Если понесенные гражданами и организациями миллионные убытки еще можно будет взыскать через суд, то за потраченные нервные клетки челябинцев — «стоя и не чокаясь». Людей допекло происходящее. Теперь игнорировать горожан у чиновников больше не получится — невозможно испытывать терпение, которого не осталось.
Если понесенные гражданами и организациями миллионные убытки еще можно будет взыскать через суд, то за потраченные нервные клетки челябинцев — «стоя и не чокаясь». Людей допекло происходящее. Теперь игнорировать горожан у чиновников больше не получится — невозможно испытывать терпение, которого не осталось.
So, uh, whenever I hear about Telegram, it’s always in relation to something bad. What gives? 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. You may recall that, back when Facebook started changing WhatsApp’s terms of service, a number of news outlets reported on, and even recommended, switching to Telegram. Pavel Durov even said that users should delete WhatsApp “unless you are cool with all of your photos and messages becoming public one day.” But Telegram can’t be described as a more-secure version of WhatsApp. Telegram boasts 500 million users, who share information individually and in groups in relative security. But Telegram's use as a one-way broadcast channel — which followers can join but not reply to — means content from inauthentic accounts can easily reach large, captive and eager audiences.
from vn
