Well, it's complicated. In our case, we don't have the rule of law (my legal case was dismissed, unsurprisingly), but then the technology that is supposedly moderation-free because it provides free speech to dissenting voices (I'm assuming that's the justification), becomes a tool of the government itself—the only people who get hurt are those dissenting voices.
We don't use Telegram for communication, or at least it's strongly advocated against, including by me - because I've always viewed Telegram as malicious. There's a longstanding belief that it's E2EE, while it's only so under special circumstances, and Telegram holds the keys. I view insecure defaults as malicious, especially when you're advocating the network as very secure. So in the end, dissenting voices have no use for the tool and only the government does.
I do agree that prosecuting the owner is quite a big deal, but France has the rule of law. Durov faces up to 20 years in prison. While I don’t wish for him to be incarcerated for that long, if this situation serves as a wake-up call and prompts him to reconsider his app’s approach to moderation, it could be a win for everyone.
We don't use Telegram for communication, or at least it's strongly advocated against, including by me - because I've always viewed Telegram as malicious. There's a longstanding belief that it's E2EE, while it's only so under special circumstances, and Telegram holds the keys. I view insecure defaults as malicious, especially when you're advocating the network as very secure. So in the end, dissenting voices have no use for the tool and only the government does.
I do agree that prosecuting the owner is quite a big deal, but France has the rule of law. Durov faces up to 20 years in prison. While I don’t wish for him to be incarcerated for that long, if this situation serves as a wake-up call and prompts him to reconsider his app’s approach to moderation, it could be a win for everyone.