New York Times Calls Telegram 'A Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists' (yahoo.com) 107
The New York Times analyzed over 3.2 million Telegram messages from 16,220 channels. Their conclusion? Telegram "offers features that enable criminals, terrorists and grifters to organize at scale and to sidestep scrutiny from the authorities" — and that Telegram "has looked the other way as illegal and extremist activities have flourished openly on the app."
Or, more succinctly: "Telegram has become a global sewer of criminal activity, disinformation, child sexual abuse material, terrorism and racist incitement, according to a four-month investigation." Look deeper, and a dark underbelly emerges. Uncut lumps of cocaine and shards of crystal meth are for sale on the app. Handguns and stolen checks are widely available. White nationalists use the platform to coordinate fight clubs and plan rallies. Hamas broadcast its Oct. 7 attack on Israel on the site... The Times investigation found 1,500 channels operated by white supremacists who coordinate activities among almost 1 million people around the world. At least two dozen channels sold weapons. In at least 22 channels with more than 70,000 followers, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and other drugs were advertised for delivery to more than 20 countries.
Hamas, the Islamic State and other militant groups have thrived on Telegram, often amassing large audiences across dozens of channels. The Times analyzed more than 40 channels associated with Hamas, which showed that average viewership surged up to 10 times after the Oct. 7 attacks, garnering more than 400 million views in October. Telegram is "the most popular place for ill-intentioned, violent actors to congregate," said Rebecca Weiner, the deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York Police Department. "If you're a bad guy, that's where you will land...." [Telegram] steadfastly ignores most requests for assistance from law enforcement agencies. An email inbox used for inquiries from government agencies is rarely checked, former employees said...
"It is easy to search and find channels selling guns, illicit narcotics, prescription drugs and fraudulent ATM cards, called clone cards..." according to the article. The Times "found at least 50 channels openly selling contraband, including guns, drugs and fraudulent debit cards." In December 2022, Hayden Espinosa began serving a 33-month sentence in federal prison in Louisiana for buying and selling illegal firearms and weapon parts he made with 3D printers. That did not stop his business. Using cellphones that had been smuggled into prison, Espinosa continued his illicit trade on a Telegram channel... Espinosa's gun market on Telegram might never have been uncovered except that one of its members was Payton Gendron, who massacred 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, in 2022. Investigators scouring his life online for motives for the shooting discovered the channel, which also featured racist and extremist views he had shared.
"Operating like a stateless organization, Telegram has long behaved as if it were above the law," the article concludes — though it adds that "In many democratic countries, patience with the app is wearing thin.
"The European Union is exploring new oversight of Telegram under the Digital Services Act, a law that forces large online platforms to police their services more aggressively, two people familiar with the plans said."
Or, more succinctly: "Telegram has become a global sewer of criminal activity, disinformation, child sexual abuse material, terrorism and racist incitement, according to a four-month investigation." Look deeper, and a dark underbelly emerges. Uncut lumps of cocaine and shards of crystal meth are for sale on the app. Handguns and stolen checks are widely available. White nationalists use the platform to coordinate fight clubs and plan rallies. Hamas broadcast its Oct. 7 attack on Israel on the site... The Times investigation found 1,500 channels operated by white supremacists who coordinate activities among almost 1 million people around the world. At least two dozen channels sold weapons. In at least 22 channels with more than 70,000 followers, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and other drugs were advertised for delivery to more than 20 countries.
Hamas, the Islamic State and other militant groups have thrived on Telegram, often amassing large audiences across dozens of channels. The Times analyzed more than 40 channels associated with Hamas, which showed that average viewership surged up to 10 times after the Oct. 7 attacks, garnering more than 400 million views in October. Telegram is "the most popular place for ill-intentioned, violent actors to congregate," said Rebecca Weiner, the deputy commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism at the New York Police Department. "If you're a bad guy, that's where you will land...." [Telegram] steadfastly ignores most requests for assistance from law enforcement agencies. An email inbox used for inquiries from government agencies is rarely checked, former employees said...
