>>19775>Are you saying that an internet censorship technology exists that is easier to circumvent than that used by the Russian state?
Of course. Just remember how this technology worked few years ago, when changing dns could help to avoid block on many providers.>Their goal was to popularize telegram among the opposition, drug dealers, etc, basically anyone who has topics they would hesitate to talk about on VK.
Yes. Also it was a:
1) Big test of mass blocking. Test had mixed results, some big commercial and government sites expected problems, but overall it was success - internet mostly worked.
2) Not only test, but first wave of permanent blocking. Many hosting providers who were blocked because of telegram weren't unblocked even now. When people talk about Chinese solution for Russia they rarely think that it already started working. Now RKN also has ability to block literally everything even without any court cases, they have "catch-all" from telegram. "Looks like your hoster has one telegram proxy somewhere -> ban all subnet".
3) Economical thing. These bans forced large amount of commercial companies to move to Russian hostings (overpriced and shitty). Blocking for business is pretty bad thing, common visitor wouldn't order food or wares from local internet shop through proxy.
This also fixes problem with government access to data, because now data stays in Russia.>So... how many levels of irony are you on, again?
One, maybe two, not mucch.>>19778>Telegram can be easily blocked with proper DPI
Yes, even their mtproto proxy that tries to be like https is relatively easily detected (although not by packet inspection but by common patterns in connection, I couldn't propely remember, sorry). But I guess current RKN <-> provider interaction system don't allow blocking protocols, only hosts. So, they need to ban everything that can run proxy to block Telegram, meaning disruption of internet of some scale, but they had no political decision to do this. They did it first, and Telegram had problems with connection, but then stopped because they didn't want to block it fully.
I think that in future they'll also use Telegram case as tool for laws that allow to block protocols and services, not only sites/hosts.