Шольц обвинил Маска в подрыве европейской демократии.
Он утверждает, что предприниматель поддерживает ультраправые силы в разных странах Европы, включая Великобританию, Германию и многие другие. Это, по мнению Шольца, совершенно недопустимо.
По его словам, такая позиция ставит под угрозу демократическое развитие Европы и безопасность общества, и она должна быть подвергнута критике.
Шольц обвинил Маска в подрыве европейской демократии.
Он утверждает, что предприниматель поддерживает ультраправые силы в разных странах Европы, включая Великобританию, Германию и многие другие. Это, по мнению Шольца, совершенно недопустимо.
По его словам, такая позиция ставит под угрозу демократическое развитие Европы и безопасность общества, и она должна быть подвергнута критике.
The account, "War on Fakes," was created on February 24, the same day Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" and troops began invading Ukraine. The page is rife with disinformation, according to The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, which studies digital extremism and published a report examining the channel. 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. Given the pro-privacy stance of the platform, it’s taken as a given that it’ll be used for a number of reasons, not all of them good. And Telegram has been attached to a fair few scandals related to terrorism, sexual exploitation and crime. Back in 2015, Vox described Telegram as “ISIS’ app of choice,” saying that the platform’s real use is the ability to use channels to distribute material to large groups at once. Telegram has acted to remove public channels affiliated with terrorism, but Pavel Durov reiterated that he had no business snooping on private conversations. Although some channels have been removed, the curation process is considered opaque and insufficient by analysts. 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.
from us
