I'm probably going to generate a whole lot of bot replies for my response to this, but "here we go":

The claims of this article are roughly as follows:

>""We created a new account in Telegram and started looking for a job. We joined channels that were directly about jobs in Estonia. Here’s what happened.

"We were quickly offered to 1) carry migrants from Belarusian border to Germany, 2) to scam Swiss out of their savings, 3) launder money by allowing unknown people use our bank accounts, 4) different drug related gigs, 5) send a photo of our penis for 2500 USD (we rejected).

[...]

Bottomline: Telegram has made it so easy. You don’t need to know the dark web to buy/sell drugs, find quick criminal gigs or even if you’re a Russian secret service looking to hire people for sabotage ops in Europe." "

Question: If we replace the word Telegram with Facebook or other Social Media Networking Site or even The US Postal System or The US Phone System or Your Countries Postal System or Your Countries Phone System or even The Entire Worldwide Internet -- then these claims (at least in some local or regional variety) -- could still be shown to be true!

Ask yourself a simple question:

If you are the CEO of a large social networking site (or heck, any owner of ANY Internet site that facilitates communication of any form between two or more users!), that is, you want people to communicate, but you don't want people to use your communication facilities for illegal/unethical/immoral/unlawful activities or transactions, but you also don't want to engage in nor allow censorship nor spying on your users' messages (remember, you promised them privacy or they would not have signed up in the first place, you know, contract in, contract out!) -- then,

What exactly are you supposed to do?

?

(Also, and this is minor and nitpicking -- not my main point -- but was the author of the article actually making a "good faith" effort to find and get and work at a legitimate job in Estonia had they been offered one? Or were they intentionally trolling to find the "worst of the worst" illegal/illicit "job offers" with the intent of writing a "cup of water is half empty" (what about all of the positive communications between moral/ethical/lawful/legal/legitimate users?

I guess we conveniently ignore all of those (you know, like SNL's Church Lady: "Well isn't that conveeeeeeeenient! <g>) -- and focus on all of the immoral/unethical/unlawful/illegal/illegitimate uses of the social media platform in question.

Which is like, <1% of the users...

I mean, we never hear heartwarming stories about how disabled people are able to reach out on a social media platform and feel loved and validated by other disabled people, never hear stories about how LGBTQ+ people found other LGBTQ+ people to feel loved and accepted and validated, never hear stories about how doctors have helped sick people in other countries or have created some lifesaving new medical cure that they couldn't create had it not been for the social media platform, etc., etc.!

It's always that the social media platform in question (today it's Telegram, tomorrow it could be your website!) somehow enabled/abetted crime, financial fraud, human trafficking, extremism, violence, terrorism and child pornography!

Between two or more unknown parties who are completely unrelated to the owner!

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy)

And then this is used as a pretext for arresting the owner of the website/social networking site in question!

(The Jimmy Dore Show: "Telegram CEO Pavel Durov Arrested By French Police For Free Speech!": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo2s5C2sAxM)

And this pattern plays out again and again...

Nassim Nicholas Taleb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb) calls this apparently emergent phenomena a "Dictatorship Of The Small Minority" aka Minority Rule: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...

Or, you can read the associated HN article here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20837171

Comedy writing mode on (!):

Also, to Holger Roonemaa (if that is your real name!) who wrote:

>"5) send a photo of our penis for 2500 USD (we rejected).":

That's a shame, because I get $5,000 (consistently!) for mine! :-)

I guess you really have to know what markets to buy and sell at! :-)

But for only $5 the Global Intelligence Community can have a picture of me (as a future tech CEO!) giving them the middle finger! :-)

I'm just kidding of course!

(That is, the price for that is actually $10! :-) )