EU Investigating Telegram Over User Numbers (ft.com) 48
Brussels is investigating whether Telegram breached EU digital rules by failing to provide accurate user numbers [non-paywalled source], as officials push to bring the controversial messaging app under stricter supervision. Financial Times: EU legal and data experts suspect that the app has understated its presence in the EU to stay under a 45mn user threshold, above which large online platforms are subject to a swath of Brussels regulations designed to check their influence. The EU probe comes alongside a wide-ranging French investigation into alleged criminal activity on Telegram that led to the arrest on Saturday of its founder, Russian-born billionaire Pavel Durov.
Telegram has said Durov, who is now a French-Emirati citizen, has "nothing to hide." Telegram said in February it had 41mn users in the EU. Under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), Telegram was supposed to provide an updated number this month but did not, only declaring it had "significantly fewer than 45mn average monthly active recipients in the EU."
Telegram has said Durov, who is now a French-Emirati citizen, has "nothing to hide." Telegram said in February it had 41mn users in the EU. Under the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), Telegram was supposed to provide an updated number this month but did not, only declaring it had "significantly fewer than 45mn average monthly active recipients in the EU."
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Meanwhile France, the UK, Denmar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech isn't compatible with hate speech laws. So, if your country has those, you're a authoritarian country with no free speech.
By that measure the USA does not have and never had free speech either: Three former Backpage executives were sentenced to prison for promoting prostitution [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They are completely compatible.
They address completely different things.
Free speech: the government/law enforcement can not prosecute anyone who attacks the government or its representees, with words.
Hate speech: the government and its jurisdiction and law enforcement can very well prosecute people who attack other people with words. Especially when harm is likely going to happen.
Very simple concept.
Exactly the same that porn is restricted to age groups and child porn is forbidden. Or do you honestly think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You fail to acknowledge that the same mechanisms that can be used to censor HateSpeech can be used on any speech and there is little to nothing that prevents the government from doing so.That is wrong. The laws can only be used against hate speech.
If you give the government the right to censor "hatespeech" it'll be a very short period of time before they use the same mechanism to shut down any political speech they dislike.
No. There is no law under which they could do that.
If you not understand freedom of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We have "seperation of powers" in Europe.
The government can not prosecute anyone.
It has to file a law suit to a court.
And that court is working according to the law, and not according to Government wishes.
If you do not think that "Marine La Pen" did promote hate speech: up to you. You must have super low moral and ethic standards to think different.
Re: (Score:2)
We have "seperation of powers" in Europe.
hahaahahahahahahaha.... Yeah, we "have" that, in the USA, too.
The government can not prosecute anyone.
Yeah, that's why the government employs an army of lawyers, genius. They have have an appropriate name... "Prosecutor". The can and absolutely do prosecute anyone they want and since they have a bunch of neo-nazi "hate speech" laws they now can do it pretty much at will and for very weak and dubious "cause", too.
It has to file a law suit to a court.
Oh noes! A "suit"! Well that just cures everything doesn't it? I'm sure that'll stop them from abusing the censorship laws. Problem solv
Re: (Score:1)
The government can not prosecute anyone.
A state attorney can. But he is not under control of the government?
A state attorney can not and would not prosecute a citizen who is exercising free speech. Because: he knows the lawIf he would, for what ever reason: likely the first judge would slap him his papers into the face. If he does rule in his favour, the appealing court will both slap the state attorney and the lower level judge.
And both lose 10 years of their career.
Free speech is a constitutional law.
Hate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the response looks to carefully created for a legal loophole, so he is probably ok. if we start locking up ceo's for lying... hey boeing...
"significantly fewer than 45mn average monthly active recipients in the EU."
Re: (Score:2)
First, I didn't say anything about Jews. The equation of the Israel lobby (zionists) with Jews is a falsehood when the majority of zionists elected to office in the US are Christians, and when the lobby itself deems a "fake Jew" anyone who does not sign into its murderous project.
Second, "bad at propaganda"ââthat phrase is quite a manipulation. Obviously Israel has failed the information war due to its own ruthlessness and guile, and also the callous and entitled language of its ministers and spok
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The dislike of Jews goes back to Roman times - and like back then - it wasn't the Jews, but a psycho subset that slaughtered Romans.
The laws made preventing Jews from certain activity in Europe originated from that massacre - and carried over into the present day by stupid people using it as a reason to hate, but also stupid people using it as a distraction from their activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Uh, sure. That doesn't sound very French to m (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Never conflate 'Jews' with 'Zionists'.
It's the same as conflating 'Christians' with 'Nazis'.
Subsets of psychopaths manipulating followers of a religion for their own ideology and financial gain and shielding themselves with accusations that those opposing them are against that religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody Scream Word Of The Day! (Score:4, Funny)
Today's secret word is
TELEGRAM!
Watch how it'll get Assanged.
Re: (Score:1)
right!
You have these people who are so far buried in the buttholes of the establishment that they can't even see past the rectum.
EU? (Score:2)
Re: EU? (Score:2)
Controversial as in "Privacy" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amazing how far the Elites are going to try and suppress people being able to talk freely to each other without being spied on.
It's like they are worried we will find something out and talk about it. ...
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing controversial about Telegram's privacy is that people like you think that it is a thing rather than something that needs to be explicitly enabled on a per chat basis and can't be enabled on group chats.
Telegram is one of the more easy chat systems to spy on these days. But you people gobble up whatever myth you're fed.
Re: (Score:1)
It's like they are worried we will find something out and talk about it. ...
It is the same deal with Tiktok, they find they cannot control the information flowing out from Gaza through Telegram, so they have to kill it.
Units (Score:2)
the app has understated its presence in the EU to stay under a 45mn user threshold
45mn? You mean 45 mili-nano users, that is, 45 pico users. Not that much, after all.
Privacy was fun when everyone agreed with the EU (Score:2)
but now that some people don't agree with the EU dictatorship, it's time to do away with the EU citizen's privacy.
I have to say (Score:2)
that throwing him in jail is simply reprisal for refusing to install a government "backdoor".