that support sideloading).

Apple has thereby made an active choice to build a product that is bad for democracy around the world (including here in the west!) in no small part because it makes them a ton more money than one that they would have less centralized control over (and thereby manage to charge their extreme overheads on all use cases for)... this profits before people approach should be familiar, as it is also similar to the playbook used by Big Oil and Big Tobacco.

And, as we see in situations like this, maybe that Google merely allows sideloading isn't sufficient, given how they actively discourage it with functionality barriers (alternative stores not supporting automatic updates), discouraging messaging (telling users that side loading is dangerous), complex activation paths (sometimes requiring switches in hidden developer-only settings panels), and even stronghanding users back into their happy path (such as with their anti-virus-like tool that tends to flag alternative stores as if some kind virus).

We need to stop allowing this sort of behavior. If a company is doing something that puts them in a situation where they are making decisions to support authoritarian regimes, we should not only be morally judging them--and of course this includes everyone who works at these companies on these products: you don't get some moral pass for "merely" being a foot soldier if you have the skills to take on another job--but maybe putting in place laws that prevent our companies from tolerating these kinds of decisions.

And again: this is not to say that "you are asking Apple to violate the laws of Russia" or "you are requiring Apple to not sell to Russia"... the laws in Russia or China or wherever we tend to be talking about when these issues come up do not make it illegal to sell a device that lets users install this software: Apple, and in a different (though I do think lesser, if only for being more indirect) way Google, have gone out of their way to build a product that puts them in that position.

(To the extent to which anyone finds any of these thoughts interesting, I gave a talk at Mozilla Privacy Lab back four years ago on "That's How You Get a Dystopia", citing numerous examples of how centralized systems lead directly to the problem of gatekeepers either themselves becoming corrupt over time or being forced to corrupt themselves to satisfy external pressures, with numerous concrete examples--every slide is a citation--across the entire industry. The saddest part is that it feels like I am constantly writing down new examples of the issue I could use to make this long talk even longer, as this is a never-ending problem.)

https://youtu.be/vsazo-Gs7ms

dane-pgp• 5 years ago

Apple has thereby made an active choice to build a product that is bad for democracy

That's a good point, actually. If a company wants to claim that they are on the side of users and democracy, it needs to include in its threat modelling the possibility of "Are we the baddies?".

Torwald3• 5 years ago

Wasn't that what Google meant to do when they carried the slogan "don't be evil"?

galaxyLogic3• 5 years ago

tends to make Apple a patsy for local government interference

It feels like that's part of their business model. Apple (and Google) can have more business if they follow the dictates of dictators. Dictators can "buy" suppression of free speech from Apple/Google.

abecedarius• 5 years ago

Remember when Google left China. It's not a pipe dream to expect a strategic choice against working for a tyranny. (Yes, it is unusual. We can hope to make it less so.)

shadilay• 5 years ago

This is it. If you build the machine of tyranny it will inevitably be used to impose tyranny. Building open systems that center software freedom is a moral imperative.

Torwald3• 5 years ago

as Apple (due to Steve Jobs: there is some interesting stuff you can find on this) is so puritan.

As this "puritanism" is an interest of mine, can you point me to some of that interesting stuff you had in mind, please?

saurik2• 5 years ago

I mean, did you at least try to search 'Steve Jobs puritan' on Google? That has some information, though 'Steve Jobs porn' is probably better (and immediately turns up most of the references I would push someone towards).

ChrisMarshallNY• 5 years ago

That's an excellent article. I would love to see it used as a "template" for transparency articles by other providers.

Kinrany• 5 years ago

Regardless of whether these are the true reasons, Telegram being forced to ban a bot means Telegram can no longer be relied upon as a messenger.

They have two options:

1. Find a way around relying on Apple and Google's blessings

2. Make it technically impossible for themselves to ban someone like this again

noxer10• 5 years ago

They ban bots all the time. Bots are consider public and have to comply with telegrams ToS and to an extent with Apple/Googles ToS. Problems here mostly are related to illegal data, copyright infringement and adult content. If they could not remove such stuff Telegram would have long been shut down or at least kicked from all app stores.

The same rules apply to any other app on the stores. No technical solution (encryption or whatever) would make this go away.

foxfluff2• 5 years ago

The same rules apply to any other app on the stores.

So you can't sell a web browser that can access illegal copyright infringing adult content?

I think they should remove all browsers then.

prirai• 5 years ago

They do provide the apks on their website which dondon't have the app stores' rules upon them. You might try that.

iaml• 5 years ago

The bot was banned in that one too.

cunidev• 5 years ago

While Telegram is seen as a "wild west" of free speech by many, its centralization and worrying lack of encryption for most "non-secret" chats is something to keep in mind when reading Durov's passionate claims.

- https://www.wired.com/story/telegram-encryption-whatsapp-set...

- https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/amp/multiple-encryption-f...

Also, the optional E2EE encryption is way more limited (e.g., single-device, rather than having a key sharing mechanism) than most other, possibly more genuine, alternatives (Matrix, Signal).

- https://telegram.org/faq#:~:text=Remember%20that%20Telegram%....

EGreg2• 5 years ago

I would pick encrypted Telegram over Signal anyday, but I believe that decentralized solutions with open source backends, like MaidSAFE, Freenet, and to some extent Matrix.org are the future.

vfclists3• 5 years ago

Matrix share metadata by default. Count them out.

And they have no desire to switch from their Python based server.

Aachen• 5 years ago

I doubt many here are still under the illusion that Telegram has anything to do with security or encrypted messaging. (It's just too damn convenient for UX reasons.)

