>It's kind of funny because Telegram is used by Russian military to coordinate a lot of things, so they complain a lot about the block.
If that's true, then it was really stupid of them to allow things to get to that point. Look at the US -- they had no tolerance for a major social media app (TikTok) to be outside their own control, and they weren't even in a major war at the time. It seems obvious that if you ARE in a major war, you wouldn't want your main social media and messaging app to be under the control of somebody (Pavel Durov) who was recently arrested by a member (France) of the military alliance you're fighting against (NATO), when it is unclear what deal he may have made with that government to be released from prison. It seems obvious to suspect that the price of his freedom may have been a backdoor that allows the opposing military to read all the messages your own people are sending.
The real failure of Russia's is that, unlike the US, they have been systematically unable to keep its own top tech talent supportive of their own government. The top US tech companies have been only too eager to do almost anything their government asks of them, with only some rare and tepid pushback (such as that by Anthropic recently), that seems to get severely punished when it does happen. So there has been no need for the US government to go to the extents that Russia is going to now, simply because they were able to coopt their top talent into working for and with the state (with some rare exceptions like Snowden, and I'd say the "damage" from that has been pretty successfully contained).
The Chinese government may have had some issues with that as well, considering what happened with Jack Ma (though I don't know much about it).
> unable to keep its own top tech talent supportive of their own government
Government did much to turn them away. And with regards to Makh messanger. Patriotic tech talents are supposed to be interested in Elbrus 2000 PC and Aurora mobile OS. Does Makh messenger work on something Russian? No, Makh does not work on anything Russian. So what makes Makh Russian? We don't get it. It's some another Russia that we don't belong to. Our Russia is Elbrus 2000 PC and Aurora mobile OS. And software from Astra group. People behind Elbrus 2000 support orthodoxal christianity, and people behind Astra group are for great Soviet past. They call one of Astra Linux releases "Leningrad". The proper name of what is currently known as "Saint-Petersburg."
Makh is from some commercial group that does not care about our values. Virtually openly violates traditional values. They are from VK group, and VK hosts VKFest, an open air for youth with rotten words, furnication songs, all that stuff.
Our Russia and their Russia don't mix like water and oil.
For military there is another communication network called Свод (Svod, Arch). It was 4 years late to the party, but at least goes in now.
Very neat! My native language is Russian. I could understand it pretty well up to 1300, then only about 40% of the 1200 section (not at all the beginning, but the last paragraph was easier), then quite little after that - though I understood enough to glean that there was some woman who had showed up that caused the Master to flee.
I really got into reading Spenser's "The Faerie Queene" (about 1497) about a year ago, and I suspect that really helped me with this exercise, since he uses some language that was archaic even back then.
I really wish there was an audio recording of this story. I found the spellings in the earlier years more and more confusing.
Paradoxically, that might help us speakers of Continental Germanic languages, since it could bring both pronounciation och word-roots closer to traits that have survived in Dutch, German, or the Nordic languages.
I think, unlike what the author writes, communities CAN be moved if they are sufficiently small and loyal to the leaders who do the move, and the leaders don't screw it up. Moreover, the move is sometimes an improvement.
I've witnessed it myself. For example, Commander Keen fans moving from various InsideTheWeb forums to a centralized phpBB following the ITW shutdown announcement in the late 1990s. I can't think of anybody that got lost, and it was actually an improvement because the new discussion infrastructure was better than it had been before. The community didn't scatter to the winds, far from it; it consolidated and grew.
Of course, such a situation is probably rarer with the enshittification these days, but it would be worth it to figure out when it works, too.
And history is replete with stories of groups who became most successful AFTER a migration, or at least were not so negatively affected by one.
Digg to Reddit was a positive migration. I can think of many small Reddit communities that couldn’t have flourished under Digg or the old phpBB style boards.
Things can get better over time. When they don’t acknowledge this I can’t help but see the authors article as a dislike for any change of any kind.
I've been reading HackerNews for years, but this is my first time submitting. I welcome all critiques, good and bad. To be honest, I know that there's plenty to criticize in the way I've coded the site; though there are parts I'm proud of, some of it is still left over from when I was only just starting to learn to code and barely understood what I was doing. This post describes my attempt over the past 1.5 months to fix ONE of those many issues.
If that's true, then it was really stupid of them to allow things to get to that point. Look at the US -- they had no tolerance for a major social media app (TikTok) to be outside their own control, and they weren't even in a major war at the time. It seems obvious that if you ARE in a major war, you wouldn't want your main social media and messaging app to be under the control of somebody (Pavel Durov) who was recently arrested by a member (France) of the military alliance you're fighting against (NATO), when it is unclear what deal he may have made with that government to be released from prison. It seems obvious to suspect that the price of his freedom may have been a backdoor that allows the opposing military to read all the messages your own people are sending.
The real failure of Russia's is that, unlike the US, they have been systematically unable to keep its own top tech talent supportive of their own government. The top US tech companies have been only too eager to do almost anything their government asks of them, with only some rare and tepid pushback (such as that by Anthropic recently), that seems to get severely punished when it does happen. So there has been no need for the US government to go to the extents that Russia is going to now, simply because they were able to coopt their top talent into working for and with the state (with some rare exceptions like Snowden, and I'd say the "damage" from that has been pretty successfully contained).
The Chinese government may have had some issues with that as well, considering what happened with Jack Ma (though I don't know much about it).