The recent arrest of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov at Le Bourget airport near Paris has sent shock waves through the tech world. Business magnate Elon Musk called on France to “free Pavel” to avert a threat to democracy, while Paul Graham, the cofounder of leading Silicon Valley accelerator Y Combinator, suggested it would hurt the country’s chances of being “a major start-up hub.” However, although some are citing a French-led assault on free speech and innovation, the reality is more nuanced.
Durov’s detention is not a shocking act of government overreach, but the culmination of years of tension between his ultra-lax approach to oversight and growing concern about Telegram’s role in enabling criminal activity. The charges are extensive and serious, covering Telegram’s complicity in the distribution of child sexual-abuse material, drug trafficking and money laundering. While the likes of Meta, TikTok and Alphabet’s YouTube have much stricter bans on such activities, Durov’s arrest should also be taken as a sign that the “no consequences” era for social media is fading as governments push to make companies more accountable for what happens on their apps.
Telegram is one of the world’s biggest social media platforms, with an estimated 900 million monthly users, many of whom follow popular channels that broadcast content to thousands of people. It is also unique in its approach to overseeing all that activity: It does not. While its peers invest heavily in content moderation and cooperate with law enforcement, Telegram has a minimal-intervention policy that has contributed to its low operational costs. Durov once told the Financial Times that each Telegram user cost the company just US$0.70 a year to support.
His platform has been linked to the spread of conspiracy theory groups, child sexual-abuse material and terrorism, with the Islamic State group having reportedly used the app as a communication hub for nearly a decade. Such groups do not just use the app for alleged secrecy, but for its “anything goes” approach to moderation. During the recent UK riots, calls to violence proliferated on the platform even though they broke the app’s rules. One such post was only taken down after I contacted the app about it. Despite all this, Telegram has proudly maintained a stance of non-cooperation. In its frequently asked questions section, the company states “to this day, we have disclosed 0 bytes of user data to third parties, including governments.”
Now, in response to the arrest, Telegram has said it is “absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform. Telegram abides by EU laws, including the Digital Services Act — its moderation is within industry standards and constantly improving.”
However, it is far from “absurd” for a company to be held accountable for criminal activity on its platform. Telegram is in this position, because of its choice to avoid content moderation — and not because of an encroaching effort by a government to conduct surveillance on its supposedly secret chats. Cryptography experts have long said that Telegram is not fully end-to-end encrypted. Most chats on the app use client-server encryption, meaning Telegram could access message contents if it chose to (and much of the content on the platform is on public channels anyway). The company’s “Secret Chats” feature does offer end-to-end encryption, but that is not the default and it is not always used for regular communication. In essence, Telegram has created an illusion of total privacy while retaining the technical means to monitor content — a capability it chooses not to use.
France’s move against Durov marks a reckoning for that choice, and the involvement of specialized units such as the country’s Centre for the Fight against Cybercrime and the Anti-Fraud National Office highlight the gravity of his app’s alleged offenses. Musk and other critics might say that his arrest threatens free speech, but Telegram’s hands-off approach to much of the activity on its platform does not grant it freedom from consequences. The digital world requires as much governance as the physical one, and when a platform becomes a tool for widespread criminal activity, turning a blind eye is not a defense of liberty, but a dereliction of duty.
One lesson the tech industry can glean from this week’s developments is that social media giants can no longer expect to keep operating in a regulatory vacuum. Europe is on track to take a harsher line on harms that occur on social media with laws such as the Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act coming into force in the next year or so. The charges brought by the French prosecutors are not connected to the new EU law, but they are part of a broader shift in aggression. Tech’s leading players are not as untouchable as they thought they were.
Parmy Olson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, she is author of We Are Anonymous. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
RSS