• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Telegram seems to be failing in its duty to properly moderate communications

    Telegram has no such duty.

    which you don’t seem to care all that much about, curiously.

    Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t want to give you the wrong impression. I do care. I care very much. I don’t want to give you the impression that I “don’t seem to care”, because I absolutely do: I care very deeply about ensuring everyone has the ability to freely discuss all the “deeply fucked up shit” they want to. The more “fucked up” you think that shit is, the more the individuals discussing it should be protected from you.

    Your accusatory use of the word “curiously” is exactly why I care so much. Go shove your vaguely menacing commentary up your piss hole.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Telegram has no such duty.

      That’s for French courts to decide, not you or me. Their house; their rules.

      Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t want to give you the wrong impression. I do care. I care very much. I don’t want to give you the impression that I “don’t seem to care”, because I absolutely do: I care very deeply about ensuring everyone has the ability to freely discuss all the “deeply fucked up shit” they want to. The more “fucked up” you think that shit is, the more the individuals discussing it should be protected from you.

      From pedophilia to sex-trafficking, you care very deeply about protecting their rights to discuss and coordinate these things without oversight or traceability…?

      … Alrighty then.

      So yeah, okay, buddy — I venture a guess that you know, consciously or subconsciously, that your arguments are quickly crumbling by the accelerated rate of substituting substance with insults & deflections. Truly, a classical dead giveaway of rhetorical checkmate.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        From pedophilia to sex-trafficking, you care very deeply about protecting their rights to discuss and coordinate these things without oversight or traceability…?

        Yes. You’re clearly not a student of Thomas Paine:

        He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

        venture a guess that you know, consciously or subconsciously, that your arguments are quickly crumbling by the accelerated rate of substituting substance with insults & deflections. Truly, a classical dead giveaway of rhetorical checkmate.

        I’ll note that your response is not a rebuttal. Secure communication is a fundamental right, regardless of what France thinks about it.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Yes. You’re clearly not a student of Thomas Paine:

          Remind me when Thomas Paine elects the leaders and writes the laws of France.

          Yeah yeah yeah… And I’ll even help by giving you another to add to your notebook:

          Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

          - Benjamin Franklin

          And yet, when the liberties of one are at the detriment of another’s, therein lies when Government intervenes — no different than a parent settling a dispute between two children. As I said, private communication can exist: it’s called speaking to an individual in a private room. The difference is that there are moments when warrants warrant an intervention or moderation thereof. So to say again, an intrusion on private conversation should not be easy, but it shouldn’t be impossible when necessary either. Many Democratic nations seem to come to the same conclusion.

          After all, “Secure communication is a fundamental right” isn’t a fact; it is your opinion that has yet to be established, and is thus subjective if not arbitrary in scope and domain. Let’s not put the cart before the horse and present a circular-reasoning fallacy whereby the premise itself has yet to be established.