Thread

-Treat the arrest of the Telegram CEO as an emergency. -Advocate for his freedom and for all freedom tech providers. -Support and build things that function without a CEO, like some aspects of Nostr. When authoritarian Europe or the US arrests you, be able to say, β€œI literally can’t control it, it’s already out there, and we are legion.” -Tell me and others, as capital providers, how to accelerate this.

Replies (52)

The third point is especially important. For businesses that run unstoppable infrastructure, even if the operators are persecuted, the idea and vision behind the technologies used can still live on. The Pirate Bay is an incredible example of this. Martyrs in the freedom tech space are unfortunately inevitable (and, as I've grown to believe, might actually be necessary), but if things are built right, in a local-first, modular manner, any force that the state throws at us will ultimately fail.
Lyn Alden's avatar Lyn Alden
-Treat the arrest of the Telegram CEO as an emergency. -Advocate for his freedom and for all freedom tech providers. -Support and build things that function without a CEO, like some aspects of Nostr. When authoritarian Europe or the US arrests you, be able to say, β€œI literally can’t control it, it’s already out there, and we are legion.” -Tell me and others, as capital providers, how to accelerate this.
View quoted note →
The way I would defend cases like Telegram’s would broadly go like this. And this is also what I am highlighting in public posts and when talking with friends (NOT LEGAL ADVICE): Lack of Direct Involvement. No Criminal Intent: The CEO and the company did not create or operate the platform with the intention of facilitating criminal activities. The app was designed to provide secure communication for legitimate users, protecting privacy in line with legal and ethical standards. Separation from Users' Actions: The platform is a tool, and the company cannot be held liable for how individuals choose to use it, just as phone companies or email providers aren’t held accountable for criminal activities conducted using their services. Legal and Ethical Duty to Protect Privacy. Highlight that end-to-end encryption is a recognized standard for protecting user privacy, and its implementation aligns with global privacy laws (e.g., GDPR, CCPA) and human rights frameworks that emphasize the right to privacy. Responsibility of Law Enforcement: Argue that while the platform offers encryption, the responsibility to prevent and prosecute criminal activities lies with law enforcement agencies. The inability to access encrypted communications should prompt law enforcement to seek other investigatory methods rather than shifting the blame to the technology provider. Existing Legal Mechanisms: Point out that mechanisms like subpoenas, warrants, and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) exist to access certain data legally, and the CEO has always complied with lawful requests within the bounds of the law. Disproportionate Sentence: Argue that the demanded 20-year sentence is grossly disproportionate, especially given the lack of direct criminal involvement. Highlight the absence of any previous convictions or misconduct by the CEO. Impact on Innovation and Privacy: Argue that punishing the CEO for providing encryption technology would set a dangerous precedent, stifling innovation, and undermining efforts to protect individual privacy against state surveillance and cyber threats.
↩ replying to freemymind πŸ‡¨πŸ‡­
That is also not a binary option between fully private or none at all. It is a path, getting people out of facebook was the first step. Moving them out of Whatsapp to something like Telegram was another step. There is a succession of steps towards better privacy for the masses and not always a straightforward path. Maybe this is something useful for your case. Choose a path that isn't making all the changes overnight, but at least making steady progress toward your goal. We've come a long way since 5 years to this part when looking back in perspective. We'll keep moving.
↩ replying to brito
Yes there I go with you, that it is a granular way. But if Telegram is any better then Whatsapp is kind of speculative. But I wouldmalso say every service you do not need to use from Meta is a good move. I am just not sure if Telegram really is this big privacy defender it trys to tell through its marketing. Seems to weak to only depend on one generous donor #durov and no other sources to fund the project...
If they arrest me in Texas I'll just shoot them. Google and Apple can be pressured to remove Nostr related apps from their ecosystem but they can't stop you from downloading SDK's and installing it manually. On the other hand I'm learning more about the Deffie-Hellmlan key exchange and a double ratchet key cryptography system that will help insure privacy... Onward. image
It starts with not being a bitcoin maxi, because bitcoin has no binding contract While as something like hosting websites on Arweave is a decentralized business that takes in revenue:
Arweave | Simplified Privacy
 Arweave isn't competing with lightning for general cash, so should not trigger the insane "shitcoin" response. But hey, I expect to be ignored with this post. Since I think you’re looking for likes and not solutions.
lets remind you - telegram is not popular in EU, mostly telegram is used in russia and ukraine. So when you say that the EU authorities are restricting freedom of speech by arresting Durov - well, if you mean freedom of speech in russia, yes. but I don't think the French police care much about freedom of speech in russia. i'm not justifying the arrest, just the details.
1. First thing you can do as capital provider is to stop misleading. Its not necessary that only CEOs will get arrested. Tornado Cash smart contract still works and being used. 2. Nostr is a bunch of clients and relays. Clients can censor, in fact there are NIPs for it: NIP-56, NIP-51. Relays can censor some events and a few relays share this info using NIP 11. A nostr developer and relay operator can be asked to "moderate" and they do control things. 3. Even ecash is being promoted as censorship resistant although its not. Mints can enforce KYC for mint, melt, swap etc. at some point and censor some users based on different things.
GitHub
NUT-XX: Authentication by starbackr-dev Β· Pull Request #106 Β· cashubtc/nuts
Currently, access to mint endpoints are open to anyone. Since Cashu tokens are IOUs, the mint should have an optional way of restricting access to ...