Unless you’ve lived in ex-USSR.

They’ll just be afraid.

That’s not surprising, but if that doesn’t change, things won’t get better.

You don’t want oligarchy and she’s on oligarchy’s side. Please remember what made Trump win the first time.

I don’t expect her to improve things at all. Only compared to what would happen if Trump would win.

anticommunist propaganda

As if that was needed to show how communists do things.

people feel like they’re getting fucked, and Trump offers a clear, simple narrative of who is fucking them

Correct.

Kamala comes across more as representing the political establishment, and her messaging doesn’t tap into that dissatisfaction or contrarian nature

Not only that’s correct, but she’s still your enemy. It’s just a situation where one has to choose what’s worse. From my point of view far from USA - Trump is immediately worse. But that doesn’t mean Harris is going to radically improve things.

It’s sad you have no third strong grassroots movement, but that seems to be the case in every shitty election.

Russia, when it supposedly had those, first was choosing between Yeltsin and his “kinda democrats, but with that smell” and “red-brown” communists with Stalin pics and swastikas, second between Putin and senile communists, the third one was between thinly masqueraded Putin and rich city kids, and then it kinda lost meaning. Trump is kinda similar to the “red-brown” side in the first example.

One can find many such example.

He says that fear is a bigger motivator than love.

He’s correct in a sense you may not notice.

Those voters fear Harris and what she represents, and love some idea of what GOP could in theory represent.

So the fact that Trump is shit means less for them as it’s on the side they love, while Harris being stronger makes them even more afraid.

That is, the best strategy for Dems to insure victory would be to successfully present Trump as having a potential to win to his own voters. Then they would care about him being a felon and such.

It’s just that some of us are autistic and have had wrong parenting, only due to various kinds of stigma our parents, on the contrary, only looked for confirmation that we (and them) are “normal”. So please consider that.

Telegram is not private. That makes the comparison to be infinity in favor of DeltaChat.

Friendly reminder that 10-15 years ago laws in this general direction were usually stuffed into leftist bottles.

Not anymore, but it would be a mistake to forget this.

You lose something … ? Tough shit, your problem, not mine.

You should learn something about things you use before talking about conspiracy theories.

Try Nostr, I dunno. Or VKontakte if you want the Telegram functionality of sending transcripts of your communications to FSB.

Dunno, my cousins’ dad was a 17yo soldier. One can say it was a better time cause he was on the winning side, and now that has become the losing side.

Mass surveillance was more old-school, but governments were still pretty harsh.

They had Trump. He just was younger, Democrat and apparently popular.

They had AI in your spam mail.

Climate collapse … again, where half my family is from, war broke logistics in the 90s, so to have heat at winter people would cut down trees. A lot of forest lost. But one can say it was a better time because “the world” cared more about civilians suffering than about forests. I suspect now climate activists would act differently.

Dunno. Our humanity was born from 80s and 90s too.

It’s like being surprised that body armor doesn’t help against being gassed.

Signal is private. This is c/privacy.

Telegram is not private at all, but has channels and big groups and even, yes, mini-apps.

So Telegram is not an alternative to Signal either, it doesn’t even start solving problems that are solved genially in Signal.

Telegram is not a privacy tool.

I mean, if he’s convicted for a privacy tool, while it’s not a privacy tool, we have a bit of ambiguity.

Arguably advertising something which is not a privacy tool as one is fraud. Maybe even phishing, since TG the company has in plaintext all the chat history of its users.

And this

The meaning of that word “complicity” seems to be revealed by the last three charges: Telegram has been providing users a “cryptology tool” unauthorised by French regulators.

in non-libertarian language means something similar, that is, that something not confirmed to be a privacy tool is being provided as a privacy tool.

I am a libertarian, but in this case they are consistent, if I’m reading this correctly. They are not abusing power, they are doing exactly what they are claiming to be doing.

Also maybe I’m just tired of Telegram. It’s engaging, and I have AuDHD, which means lots of energy spent, and I can’t drop it completely because work, and also some small communities are available as TG channels. Would be wonderful were they to move at least to WhatsApp, but it is what it is.

Still, ability to easily create a blog (what a TG channel really is for its users) reachable without bullshit is a niche in huge demand. LJ filled that at some point, Facebook did at another, TG does now.

Something like this is desperately needed. I’d say the solution should be complementary to Signal - that is, DMs and small groups should not be its thing. Neither should be privacy of huge chats and channels - they’d be public anyway. However, anonymity with means to counter spam should, so should be metadata of user activity.

The whole of USA is something 300+mln people, now do Christianity, then do Islam, then do Hinduism, then do Communism, and then do Fascism.

If Signal was really as secure and private like everyone says it is then their executives would already be in jail and whatnot for “enabling criminal activities”.

It doesn’t have anything to do with what “everyone says”. We don’t do that with security. Well, Telegram users do, but Charles Darwin wrote about that process. Others look at what academics say or are competent enough themselves (no, you are not).