"It is easy to search and find channels selling guns, illicit narcotics, prescription drugs and fraudulent ATM cards, called clone cards..." according to the article. The Times "found at least 50 channels openly selling contraband, including guns, drugs and fraudulent debit cards." In December 2022, Hayden Espinosa began serving a 33-month sentence in federal prison in Louisiana for buying and selling illegal firearms and weapon parts he made with 3D printers. That did not stop his business. Using cellphones that had been smuggled into prison, Espinosa continued his illicit trade on a Telegram channel... Espinosa's gun market on Telegram might never have been uncovered except that one of its members was Payton Gendron, who massacred 10 people at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, in 2022. Investigators scouring his life online for motives for the shooting discovered the channel, which also featured racist and extremist views he had shared.
"Operating like a stateless organization, Telegram has long behaved as if it were above the law," the article concludes — though it adds that "In many democratic countries, patience with the app is wearing thin.
"The European Union is exploring new oversight of Telegram under the Digital Services Act, a law that forces large online platforms to police their services more aggressively, two people familiar with the plans said."
And also spammers. (Score:2)
Seriously, the SPAM quantity originating from that network is completely out of control.
Nothing new (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Funny)
then you're there to do something illegal or are Russian.
Isn't that redundant?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that redundant?
"Furry" and "Russian"?
Re: Nothing new (Score:2)
In many cases, illegal Russians. They illegally cross the border into Ukraine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I have: https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
then you're there to do something illegal or are Russian.
Isn't that redundant?
Not every criminal is Russian though. Lets not tar all criminals with that brush.
Re: (Score:1)
musk bad
hitler also bad
Re: (Score:2)
It's long been observed that if you're on Telegram and you're not a furry, then you're there to do something illegal or are Russian.
Telegram is very popular in Ukraine with tens of millions of downloads and tens of thousands of channels.
Re: (Score:2)
New code has been uploaded to NPCs. Telegram is bad because of these reasons.
Please ignore things like Ukrainians literally organizing things like defense of Kiyv on Telegram. That is now cancelled, and we do not talk about it any more.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't actually like Ukrainian propaganda all that much, because I think it goes too hard and that turns a lot of people off at this stage of the war. They need to target it better in my view.
But yes, I do like Telegram in part because it allows all propaganda on it. And I can see what every nation's propagandist talking points. Even the "Telegram bad because [opposite of reality due to NPC update" that Western propaganda has become. That is what allows me to have free thought, rather than just have my cod
Re: (Score:2)
It's long been observed that if you're on Telegram and you're not a furry, then you're there to do something illegal or are Russian.
I use Telegram because one of my friends is on it and messaging between iOS and Android is a dumpster fire. I'm not any of the above.
To be honest, I do kind of lament having to have a messaging app installed just for one person, but that's because they refuse to use Facebook Messenger like the rest of the people I know on Android, and they also are dead set on never using an iPhone. On the plus side, RCS support for iOS is finally supposed to be releasing soon, so I might be able to ditch Telegram.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
that's because they refuse to use Facebook Messenger like the rest of the people I know on Android
Good choice. like all the rest of the people I know on Android I also refuse to use Fecebook Messenger, specifically so I don't have to deal with the sort of people and content that you get on Fecebook Messenger.
Re: (Score:1)
I use Telegram (amoung others) because I have 100 contacts there. Telegram runs on Mac Windows Linux Android and iOS.
Most of my friends neither use Messenger nor WhatsApp. And most iPhone users I know, neither use iMessenger either. Except they want to sent a real SMS.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm "on Telegram" (Messenger; portable Desktop).
I don't know what "furry" may mean - but im pretty certain that I do not belong to that group.
I don't do "illegal".
I am certainly not "Russian".
You all should note that Telegram - the messenger! - is just that: one of many functional messengers. You ALL talk about those "channels" (or whatever that "group thing" is called). And even that "group thing" (which I'm not interested in) is, as so called "social media", for the most part of those many tens of thousan
Re: (Score:2)
It's long been observed that if you're on Telegram and you're not a furry, then you're there to do something illegal or are Russian.
That's a gross generalization. About illegality or being Russian, I mean. It's spot on for furries though.
