I believe it’s a much more complex topic than that.

I think, most likely, you overestimated the consideration of the majority. I may be wrong, though. Most opinion I read or heard about are more emotional drived.

Signal is offering the most accessible e2ee messenger right now.

Doesn’t matter. In the reach of EU, some law about Chat Control. If they make this into law, no provider within the EU will have a choice in this matter.

And the majority thinks this way for what reason?

Because “Fake News” and missinformation has been framded as a danger for our societies for a long time.

Telegram has been banned in Russia, as far as I heared.

If you don’t care for the guy, you will nearly certainly lose privat messaging in Europe. Maybe, it’s even too late by now.

Back in 2016, MS was advertising Customer Lockbox as an answer to gov’t intrusion into customer privacy.

Got it. Sorry for the missunderstanding.

I really wonder how long X aka Twitter can operate within the EU. The EU is on a smiliar tracetion in my opinion.

They famously jailed several Microsoft execs when they didn’t hand over some emails a few years ago.

And somehow, thats a good thing? To break the security of communication on demand of the gouverment?

That are good reasons.

But fighting corruption is not a goal I’m ready to pay any prize for.

I’m conflicted: on one hand, fuck telegram

Why this?

So much for free markets, democracy and freedom of speech.

I don’t know whether Spain cares a lot about “free market” at the moment.

Even if I get your point and would even make a similiar point in a privat conversation, there is still a problem. The problem, if and how the Freedom of Speech implies that you can use a certain service you choice. If this implication were true, would it not mean that the provider of the named service has a duty to provide you a access, too?

Yes, they blocked it because of copyright infringement but let’s face it, piracy should be viewed as a market option for people to get their content,

There are messenger out there, which are more privacy as Telegram. Eg. Signal, Threemea, mostly services based on XMPP and Matrix.

I understand your point. Yes, its nothing new. We have seen limitetion of the freedom of expression in different times and ages.

If you believe my statement to be implausible without video evidence

Sorry, I missed it. I thought you speak about some correspondence between a company and authorities.

Nebenbei, dass die Regierung diese Anschauung vertritt glaube ich dir gern. Darüber müsste man eigentlich einen längeren Text schreiben, aber den liest am Ende eh niemand.

i’d like to invite you to meet our former minister of defence in the current government, Lambrecht, who resigned after referring to the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to have met many nice people in a social media video.

I remember that part a bit different. The speech or address was poorly orated but, as far as I remember, his was a usual rhetorical technice to bring something positive after a negative part. The speech as a whole was a kind of summary of the year.

Same with freedom.

What about freedom?

After all we are not like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia, so those people have nothing to fear…

Oh sure. Your anecode is a very impressive symbol for the state of some discussions here. Maybe, even a bit too good to be strict true.

Could I ask, where and how do you communicate with the German gouverment?

I’m a bit pessimistic about that point. It seems that the main reason why the Internet was less regulated than, lets say, the TV market was the lack of awareness of the old authorities and policymakers. At the latest with the victory of Donald Trump, things have changed. Now the ruling class is beginning to believe in the world-changing power of the flow of (mis)information on the Internet.

Its important to note that it doesn’t matter how you think about this changes in terms of ethics or politics. The mayor event was the change of mind in regards to the internet as such. Before, the internet was seen as something new, yet not understond and/or a place were young people does childish pranks. The innocence is over, at least in their eyes.Unimportant is the question whether you believe the the world-changing power of the internet yourself. Maybe, the idea is even false and the internet isn’t that important. But you have the regulation of it on the political agenda. It takes years to come to a better knowleade. Sometimes, even ages.

I wonder how long this ruling will hold if the EU commision comes around with their own chat control. Before somebody write it: I know that the EU and the Human Rights Court are different institution and doesn’t have much to do with each another.

The Russian state has already left the European agreement, which was the frame in which the court works.

At least, it should be interesting to check the judgment out. Some aspects are really interesting. As it seems, the european court may development a ruling like Bernstein v. United States. That could be interesting since the european continent lackes such a regulation as far as I know.

“I do this for good reasons, trust me” is not a valid argument.

Yes. The problem is, when one country has had a intelligence agency and the other has not, the one with the agency has a advantage. At least, under the same conditions.

I see the tension between a republican (res publica, “thing of the public”) State and the existence of such secrets. The question is if a state without this could exist under the current circumstances. There are a lot room for doubts here, I fear.

Not all of us lived in America.