🔗 Baharak (@Baharak_Irani): “در دیدارهای امروز ما، نخست وزیر و من بر (اهداف) آینده تمرکز کردیم و در مورد اینکه چگونه میتوانیم با هم کار کنیم تا حماس از بین برود و در نهایت صلح را به منطقه ای بسیار آشفته بازگردانیم، بحث کردیم” ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖ 🔗 Baharak (@Baharak\_Irani): پیشنهاد پرزیدنت ترامپ برای تسلط آمریکا بر نوار غزه ممکن ست به نظر خارج از چارچوب به نظر برسه،
پ.ن. ایده ای هوشمند و منحصر به فرد ست و تحت حاکمیت امریکا شاید اخرین شانس امنیت، صلح و ثبات برای اون منطقه باشه؛ ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
🔗 Baharak (@Baharak_Irani): “در دیدارهای امروز ما، نخست وزیر و من بر (اهداف) آینده تمرکز کردیم و در مورد اینکه چگونه میتوانیم با هم کار کنیم تا حماس از بین برود و در نهایت صلح را به منطقه ای بسیار آشفته بازگردانیم، بحث کردیم” ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖ 🔗 Baharak (@Baharak\_Irani): پیشنهاد پرزیدنت ترامپ برای تسلط آمریکا بر نوار غزه ممکن ست به نظر خارج از چارچوب به نظر برسه،
پ.ن. ایده ای هوشمند و منحصر به فرد ست و تحت حاکمیت امریکا شاید اخرین شانس امنیت، صلح و ثبات برای اون منطقه باشه؛ ➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
He floated the idea of restricting the use of Telegram in Ukraine and Russia, a suggestion that was met with fierce opposition from users. Shortly after, Durov backed off the idea. Telegram has become more interventionist over time, and has steadily increased its efforts to shut down these accounts. But this has also meant that the company has also engaged with lawmakers more generally, although it maintains that it doesn’t do so willingly. For instance, in September 2021, Telegram reportedly blocked a chat bot in support of (Putin critic) Alexei Navalny during Russia’s most recent parliamentary elections. Pavel Durov was quoted at the time saying that the company was obliged to follow a “legitimate” law of the land. He added that as Apple and Google both follow the law, to violate it would give both platforms a reason to boot the messenger from its stores. In the United States, Telegram's lower public profile has helped it mostly avoid high level scrutiny from Congress, but it has not gone unnoticed. Right now the digital security needs of Russians and Ukrainians are very different, and they lead to very different caveats about how to mitigate the risks associated with using Telegram. For Ukrainians in Ukraine, whose physical safety is at risk because they are in a war zone, digital security is probably not their highest priority. They may value access to news and communication with their loved ones over making sure that all of their communications are encrypted in such a manner that they are indecipherable to Telegram, its employees, or governments with court orders. Telegram, which does little policing of its content, has also became a hub for Russian propaganda and misinformation. Many pro-Kremlin channels have become popular, alongside accounts of journalists and other independent observers.
from it