For those who don't know (I even saw people asking what furries are), Telegram allows organizing everything from small three-people gatherings, all the way to conventions with thousands of members, with extreme ease. With the tools it natively provides, and the massive number of specialized furry-specific bots the community deploys, ranging from anti-bot/spam/trolling tools, to user management, OpenID f
Re: (Score:2)
Atop all that, it easily allows us to split our fandom activities from non-fandom ones (family, work, church, club etc.) by having all these to the mainstream messaging app most popular in each country (SMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, or whatever).
Furries who don't use Telegram are cut off from more than 90% of the online social aspects of the fandom.
Thank you for explaining that, I was just about to type out the exact same thing. I think a big reason that the community settled on Telegram is that most of us want to keep that aspect of our lives separate from our other social media streams, which are frequented by family and coworkers and other professional contacts.
Re: (Score:1)
This is true of all communication that isn't immediately interceptable by the 5-eyes.
Government will make it so that if you don't let them see every communication you make, you're breaking the law.
Which wouldn't be so bad if it was a two-way street. Every government employee and politician should be videoed 24/7, and have it broadcasted publicly, if they're going to allow for a vast surveillance state of everyday citizens.
Uncontrovercial speech needs no protection (Score:2, Insightful)
It's always dissent and troublemaking that's easiest to rouse the rabble against.
Of course the NYT is trashtalking an unmoderated forum. They might even be right about the scum that it attracts.
That's all an entirely different distraction from the core question: how easy or hard should we make it for some rando on the internet to find a wide audience?
Re:Uncontrovercial speech needs no protection (Score:5, Interesting)
how easy or hard should we make it for some rando on the internet to find a wide audience?
This is what they wont tell you. There has been a war on mega phones (what I call randos having access to a wide audience) for a long time now. Telegram is one of the last of the few. Snapchat too, and both are under attack heavily.
I first noticed that they were secretly clamping down on the megaphones with World of Warcraft. Suddenly, trade chat that was broadcast to thousands to tens of thousands of players, was limited to what feels like 100 or so.
Facebook limits. you to a couple hundred because they'd rather you advertise than promote freely, which is highly regulated.
Snapchat nets people 600-1500 or more views on their stories, and it's why it's a chosen platform for criminal activity. It's no different than Telegram except they cooperate with the authorities.
X/Twitter... I have over 700 followers and maybe 30 see my posts. I know that's not a lot, but that is far from how many should see the post. X/Twitter is also used for criminal activity
The problem with innovation, is that it gets abused. With computers we got viruses, and anti-viruses. With cars we got serial robberies and armed robbery (seriously think they'd get away on foot?), and then high speed chases from cops.
The problem is people are supposed to have civil rights. That includes:
The freedom of association and freedom of assembly are rights that allow people to organize and interact with each other to pursue and defend common interests. These rights are important for civil rights movements, as they can influence social and policy change.
There is absolutely 0 reason this should not apply online too. If people want to assemble in social media groups with large audiences, they should be capable. Freedom of Speech is clearly under attack, but not just speech, the right to assemble is too. They are doing it in the name of the children, or misinformation, or terrorism/crime, but in the end it shouldn't matter.
Also the only reason they were able to do this research is because Telegram offers an awesome API for their platform. Snapchat does not. I bet it's closer to equal, even for Facebook as the scams run rampant, as do drug dealers, terrorism, child porn, etc.. Hell, every drug dealer I've ever met uses Facebook to communicate.
So boo hoo, do some old fashion police work and bust them, which is what the FBI should be doing unless it's a local crime.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Has a drug dealer ever managed a successful defence of "I was just using my free speech megaphone to advocate for narcotic use, and yes I happen to provide them too"?
Free speech is not a defence for knowingly facilitating illegal activity on your premises. If you are the landlord of a meth factory you can't argue that they should go after the manufacturers and you are just offering a basement for anyone to exercise their freedoms in, especially when they hung a "meth factory" sign on the door, right outside
Re: Uncontrovercial speech needs no protection (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> to leave the door open so they can easily do there job.
The problems are:
1. Governments constantly over step their authority -- usually under the EXCUSE of some boogeyman -- Terrorism or "Think of the children!" -- which ALWAYS means less rights for everyone else.
