In the news

Child referrals for anxiety at record levels, double pre covid number
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/27/nhs-referrals-for-anxiety-in-children-more-than-double-pre-covid-levels-england

Uk has a most unhappy teens in Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/29/uk-teenagers-low-life-satisfaction-europe

Hopefully the government take this in to account when choosing where to make thier saving cuts

One thing someone recently mentioned, and not in a conspiracist way, was that many western countries have secret courts overseeing national security issues. At least in the US, people summoned or presented to the court often have very intense gag orders, so they can’t breath a word about the proceedings without guaranteed federal prison time.

I’m no fan of telegram as it’s a well known tool of the Russian state, but arresting a CEO because of something like a lack of moderators on their site feels like a stretch and a dangerous precedent.

There's a bit of an Assange factor isn't there? Just because someone's a cunt doesn't mean they should be held to a stricker legal standard.

Years ago I remember hearing that isis used things like writing messages with the bullet holes in CoD. Who's liable there?

On the flip side unless you hold those in power to account there is no change. If the board of twitter were personally liable with the risk of criminal charges then you bet there would be a different approach to things.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/29/men-killing-women-girls-deaths

I’m no fan of telegram as it’s a well known tool of the Russian state, but arresting a CEO because of something like a lack of moderators on their site feels like a stretch and a dangerous precedent.

Social media companies have a responsibility to ensure illegal content is removed from their platform. If they won't do that, and Telegram have a reputation for not moderating properly, then who bears responsibility? The CEO is in charge, he needs to ensure the company takes their legal obligations seriously.

arresting a CEO because of something like a lack of moderators on their site feels like a stretch and a dangerous precedent.

Think of it like arresting a bank's CEO for not funding a financial crime department and allowing international terrorists, drug cartels and child porn rings free rein to spread their tentacles, because profit. Would that be a stretch or something that makes total sense? The fact that it never happens notwithstanding.

Yeh I'm not sure I understand the telegram outrage, if you don't comply with the laws of the country you operate in, surely you can't expect to escape repercussions?

if you don't comply with the laws

Who is "you"?

The company owner

Is there a certain % which you would say makes you the owner? If we take the ridiculous end of the spectrum - if you have a tracker ISA which ultimately owns shares in a naughty company, then we wouldn't expect you to be liable for their actions.

This is maybe a better peice on the controversy https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/8/28/drug-dealers-to-putin-critics-behind-pavel-durovs-rare-telegram-audience

In this scenario have I had multiple warnings and requests to comply that I have ignored before being charged?

Also surely in your scenario I would be the institution providing the ISA, not the ISA owner?

(I'll read the article in case it answers these questions)

In another scenario, under UK law company CEOs are definitely able to be prosecuted for health and safety failings in their companies, including jail time.

I can't find the article now but roughly telegram isn't actually end to end encrypted by default and they were storing a lot of illegal stuff on their own servers. They were told not to, but continued, hence arrest.

To be clear, I was giving the furthest end of the scale that came to mind to highlight whether you hold an owner or senior officer of the company liable for its actions.

Imo it should be both, subject to a threshold. Ideally one that could catch large institutional investors to encourage them to be activist shareholders. But I haven't really thought it through properly.

“Telegram does not use end-to-end encryption (E2EE) – a tool that ensures that only the sender and intended recipient(s) can see the message – on all its chats by default,” explained Natalia Krapiva, senior tech-legal counsel at international digital rights organisation Access Now.

I only found that out today and was pretty shocked.

That article did zero to show me why he shouldn't be facing charges, the article centers on freedom of speech which isn't what the chargers are about. If you are hosting material and facilitating it's distribution, repeatedly asked to engage to put in place protections against illegal activities and refuse, at some point you have to except you are opening yourself up to litigation of some kind

Yeah this. As a fight sport fan (golf club) i can't get my head around all the trans noise when there are plenty of examples of male fighters that fight men then go home and kick the shit out of women and no one bats an eyelid.

Banks were fined a pittance for money laundering as well as causing normal customers a bunch of grief with their new KYC rules. Was anyone prosecuted?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59689581

Seems pretty simple to me: either him and his company ARE complying with the EU laws or they are not. That's for the courts to decide and since he/his company chose not to cooperate where there has been suspected wrong-doing they've nabbed him.

I thought the point was clear that they never get prosecuted, but that it made sense that they very much should be.

Obviously if you've got nothing to hide why would you be worried about various governments monitoring all your communications. I mean why would any right-thinking person worry about such a thing.

The issue here is that it’s one government, currently, and it’s Russia.

many western countries have secret courts overseeing national security issues

We have that in the UK. I've had jobs in the past where if I did the wrong thing I could in theory find myself charged with a crime where I would be tried in a closed court which I wasn't allowed in and my representation would be by a lawyer I hadn't chosen who wouldn't be able to discuss the details with me. Buried somewhere in Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

See Snowden stuff - USA spying on all its citizens and was "allowed to" because some secret court said "yeah no worries fellas, have at it".

dude.. there is this guy called Chumski