> ordering the platform to give them all the details they collect, so that they can come after those criminals.

What details are you assuming Telegram are sitting on, besides the data law enforcement already collected?

Durov got arrested for insufficient moderation of public channels, so my guess is that law enforcement would be able to get exactly the same data as Telegram themselves sit on.

But it's hard to get a full picture without it going to public courts, for now we can only go on what's being reported.

Let me introduce you how 1-1 chats are not encrypted by the default, that this option is quite hidden, that many/most Telegram users don´t even know about "private chats", and that their particular hand-rolled encryption scheme has been questioned by encryption experts for many years.

> What details are you assuming Telegram are sitting on, besides the data law enforcement already collected?

Message contents (vast majority of TG chats are not E2EE) and additional metadata seem pretty desirable?

So he was... but there's this coincidence... https://nitter.poast.org/RALee85/status/1827459553526448307#...

The person who wrote the text in the screenshot (a typical sensationalist "milblogger") most likely is not informed enough to realize that this software was written in Berlin, hosted in the Netherlands and its code is continuously audited and gate-kept by Apple which can throw them out of the Appstore for non-compliance with local laws any second. It has most likely survived for a whole decade by cooperating from day 1; any data of interest is already being handed over to whoever is asking, otherwise they would have been banned from the stores many years ago.

I think this is projection. Claiming the arrest has to do drugs and child trafficking is distracting from the issue and the actual reason for the arrest. Which I outlined above.

I believe it's as incorrect as arguing the United States wants to ban or own Tik Tok because China has access to Americans private data.

China itself has banned TikTok as-is from China, because its deems it as a negative for society. In the mean time it has served for spreading disinformation inside the rest of the world.

Whether the US has sincere reasons for proposing a ban is a station that has by long been passed. If your point is that "social" media is mainly a tool in the hands of tech elites, whose main business model is social upheaval and where foreign influence is up for the highest bidder (troll farms), then yes, I agree that we should have a broader discussion of what we as democratic societies expect from those profiting from information chaos, distrust in societal institutions, outrage, and advertisement clicks.

Parasitic tech elites and their tools of influence in the information sphere have nothing to do with free speech -- in fact they kill a fair debate among equal citizens in a democratic society.

> for once doing their job

And that is a sudden change because… lack of censorship in matters that affect Israel and Ukraine. This is not a distraction.