2. If the government can get in, so can the bad guys.
3. Government propaganda is constantly trying to convey the message "hiding = bad". Not everything hidden is illegal or immoral.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this same argument apply to the mail? Should the government just read everyone's mail too?
I am not a censorship advocate, but those who are will point out that paper mail is a one-to-one medium, not one-to-many.
They mainly want to silence one-to-many channels.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a censorship advocate, but those who are will point out that paper mail is a one-to-one medium, not one-to-many.
They mainly want to silence one-to-many channels.
Almost two-thirds of all the mail in the US is "junk mail", which is a one-to-many communication channel. Text messaging is also frequently used as a one-to-many channel. Phone calls can be used for that, too (AKA "robocalls").
I think the OP's question is a valid one. If you create a legal environment where the carrier of a message is liable for illegal content, then it follows that the message carrier has to monitor all content, since there is no other way for them to stay within the law. And if that ru
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with the government reading everyone's mail?
The police told them about these channels. The channels are public, and the have names that make it extremely clear what illegal stuff they are offering.
There is no need for invasive surveillance. No encryption is used, nothing is hidden. Telegram didn't have to go looking, the channels were being actively reported to them.
Re:Uncontrovercial speech needs no protection (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is not a defence for knowingly facilitating illegal activity on your premises.
I often wonder how this works for power, transportation, water, mobile carrier, ISP, supermarkets..etc. If the operators have a feeling or idea you are up to no good are they obliged to shut off service and not sell to you because otherwise they would be facilitating and somehow complicit in your illicit activities? What if their suspicions are misplaced and shutting off the power disrupts granny's oxygen machine and she promptly dies?
The idea of people adjudicating wrongdoing by themselves and taking action against others on that basis seems awfully dangerous precedent for society as it short circuits due process.
If you are the landlord of a meth factory you can't argue that they should go after the manufacturers and you are just offering a basement for anyone to exercise their freedoms in, especially when they hung a "meth factory" sign on the door, right outside your window.
What if the sign was just a gag? Ideally in this case the landlord would call the police and let them deal with it. Landlords should not have a duty to continuously investigate their tenants for wrongdoing. Investigations should be a matter for the state.
Any affirmative legal duty to report suspected crimes to authorities varies substantially by jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Ihow this works for power, transportation, water, mobile carrier, ISP, supermarkets..etc. If the operators have a feeling or idea you are up to no good are they obliged to shut off service
It depends on: 1) the connection between your product and the crime, 2) the severity of the crime, 3) also common sense.
1) If you understand someone intends to commit burglary, you can sell them ice cream. They should not acquire ski masks and crowbars; you let the deal conclude to not to endanger your employees, and notify the police of your suspicions.
2) in France there is a hard limit; serious crime (worth 10 years of jail or more) is of compulsory notification to the police. This only applies to serious
Re: (Score:2)
Also to consider: For a group of conspirers, purchasing the tools dedicated to the illicit act (e.g. the ski masks and crowbar) constitutes a commencement of the activity. While purchasing an icecream is an everyday activity, the purchase of the tools, is already part of the crime. That's why if you knowingly help them with that, you're in trouble.
Regarding transports: if considering public transports, drivers might have status of public employees. It is possible that the Statutes in your place have provisi
Re: (Score:2)
Feeling, no. If they know for absolutely sure because e.g. you advertise the phone number they provided you with in their phone book as "meth dealer", and the police told them you are running a meth lab and can they please have the subscriber details... Ignoring it is probably going to get them in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is not a defence for knowingly facilitating illegal activity on your premises.
I often wonder how this works for power, transportation, water, mobile carrier, ISP, supermarkets..etc. If the operators have a feeling or idea you are up to no good are they obliged to shut off service and not sell to you because otherwise they would be facilitating and somehow complicit in your illicit activities? What if their suspicions are misplaced and shutting off the power disrupts granny's oxygen machine and she promptly dies?
The operative part is "knowingly" and "facilitating". Power companies, telecom companies, et al. have protections because they're expressly not interfering or promoting any particular activities by providing their services. Once connected, the power company has no say over what you do with said power, only that you pay your bills.
