What does the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov mean?

The arrest in France of the founder of the Telegram social media app, Pavel Durov, is extremely significant. The basis of internet communication is that platforms are not responsible for the content shared by their users. But that does not imply that you can say absolutely anything on a social network. Each app has its own moderation criteria; Instagram, for example, does not allow porn, while X and Reddit do. But porn is legal in most countries. What about illegal content such as terrorism, pedophilia, drug trafficking, or hate speech?

Each platform moderates such illegal content as best it can and all of them receive thousands of requests from governments to reveal the identity of users sharing criminal content. Most companies accept these requests and cooperate with the authorities. The French Prosecutor’s Office has published the charges against Durov, which refer to his “complicity” or lack of attention and cooperation with authorities by allowing the dissemination of child pornography or illegal transactions and drugs, collaborating in fraud, or even “associating with criminals,” which is punishable by five years in prison.

Elon Musk also believes that “moderation is another word for censorship.” Telegram has almost a billion users and, of the big platforms, it is the one that cooperates with authorities the least and provides the most leeway for users. The company itself says that “its moderation continues to improve” and that “it is absurd to argue that a platform or its owner is responsible for abuse on that platform.” But in the meantime, as far as we know, France arrested Durov on Saturday and he was still detained on Monday.

To understand what is at stake in this case, there are important details to bear in mind:

1. Better to think of it as a social network

To understand what Telegram is, it is easier to think of it as a social network that allows private messages. The root of Telegram’s success are the massive groups that allow messages and comments, that is, the basis of Telegram is millions of communities centered around a person or topic: Spanish extremist politician Alvise Pérez, Catalan self-determination group Democratic Tsunami, cryptocurrencies, cell phone offers, the covid vaccine, or cats. The variety is infinite.

In that variety, content that most countries consider illegal sneaks in. A recent example occurred in Spain, when the High Court suspended Telegram following complaints from broadcasters that it distributed copyrighted television content. On Telegram there are channels that broadcast live soccer matches, television series and movies, or allow book downloads.

2. Moderation is scarce

In its rules, Telegram claims to restrict spam, the promotion of violence, illegal sexual content, and “activities that are recognized as illegal in most countries,” such as the sale of drugs, weapons, false documents, or the publication of private details.

The problem is how to find and remove that content among millions of groups, accounts, and users. Telegram says it uses a combination of artificial intelligence, manual moderation, and user reporting, although “we will always favor the least restrictive measure possible to maintain a safe digital environment and decisively address malicious content.” This combination of permissiveness and lightness in moderation makes the platform ungovernable. To Pavel Durov this is acceptable; to a European government it is not.

3. The platform is not so secure

The big confusion with Telegram stems from its alleged security. Two factors are the root cause of that confusion: one, Telegram is based in Dubai, far from the most restrictive legislations in the world, and its founder boasts of being a libertarian, which has given his product a paradisiacal aura for political activism and radical views. However, and this is point two, Telegram is not encrypted by default. The company itself, or whoever has access to it, can see what each user writes or shares in the mass channels. Only for secret conversations between two users can encryption be enabled, but both users must do so voluntarily; it does not come as standard.

The big difference here is that if France had arrested Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta would not be able to provide access to the messages or photos of his users on WhatsApp (but he could give their identities and who speaks with whom) because they are encrypted, as is also the case with Signal, Threema, and others.

Durov’s arrest has sparked theories not only about moderation, but also about the alleged French interest in confidential user information. Of course, speculation about Russia’s apparent access to Telegram content also stems from this.

4. The curious case of Russia

Durov is a Russian national and also holds a French passport. He became famous for creating VKontakte, the “Russian Facebook,” which he had to abandon under pressure from the Kremlin. Now, however, Telegram is the only major messaging app allowed in Russia. Meta apps are banned and YouTube is about to be blocked as well. Telegram has been shut down in China since 2015.

The suspicion about Durov’s collaboration with Russia stems from there. Why does Russia accept Telegram when others do not? The company denies the insinuation.

5. Is it good for activism?

If Telegram encrypted its groups, it would technically be much more complex for each community to have so many members. The decision not to encrypt is a competitive advantage over its rivals. But its users, especially in conflict zones or under authoritarian governments, should know that Telegram may not share their data but there are government cyber agencies that have the ability to access that information. It is also easier to create fake government campaigns to deceive unwary citizens.

Despite all this caution, it remains a tool that allows free communication of information for millions of citizens, in many cases against their governments. The impact of its end or decline would be difficult to measure. This positive use would be affected if Durov, the only visible face of Telegram and central to its functioning, were to end up behind bars.

6. Freedom of expression and Europe

Elon Musk has ridiculed the French action against Durov: “POV: it’s 2030 in Europe and you’re being executed for liking a meme,” he wrote on X. In the background is the debate over the limit of freedom of expression. In Musk’s view, the left uses these measures to censor ideas they don’t like.

In Europe, the panorama is very different. Former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt said on X that “Telegram sits at the center of global cyber crime... Free speech is not without responsibilities.”

Beyond this never-ending debate, it remains to be seen what Brussels will do. When the Spanish High Court abandoned the idea of blocking Telegram, one of the reasons was that it should be a European battle, not a national one.

Telegram claims to have 41 million users in Europe, just below the 45 million threshold the European Union has set for being a “very large online platform” and therefore affected by the new Digital Services Act regulation. Telegram uses a peculiar formula to avoid falling under the obligation to share information with the authorities under the new law: “Some non-core elements of the services provided by Telegram may qualify as ‘online platforms’ under the DSA. As of August 2024, these services had significantly fewer than 45 million average monthly active users in the EU over the previous six months,” thus not falling under the new directive, the platform stated.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition