> Since 2022 it became nothing but a propaganda tool itself.
How can it possibly be "a propaganda tool" when it has no feed, no algorithms, no suggestions or recommendations? You only get sources you've willingly subscribed to, nothing else.
Telegram has also absolutely no filters, so it can be filled with lies and propaganda without any response from the platform, except, only if it is russian government making requests. Your responses remind me of russian bot playbooks, tbh. Are you one?
Your own head should be your filter. This is literally craving for Big Brother.
> so it can be filled with lies and propaganda without any response from the platform
So does any other platform with the only difference being that it's the "right" kind of lies and propaganda that would also be shown down your throat with the rest of your feed. The cope is real.
> only if it is russian government making requests
Says who?
> Your responses remind me of russian bot playbooks, tbh. Are you one?
Well of course they do, and of course I am. Everyone knows that everyone who doesn't share your opinions and perspectives in 2024 isn't even worth of being considered a human being, duh!
> And my intuition is that Telegram is going to become banned in Russia soon
It had already happened with extreme humiliation of responsible agencies.
> as Youtube is being banned now
It's not banned, it's throttled because google kept abusing backbone networks once their CDNs had started to burn down and claiming that this is totally fine and fixable with direct BGP peerings with ISPs (yeah, right)
It works just fine on mobile internet connection where traffic shaping is an inherent feature and it only works like shit on broadband where ISPs are only capable of sending TCP RST once the queue is over the limit.
> Telegram is the last popular application where you can find the content about war, protests or elections that govt doesn't like
Clearly you are not in touch with people in Russia and have never actually seen their social media. Or just being dramatic.
Do you have any confirmation for what you are claiming? E.g. the claim that all ISPs simultaneously voluntarily decided to throttle Youtube to reduce foreign traffic? It seems to me that you either don't know the details or are simply trolling.
> It's not banned, it's throttled because google kept abusing backbone networks once their CDNs had started to burn down and claiming that this is totally fine and fixable with direct BGP peerings with ISPs (yeah, right)
> It works just fine on mobile internet connection where traffic shaping is an inherent feature and it only works like shit on broadband where ISPs are only capable of sending TCP RST once the queue is over the limit.
This is not true. The connections to googlevideo are throttled by government-operated DPI, not by ISPs. You can verify this by sending following request from a Russian residential or mobile IP address to a Russian hosting provider Selectel:
The request above is not send to Youtube, it doesn't even leave Russia, but it will be throttled because curl uses "googlevideo.com" in SNI field in ClientHello TLS record. DPI detects the SNI and drops the packets. The download speed will be very low, in the range of kilobytes/sec. However, if you remove googlevideo.com domain from SNI and write
Then the file will be downloaded at full speed, megabytes/sec. It is a request to the same host, to the same IP address, but it is not throttled anymore.
Also the information about mobile connection not being throttled is outdated and incorrect. Nowadays mobile connections are throttled as well.
The information that all ISPs voluntarily decided to throttle Youtube is implausible. Why would they throttle the speed to allow their competitors to lure away their clients?
> E.g. the claim that all ISPs simultaneously voluntarily decided to throttle Youtube to reduce foreign traffic
> The information that all ISPs voluntarily decided to throttle Youtube is implausible
> Also the information about mobile connection not being throttled
Why are you trying to build a strawman? That's not what I said. I've said "google kept abusing backbone networks" (e.g. IEXPs), which obviously means it's a matter of the Main Radiofrequency Centre, since it involves nation-wide infrastructure - not some "ISP volunteering".
And I’ve never said that “mobile connection is not being throttled”. In fact, I am stating exactly the opposite, pointing out that traffic shaping is an inherent feature for a mobile ISP. In contrast to broadband, where no one bothered with deep traffic manipulation before, so an ad-hoc throttling solution (yes, typically simply reusing existing law enforcement integrations) works like shit.
> This is not true. The connections to googlevideo are throttled by government-operated DPI, not by ISPs. You can verify this by sending following request from a Russian residential or mobile IP address to a Russian hosting provider Selectel:
One does not need a synthetic test such as yours. One can simply try playing a video from the same browser, switching connection between broadband connected Wi-Fi and a mobile hotspot and notice that broadband doesn’t seem to be working properly, but mobile actually works, even if it’s not Full HD. How come? Does your hypothesis regarding “not by ISPs, but by government-issued DPIs” explain the variance in ISPs behavior? No, it doesn’t. Just as it doesn’t explain why “blocked” YT seems to be “blocked” completely different from your typical weed growers forum. It works differently from how you imagine it.
> Why would they throttle the speed to allow their competitors to lure away their clients?
Speaking of which, apparently some broadband ISPs are now trying to implement throttling properly to give them an edge over the competition: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6919868
As did (does?) TOR.
I have the impression that the US intelligence services are always in an internal struggle - some parts wants and needs invisibility, deniability and secure communication - other part wants transparency for intelligence. Both realize that there is no such thing as a safe backdoor.
Yep, TOR is not a solution for hiding from western governments. That's why anything large enough out there gets wrecked as soon as someone makes an appropriate decision.
Large geopolitical powers are all the same. It's only people who live there that are convinced they are doing better than those other guys.
Yes, that includes people from Russia, China or the US believing they are the ones who are truly free, and everything else are totalitarian shitholes. Each one of them is even kind of right in their own regard.
Nobody in Europe disappears for six months because they have offended the government before mysteriously reappearing like in China. No one dictates single handedly what’s going to happen without any form of oversight like in Russia.
Heck France currently has an interim government because they voted out the previous one and the US had a decisive election coming in a few months.
The people who want to convince you otherwise generally have a vested interest in undermining democracy and pushing for a form of autocracy.
> In Russia, China or North Korea - nobody believes that.
Well of course, they're all actually super miserable and are secretly begging the government of your country or her stronger allies to liberate them and wisely lead to a glorious bright westernized future.
Don't be naive. It's probably worth exploring where'd you get such a maximalist idea in the first place and measure just how much empirical evidence you have to back it up.
I noticed too that now that the old dinosaur incumbents in various industrial complexes can no longer compete, they want to get rid of non-compete clauses - so they can instead poach talent or at least those who had access to the latest technologies and process of actually innovative companies.
It's been collapsing since digital piracy had first appeared. Then perpetuated by countries being elective at what kind of "intellectual property" rights they choose to respect.
"People with money" are a crucial milestone, because they were the ones who were actually actively benefiting from and upholding this institution.
Except it's not collapsing. The only legal changes have been to allow billionaires to do whatever they want whenever they want, and have been made by judges and not legislatively. You're still going to get sued to oblivion.
edit: if we let them, they're just going to merge with the media companies and cross-license to each other.
There is a whole wide world beyond just obsessing over "billionaires" in a tiny us-centric corner of the world.
One could point out China, who totally has so much respect for someone's notion of legality. Or France that had never cared for software patents. Or one could point out good old pirates, who were always relatively successful at giving a middle finger to the notion of "intellectual property". "Billionaires" are simply another straw, peculiar only in the sense that they were the pillar upholding this institution.
And speaking of "not legislatively, but judges":
1. Not every country has a common law legal system
2. Just take a look at Japan's AI legislations.
Is it really? It's all boils down to powerplay, really. And lately lots of powerful entities, from nations to corporations, seem to be poised on disrupting this institution.
How can it possibly be "a propaganda tool" when it has no feed, no algorithms, no suggestions or recommendations? You only get sources you've willingly subscribed to, nothing else.
This reads as such a cope.