When it comes to public places, even privately owned ones like a supermarket then the only obligation is to take reasonable steps to ensure that illegal activities are not taki
Re: Uncontrovercial speech needs no protection (Score:1)
Things a bootlicker might say
Re: Uncontrovercial speech needs no protection (Score:1)
If government stays limited, as it should be, I don't care, and wouldn't care even if pizzagate were true; the consequences would be contained to the rarified altitudes these people inhabit.
Just shut up about Telegram already (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Just shut up about Telegram already (Score:4, Insightful)
The "out-of-touch boomers" I know converted to social media years ago and their touch has slipped ever more out-er.
The biggest criticism to be made of the media is what they don't cover. It's also the criticism nobody makes, because they don't know what isn't being covered.
The big outlets haven't changed much, but the overall media landscape is completely wrecked because all the local news has gone. That was where the un-covered stories might be brought to life. The idea that investigative reporters all went to Xitter or Facebook is ridiculous, and if you read any of those sites, I feel bad for you. Investigative reporting is done. It can't compete with slick, flashy, "influencers". Not on platforms designed to promote vapid content that riles people up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Western media is by far the worst. I read international news and they're a lot more objective. One might not even be able to tell what the journalist's personal opinion is.
Hell, even government propaganda is better. At least I know what they're trying to do. I could read the same story on RT and then Euromaidan Press and have rough idea where the truth lies. And where they agree with each other, it's almost certainly true.
Re: (Score:2)
I started watching cable news in the late 90s, particularly Fox News evening lineup, and sometimes local channels, all the way up until I got rid of cable. So I can assume, then, that you are calling me a "blind partisan hack". What was it in my post that gave you that idea?
Doesn't add up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Encryption, being a form of privacy, protects citizens from their government, which protects criminals from the government. It is little different from how wearing clothes makes it harder to spot criminals. Free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, all also make law enforcement's job harder. But our government is doing a good enough job suppressing crime that I'm more afraid of the government than of criminals.
Re: Doesn't add up (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that's why I pointed to freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Also, my main point was that in contrast to what AC said, something making life easier for criminals doesn't automatically make life easier for law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
The police have been quiet quitting since George Floyd.
Let the games of Whack-a-Mole begin . . . (Score:3)
. . . again.
Not saying that the NYT reporting is inaccurate - obvious, maybe. Problem is, even if Telegram were fixed or eliminated tomorrow, the next iteration, "T2 - The day after Judgement Day" would (will?) almost as quickly manifest, presumably learning from the failure of their predecessor. Which iteration of "Silk Road" are we on, about the third, maybe fourth? Yeah, it's like that.
Simple Exercise (Score:2)
Replace "Telegram" with the name of any well known mobile phone provider. The story is exactly the same, except five orders of magnitude worse.
Now, would it produce the same outrage and ad clicks? The story certainly checks every propaganda box, almost as if it were automatically produced somehow.
I'm sure it's all just a coincidence. Hail Landreu.
This is a pattern for the New York Times (Score:1, Insightful)
The NYT is historically quite skeptical of the idea of people saying things without regulatory review
- America Has a Free Speech Problem [nytimes.com] - NYT, Mar 2022
- The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation [nytimes.com] - NYT, Oct 2020
- Free Speech is Killing Us [nytimes.com] - NYT, Oct 2019
- Facebook’s Unintended Consequence [nytimes.com] - NYT, May 2019
- When Is Speech Violence? [nytimes.com] - NYT, July 2017
- The Harm in Free Speech [nytimes.com] - NYT, June 2012
Do you think if it becomes technologically possible to process offline conversations at large (e.g. eve
Re:This is a pattern for the New York Times (Score:5, Insightful)
That first link actually undercuts your attempted point. It is sounding the alarm because many Americans do not feel as if they can speak freely due to the fear of recriminations from either the right or the left - basically the opposite of what you're claiming. Here's some quotes:
The second article might fit your hypothesis better, since it seems mainly to be talking about the election lies being continually promulgated by Donald Trump. But it's ridiculously long, and at that point I decided I didn't want to spend an entire afternoon just fact-checking someone's Slashdot post. I wonder if the Times editorial writers get paid by the word...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, both the left and the right want to quash certain types of free speech. Occasionally, they even agree on which types!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a pattern for the New York Times (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, 6 articles over twelve years, that is quite a frenetic pace. All but one of those articles are from the opinion page. Most of them are the exact opposite of what you claim they're about. So call it one article every 6 years, and 1 every 12 years that isn't on the opinion page.
