No end-to-end encryption by default. WhatsApp has.
No end-to-end encryption for groups. WhatsApp has.
No end-to-end encryption on desktop. WhatsApp has.
No break-in key-recovery. WhatsApp has.
Inferring Telegram's security from public statements of *checks notes* former KGB officer and FSB director -- agencies that wrote majority of the literature in maskirovka, isn't exactly reliable, wouldn't you agree?
Telegram has private chats. I don't pay attention to his words, indeed. Way before the Ukrainian war, Russia had a massive campaign trying to block Telegram and they failed on a technical level. This has never happened with WhatsApp.
If insiders trade, the market becomes more accurate, which is good for society. Like WikiLeaks. Thus the MSN panic, the legacy establishment wants Polymarket to follow Assange's path.
The problem discussed in the article was NOT insiders trading on secret information — it is the nearly opposite problem of manipulators trading and skewing the odds.
Insider trading seeks to trade with secret information and minimally obvious trades to avoid moving the markets until their position is locked in, in order to profit when the previously secret information becomes public and the market finally moves to a different price level.
Manipulators seek to move the market to create a false narrative that market-moving info exists when actual market-moving does NOT exist; the expectation is that people will see the price change and ASSUME there is information behind it, when there is actually just a manipulator willing to lose money to create that impression.
In a small market, such manipulation can be more cost-effective (make more of an impression for the same cost) vs buying advertisements.
That sounds a lot like "the magical hand of the markets" and "trickle down economics". A hope surrounded by a semblance of logic but not a lot thought put on the important details of how things actually work.
With this I mean: I can think of several ways in which this would go in the other direction (bad for society). And I am not an economics expert.
Yep, some WH member trading 400k$ an hour before an attack sure did wonders for "the good of society". So does media showing rates on gambling websites as if they were an oracle and not something that can be gamed for cheaper than a TV ad.
Goodbye all small independent forums with no AI budgets. An attacker posts a nude picture, 18m fine from OfCom ("whichever is larger", not proportional to revenue)
I don't think the fine is automatic like that, it's more if you don't have an appropriate mechanism to manage it. In other words you need a content policy that is enforced.
A mod who deletes nude pictures is probably enough to not get fined.
I think the real issue is what I just said... "probably enough"; that's the real problem with the online safety act. People are mostly illiterate on the law, and now asking them to understand a complex law and implement it (even when the actual implementation is not that much effort or any effort at all for well run spaces) is the real issue.
As far as I am aware, 'probably' is about the best you can do, since the OSA is so vaguely defined, it's actually difficult to actually know what is and what isn't valid.
That's nice, thank you, I've joined and will follow. They don't seem to have a wiki or about page that synthesizes the current state of the art though.
reply