That's not the same as a "wild west of free speech", though. I have no idea how well they do on the front of censorship, they're way too intransparent an organisation for that, but the USA also sees itself as such and it is not encrypted. Secure protocols and censorship are two separate things, even if one (in this day and age) helps the other.

joshxyz• 5 years ago

Same here. Great user experience and developer experience too (compaire their bot api to other platforms).

swiley• 5 years ago

There are no good smartphone messaging apps. XMPP with OMEMO is the best you can do currently.

gefhfff3• 5 years ago

It's not. It doesn't work with iOS in practice and requires you to verify each single session instead of just a the people to prevent MITM attacks. Afaik it does not have any audit either

0xy• 5 years ago

Signal made their server code closed source for over a year while they added a scam cryptocurrency coin that has a financial conflict of interest with the creator of the project. They claimed to be "open source" while this was happening.

More recently, they've had egregious bugs such as images being sent to random contacts in your list, an absolutely inexcusable error.

afroboy• 5 years ago

But the server code doesn't mean anything the most important thing is E2EE happen on device and the server is just a messenger. Signal is the most trusted app in authoritarian countries.

stiltzkin2• 5 years ago

I find Telegram in this gray area as a messaging app like WhatsApp or Signal and public channels and groups app as Discord. Durov is passionate about Telegram encryptions when many Telegram users do not actually care of privacy and more about convenience and a way to keep update with may communities as Discord.

areoform• 5 years ago

I am somewhat confused by the argument offered here. Providing an application that helps voters to decide whom they can choose to vote for, or who the alternative candidates are in an election is not the same as campaigning.

From what I've found so far, I disagree with this interpretation. It's as if saying that publishing a list of people with their stances on a particular policy is the same as campaigning for them. It's not.

By this metric, a website like isidewith is campaigning, https://www.isidewith.com/, as are voting guides that help voters pick out candidates who back action on Climate Change, https://voteclimatepac.org/voters-guide/, or who are pro/anti-2A, https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ / https://gunsensevoter.org/ . Are these campaigning as well?

Admittedly, the application differed from isidewith by focusing on a single issue - anti-totalitarianism, it did not do anything different that voteclimatepac, the NRA-PVF, Gun Sense Voter etc don't do. It was meant to match voters with candidates who already offer their preferred position - anti-totalitarianism. I don't see how this is campaigning.

Further, the app wasn't affiliated with most of the people it was recommending. While it was designed by Navalny, it recommended people across multiple parties. This fact weakens the argument even further.

Here is the app for you to judge for yourself, https://votesmart.appspot.com/ English translation: https://votesmart-appspot-com.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&...

As you will see, it doesn't advocate for a party or a candidate, but across parties and candidates based on a single issue - anti-totalitarianism.

While Telegram has taken a stand against the Russian govt. in the past, I do not believe that past action is necessarily predictive of future results in this regard. Given that the new Kremlin, in particular, is famous for bringing its opposition under their thumbs and turning them into controlled opposition.

With a flourish he sponsored lavish arts festivals for the most provocative modern artists in Moscow, then supported Orthodox fundamentalists, dressed all in black and carrying crosses, who in turn attacked the modern-art exhibitions. The Kremlin’s idea is to own all forms of political discourse, to not let any independent movements develop outside of its walls. Its Moscow can feel like an oligarchy in the morning and a democracy in the afternoon, a monarchy for dinner and a totalitarian state by bedtime.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/hi...

This assertion may seem conspiratorial. And it is. Though not guaranteed, it is well within the realm of possibility that the state leader bred by the KGB found ways to turn the screws on M. Durov to keep his hold on power. Given that he kills regularly for it. Should we consider it unlikely that he's willing to coerce others for it?

vfclists3• 5 years ago

They should simply develop the app for the PinePhone

intricatedetail• 5 years ago

That's why we don't have side loading as a first class citizen. Our phones become leashes

xchip• 5 years ago

TL;DR: Apple and Google banned a Russian voting app due to local laws. Telegram has to follow rules set by Apple and Google in order to remain available to users on iOS and Android.

lostmsu4• 5 years ago

Were they threatened by Apple and Google directly? No. Are they much different from a web browser in the regard that you can access a web page (strike that) bot by navigating to a link?

mensetmanusman• 5 years ago

At least we can sleep peacefully knowing that Tim Cook will make another million by improving the lives of oppressive governments thwarting change by knee-capping the only modern tool of communication.

lostmsu4• 5 years ago

Also Pichai and of course Durov

nixpulvis• 5 years ago

First, without support from Apple and Google, any fight with a local regulator is lost before it starts.

More evidence of the problem plaguing our current era. These two companies simple should not be authorities above all local regulators.

stiltzkin2• 5 years ago

Just as the era of Windows and OSX we need a good smartphone linux alternative.

igor_akhmetov• 5 years ago

What I don't get is why not make the blocked channel available for sideloaded APKs only? Telegram could then show an explanation on how to sideload the app and still comply with Google rules.

RostiB• 5 years ago

shame.

SergeAx5• 5 years ago

This is at least partially bullshit. I have a sideloaded version of Telegram for Android, which is capable of auto-update itself and promoted as even more free speech compared to stores version. I also have a Windows desktop client, which works normally with adult content blocked on iOS client.

Both of those clients blocked Smart Vote bot because my phone number is in Russia. At the same time all my non-Russian friends was able to freely use the bot all of the time.

kuschkufan• 5 years ago

uhhh, if I go to https://telegra.ph/ right now, I can publish a new post there without any authorisation. Heh.

I guess I'd want to let them know, but how..

neoromantique• 5 years ago

You'd want to let them know that their service is functioning as expected? Okay.

Why Telegram had to follow Apple and Google when they suspended a voting app

Related Stories