You probably shouldn't have posted a list you hastily searched for without at least clicking and reading the links you posted.
The first article is from the Editorial Board, and is about how free speech is under attack from the left and the right. And it ends with "When public discourse in America is narrowed, it becomes harder to answer these and the many other urgent questions we face as a society." Pointing out that "America has a Free Speech Problem" isn't advocating against free speech as you claimed.
The second article from 4 years ago, the only non-opinion page one, was too long for me to read thoroughly just for a Slashdot post. After skimming the article, it seems to be more questions than recommendations. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.
The third article from 5 years ago states "I am not calling for repealing the First Amendment, or even for banning speech I find offensive on private platforms. What I’m arguing against is paralysis. We can protect unpopular speech from government interference while also admitting that unchecked speech can expose us to real risks. And we can take steps to mitigate those risks." Then he talks about congress giving funds to a news literacy campaign, and revising section 230. Not exactly against people saying things without regulatory review.
The fourth article is about how Facebook has too much power in regulating speech on their platforms. Again, not exactly what you claim it's about.
The fifth article, an 7 year old opinion piece by a psychology professor, is about limiting free speech. You got one right.
The last one is a 12 year old book review.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt he really put together that list of articles himself, probably it was fed to him. Posting authoritative-looking links with the assumption nobody will actually read them is a common disinformation tactic, and it works since mostly nobody does click on them.
Last time I saw that here was on one of the covid "lab leak" discussions, I got curious as to what this "scientific proof" I kept hearing about was, when I clicked on it it was an abstract to a study that explicitly stated the exact opposite of wha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised you actually read all 7 of them,
Two of them I had read previously, so I already knew they were false, I just did a quick check of the shorter articles. I read fast, so it didn't take much time.
no one talks about fight club (Score:3)
Nazi Bar (Score:3)
As long as most meeting places (online or irl) are regulated, the few unregulated ones are doomed.
Nazi Bar Problem [urbandictionary.com]
And "Truth" "Social" Is? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They Should Know (Score:3, Insightful)
NYT lies have killed well over 10M people.
When do Judith Miller and Jonah Goldberg get arrested?
War Propaganda is not what a Free Press means.
They're not wrong. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you could outlaw encryption entirely and those enabled things would still be enabled
there is a bit of a gap between "only criminals will have* encryption" and the gun comparison, because guns are harder to source/hide and software is something you can instantly CTRL+V, instantly transmit, has no tangible presence, has no real costs, and is hidden not only by the nature of software but by its very function
*not that crime necessarily has to have it in the first place
meanwhile it would work very well at preven
When journalists need money... (Score:2)
So ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so what? (Score:1)
LEA should police cyberspace (Score:3)
"The European Union is exploring new oversight of Telegram under the Digital Services Act, a law that forces large online platforms to police their services more aggressively, two people familiar with the plans said."
I think calls for corporations to police information services is dangerous and counterproductive as it denies society effective political control over policing. It should be the jurisdiction of law enforcement to patrol cyberspace just as they patrol physical space.
Anything the establishment cannot control (Score:1)
Why not ... (Score:2)
'Fraudulent ATM cards' (Score:2)
And they are damn ... (Score:1)
... right. Telegram is the FSB's social network as well. Paid by the russian dictator putin. That is what I think.
Pot Kettle Black (Score:4, Insightful)
New York Times Calls Telegram 'A Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists'
This is the NYT that fellated Nazis with their headlines in the thirties and forties, has consistently downplayed Trump's extremism and unfitness for office, and is sucking off Israel with their use of active voice for Palestinian attacks, and passive voice for those performed by Israel. Fuck those fucking fucks right in their multiple-genocide-supporting faces. The front of their paper is 'A Playground for Criminals, Extremists and Terrorists'.
They used to say that same thing about the phone (Score:2)
https://www.theatlantic.com/te... [theatlantic.com]
nobody reads the NYT (Score:2)
LOL (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)