There seems to be a gross misunderstanding of how everything works here. Any platform will need to provide data to authorities when "asked properly" - as in, receives an actual order from some enforcing body that has authority on the subject in question. No commercial company will fight the CIA in court to protect your data. The best you can hope for is that they minimize what kind of data they collect about you in the first place - in the case of E2EE, they will only have access to IPs and other metadata such as connection timestamps and nothing else. But all of the services you listed will collect at least IPs and most will do phone numbers as well. The only difference with Telegram is that they're transparent about it. You can either avoid using commercial platforms altogether, or use them in a way such that data retrieved from them will be useless. But believing that "Signal will never give my IP to law enforcement" is delusional.
floquant
Being thankful for the US "subsidizing" military defense and foreign bases? Sure, you definitely build bases in other sovereign countries out of the goodness of your hearts and not for your own tactical and espionage interests. No European would shed a tear if every US troop fucked off tomorrow
Welcome to my point: there's no such thing. You always have to go through national courts, and if you hold copyright in several countries, you can pretty much pick and choose the legislature that is most advantageous to your case. Take this recent one: an Icelandic company sued an Icelandic artist for slander... In UK court. The "legal" basis was that the website was hosted on a .co.uk domain, but I'm sure that the strict UK slander laws and astronomical costs of its courts had nothing to do with it. Not a copyright case, I know, but I think it's a good example of how laws and jurisdictions get fundamentally twisted when applied to the Internet. I think anyone can agree that it should've been settled in an Icelandic court.
Yeah, no. The ICJ handles disputes between nations. It has literally nothing to do with copyright. Just take a look at the kind of cases they handle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_cases
Because they're getting punished for providing books to people, while OpenAI & friends have been infringing copyright on a much, much bigger scale, and getting away with it. As always, the point isn't author's rights, it's money.
Copyright laws are agreed on at a international level
But every country then implements them in different ways, for example duration and what constitutes "fair use".
There even is a international copyright court
No there isn't. Source?
It's not about breaking the law, what I'm saying is that copyright laws (but actually, any law) just plain doesn't make sense when you try to apply it to the Internet, because the internet is not a national entity, and the nature of its interactions are fundamentally different from anything else that came before it. Because which country's laws should apply when interacting across continents? If I am in country A, and I'm interacting with you, a resident of country B, on a platform that is owned by a company registered in country C, hosting their servers in country D, who should have authority to regulate this interaction? Simply put, I don't give a fuck (pardon my french) about what the US Copyright Office has to say about anything, since I'm not a US citizen nor resident.
Yes, I am aware of what they do. And I am of the opinion that spreading access to knowledge is vastly more important than copyright laws made decades before the internet was a thing. Especially when is comes to US copyright laws being forced upon the rest of the world.
Indeed... IPv6 needs to be actively disabled, not enabled, by default.
Can't you hide bot accounts from your settings?
Boo to standing up for things!
Sigh. This will most likely come up in every legalization discussion in the future