Why do people sue Google and win for it taking pictures of their houses from the streets? It's all public access, right?
But then if you bring up the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they'll bring up Bandera and suddenly care about Poland.
So what's your approach to politics? If you choose not to vote at all, and voting for someone outside the two parties is practically the same as that in the US, how do you effect change? If you protest as a means of that, who's your target or audience? Is it the same politicians? Is it the people who would then have to choose between the same politicians?
Unless you're extremely naive, you recognize that no politician is perfect, but in a de facto two-party system like that of the US, not voting for the lesser evil is a vote for the worst. Acknowledging that is not saying that some discrimination is okay, but it's easier to ask for more protections and protest when you're not in a concentration camp.
I don't see anyone comparing it to costs in the US. The US dollar is still one of the most leading currencies used for trade, and it makes sense to convert to US dollars for the figure to be meaningful outside Russia. Though again, Russia and the US are not quite on par, as the US is 25 on the list with a lower Gini ratio as of the latest data point from 2021. I don't know why you keep shifting it from one subject to another. Just like bringing up the US has no relevance to someone being arrested in Russia, income inequality is not as relevant to my point about wealth inequality.
Edit: Also, if you were 100% in the right on this, the conclusion would then be "Average salary is a poor metric for the US too". OK. So?
The thread isn't about a US citizen, but yes, as seen at the link, though it's not as bad as in Russia.
Going by Wikipedia, it's actually about $876 in her region, though it's a poor metric for Russia, given its massive disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest, with it ranking 14 out of 180 in the world by wealth inequality.
"whataboutism is effective propaganda". No, it's a reminder to address the actual argument, not talk about America lynching negroes.
I guess their security turned out to be as fragile as their masculinity!
It has nothing to do with privacy. Telegram is an old-school social network in that it doesn't even require that you register to view the content pages. It's also a social network taken to the extreme of free speech absolutism in that it doesn't mind people talking openly about every kind of crime and their use of its tools to make it easier to obtain the related services. All that with no encryption at all.
Why would it need to blur it? If you were passing by, I assume you'd see it, so you might as well take a pic and use it for your own corporate needs. That's the logic we're talking about here, though it's not my logic.