{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiefzul5nqcilhnjpcsjcoaf3pkgfkjdh5crdj5qes422f6fq6lhm4",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:34cg4tn4iwemk3v5k3n3adwf/app.bsky.feed.post/3mmaik4ym2rw2"
  },
  "path": "/t/forkgram-and-mercurygram-seem-to-be-missing-the-advertising-anti-feature-tag/34374#post_8",
  "publishedAt": "2026-05-19T20:59:29.000Z",
  "site": "https://forum.f-droid.org",
  "textContent": "> It’s hard to blame those app devs for trying to comply with Telegram ToS since if they do not do that, they are potentially putting their user’s accounts at risk. Telegram will often kill off accounts with no warning, no explanation and no recourse if they decide that the user is violating their ToS.\n\ni’m not telling the devs what they should or should not do, that’s entirely up to them, just putting the detail out there that the developers explicitly claimed that the misfeature will stay, so the tag should apply.\n\nit’s not uncommon that clients distributed through f-droid do not have advertisements in them. if i knew in advance that the software will non-consensually advertise to me then it would have influenced my decision to download it, and i believe it might be the case for other people going forward as well.",
  "title": "Forkgram and Mercurygram seem to be missing the advertising anti-feature tag"
}