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.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
World leaders are preparing themselves for a second Donald Trump presidency. Some leaders know more or less where he stands: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy knows that a difficult negotiation process is about to be forced on his country, and the leaders of NATO countries would be well aware of being complacent about US military support with Trump in power. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would likely be feeling relief as the constraints placed on him by the US President Joe Biden administration would finally be released. However, for President William Lai (賴清德) the calculation is not simple. Trump has surrounded himself
RSS