Durov affair: how to curb Telegram

TVNET considers the longer-term implications of this case for the sector:

“It is possible that the court case against Telegram will set a new legal precedent that will also affect social networks, cloud storage providers and even cryptocurrency companies. ... It could also lead to major changes in the market. Telegram is one of the last big players to be independent of large corporations such as Meta and Google. Tough sanctions or restrictions could significantly weaken the platform's position and pave the way for monopolies to be consolidated by other industry giants that already control a large share of the market.”

Le Temps suggests how messenger services should handle data in future:

“Telegram has made a significant mistake: almost never complying with lawful police requests for information about users. ... We think messenger services must continue to be allowed to offer full encryption to users who want it: this is a fundamental protection for privacy and freedom of expression. Still, messenger services must comply with the law, which is also fundamental: if information is requested on a legal basis, they must comply by providing the data they have about users without ever breaking this encryption.”

In the light of France's actions, Yeni-Şafak columnist Mehmet Akif Soysal criticises double standards but also sees Erdoğan's media policy as vindicated:

“Just imagine if Mark Zuckerberg was arrested in Ankara because he did not even condone peaceful protest messages on Instagram condemning the massacre in the Gaza Strip. ... Wouldn't all hell break loose? ... I agree with Macron's statements 100 per cent. ... In a constitutional state, freedoms must be protected within a legal framework, both on social media and in real life. Turkey's measures against social media are justified. Comments and actions that have legal consequences in real life should have the same consequences on social media.”

RFI România tries to get to the bottom of what Telegram actually is:

“Anyone can launch an illegal business on Telegram. And it is not a media institution that can invoke freedom of expression - which also has limits set by laws and constitutional principles. Nor is Telegram a private messaging system protected by the guarantee of secrecy of correspondence. Telegram is a public space. And if crimes are committed in a public space, states take action. This is exactly what the French authorities have done.”

Journalist Toms Lūsis wonders on Tvnet how the case will continue:

“What is interesting now is the question of what Durov will be prepared to put on the negotiating table to avoid sitting in prison because of the charges brought against him. ... Since Telegram has been used for communication not only by the Russian authorities but even by the army, we can be sure that Durov has plenty information to work with. The only question is how many nasty trump cards he brought with him to Paris. But we'll no doubt find that out soon enough.”

Ukrainian army aide Mariya Berlinska writes on Gordonua.com:

“If Pavel is forced to shut down the Russian channels and groups, the Russians will lose a large part of their communication options. ... Now let's imagine that all propaganda channels, all 'military bloggers' and above all thousands of data exchange channels between the units and coordination channels of their 'volunteers' suddenly disappear. Yes, there would be chaos and disorganisation for a while. That is why Russian propagandists have also been so active in defending Pavel - in line with a number of Western liberals.”

Le Monde sees this as a test of EU muscle:

“The case has shaken the world of digital communication, where supporters of Pavel Durov's approach like X owner Elon Musk, have denounced this as a violation of freedom of expression. It is also an important judicial and political test for the EU, which in recent years has established itself as a champion for the democratic regulation of digital platforms. As European countries are particularly vulnerable to terrorism and disinformation campaigns aimed at destabilising democracies, they are being forced to increase their vigilance without endangering the rule of law.”

IT expert Dan Bogdanov explains in Eesti Päevaleht:

“Telegram has tens of millions of users in Russia and Ukraine, and is a hugely important source of information about what is going on in the war. This happens in chat rooms with thousands of participants and channels that users can subscribe to. What you should know about Telegram is that it does not use end-to-end encryption either for chat rooms or for channels. Consequently everything – i.e. what is said and who says it – is visible to the service provider and may be stored for later use. In short, Telegram presents itself as a secure chat app, but in fact it only offers this service in two-way conversations, and only if users go to the trouble of switching it on.”

It was time to act, Spotmedia concurs:

“The arrest of Telegram's CEO is an unprecedented act that sends a clear message to the billionaires who control social networks: governments have lost their patience. Racist attacks, terrorism, religious fanaticism and lying propaganda are encouraged and promoted on social media. Despite repeated violations of the laws governing open societies, the administrators of digital platforms are apparently unwilling or unable to put a stop to the promotion of hate, incitement to murder, and fraud.”

In many countries the social media platform Telegram is one of the few alternatives to state propaganda channels, columnist Hugo Rifkind explains in The Times:

“Telegram, after all, is not just used by Russians spreading propaganda, but also by Russians seeking to avoid it, and by Ukrainians too. It is used widely in the Middle East, both by people you might like and also people you might not; and increasingly in India, as Narendra Modi's own online censorship grows. Will the governments of places far less free than France feel emboldened by Durov's arrest? Inescapably”

In an X post republished by Echo, Maria Pevchikh, head of the Navalny Anti-Corruption Foundation FBK, rejects the theory that Telegram has refused to work with intelligence services until now:

“Telegram and Durov ALREADY cooperate with the authorities when it comes to politics (deleting the Smart Voting chat bot and the channel for wives of mobilised troops [both in Russia], blocking RT news abroad, etc.). It's strange to block a channel with a list of registered Duma candidates, but not to block a channel with a list of all the hard drugs that you can get delivered within 15 minutes. Telegram knows and sees these channels perfectly well (much better than we do), but decides not to block them. So let's temper the fervour in all the arguments about Durov the fighter.”

Philosopher and publisher Artis Svece points in Satori to the need to weigh up conflicting values:

“At first glance it might seem surprising that the police in democratic, liberal France have arrested such a defender of freedom of speech, while Russia is rushing to his defence. ... It goes without saying that freedom of information is not Western society's only value, and that sometimes values also end up in conflict with one another, for example the desire to project children and to ensure uncensored communication. The question is whether we Europeans are always able to find a balance between the values that make life in this part of the world compatible with our sense of self-respect and an enviable role model for others.”

Internet lawyer Kostjantyn Korsun sees the arrest as a logical step. He writes on Censor.net:

“You can't spit in the face of the police in the world's most powerful countries for years and hope to get away with it. You can't simply ignore the international 'rules of the game' that require certain content to be removed. And you can't beat competitors by ignoring the boundaries of what is permissible. ... I suspect that among the accusations that have not been made public, one is cooperation with the secret services of the terrorist state [Russia]. I am sure that the French special intelligence service DGSI has already compiled a thick dossier on this subject.”

Writing on Facebook, human rights activist Alexander Podrabinek describes the conflict between state monitoring and freedom of expression:

“On the one hand, why not assist the police of a democratic state in finding real criminals? On the other hand, the police are the police. ... Telegram is a messenger service, not a mass medium. Should Durov censor correspondence? By that logic, telephone companies should also eavesdrop on their subscribers' conversations and prevent illegal activities. Is that okay in a democracy? In China, Russia, Belarus and other countries under despotic regimes, it is.”

Russia's reaction is panic-driven, says Jutarnji list:

“Following Durov's arrest, Anton Gerashchenko, a former adviser to the Ukrainian Interior Minister, published a number of comments taken from Russian social networks on X. He sees a lot of speculation and panic there. There are comments saying things like: 'Durov allegedly requested a meeting with Putin in Baku a few days ago and was refused.' 'Durov's arrest may be like the cracking of the Enigma code by the British during the Second World War: Telegram is the only messaging service used by the Russian army. All its messages could end up in the hands of the West', and 'The Russian agent network could be exposed'.”

In an X post republished by Echo, human rights activist Lev Ponomaryov makes the case for international standards for the moderation of online content:

“Some claim that Durov has been passing on information to the Russian authorities for a long time, and there have been precedents confirming that. But I also know that without Telegram, resistance to the Russian regime would now be almost impossible. After Pavel Durov is released, the global community needs to engage in a major discussion on this issue. ... Perhaps democratic countries should set up a sort of international committee to develop standardised regulations for the moderation of all major information platforms. A certain minimum effort must be made to combat things like the dissemination of illegal goods and materials through these networks.”