The high-profile arrest of Pavel Durov: what will change in Telegram’s policy and will it be felt in Ukraine?

In the media expert environment, Telegram has long been the object of criticism and lively discussions about the ban. The reason is the possibility of anonymous dissemination of information, the status of which is questionable. The very structure of the messenger facilitates the spread and deep penetration of misinformation. After all, privacy is not just one of the functions of Telegram, it is a component of the Durov brand, its uniqueness and basic value. The billionaire himself positions himself as a supporter of libertarianism. However, the question arises, is Telegram only about freedom?

Areas of freedom or crime?

Since its inception, Telegram has positioned itself as a territory of anonymity, privacy and freedom. Let’s remember the special role of the messenger, which he played in the development of protests in Belarus in 2020. Then the star of the Nexta channel rose, which became an important and, in fact, the only source of information for millions of people. Needless to say, in countries with strict censorship and repression against dissenters, anonymity and security of communication are critically important. Nexta quickly established itself as an objective source of news that was not subject to state censorship. This circumstance created trust among Belarusians who were looking for truthful information in the conditions of state control over the media. As you know, the channel attracted a large number of people who sent videos, photos and other materials to cooperate. There was a feeling of complicity and community among the Belarusian protesters, which allowed the channel to become the most important information resource in Belarus for a long time.

However, there is another side of the coin, namely anonymity. This is an opportunity to use Telegram for criminal purposes. In this way, it functionally resembles the Darknet – a space that was conceived to protect freedom of speech, but in the end became a refuge for marginals and criminals. Telegram is part of ISIS media terrorism. The terrorist organization uses this platform to recruit new members of the group and promote the success of its activities. X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram are doing everything they can to remove ISIS accounts, pushing the group out of the media landscape. In August 2016, after the Paris attacks, Twitter removed 360,000 accounts linked to terrorism.

Telegram also took down ISIS-run channels. But he closed only 78 such channels. Such passivity drives terrorists to this social media.

It is also known that journalists Bloomberg reported about the recruitment of petty criminals through Telegram to carry out sabotage in European capitals.

Why was Pavel Durov detained?

He was listed on the FPR and was at risk of a French arrest warrant issued following a preliminary investigation by Ofmin, the Office for Juvenile Affairs, which specializes in combating violence against children, under the direction of France’s national judicial police. Telegram’s founder is directly suspected of committing offenses that range from fraud to drug trafficking and include cyberbullying, organized crime, terrorist propaganda and fraud. The warrant could be activated only when Durov was in France. The audacious arrival of a billionaire to a European country, where his telegram was under close surveillance, raises questions.

Justice, in particular, criticizes Pavlo Durov for inaction (lack of moderation and cooperation with the investigation) against the criminal use of the messenger by his subscribers. “Enough of Telegram’s impunity,” said one of the investigators, surprised that the billionaire, knowing that he was wanted in France, still decided to fly to Paris. “Perhaps because of a sense of impunity,” — reported one of the sources close to the case.

Ukrainian media experts hope to revise Telegram’s policy

Pavel Durov’s detention was reacted to in many countries and in very different ways.

Ukrainian media lawyers do not see this is a problem for the Ukrainian infospace. On the contrary, there was a reason to increase attention to Telegram’s connection with Russia. Lawyer Maksym Dvorovy expresses the hope that Durov can admit his guilt and undertake to rebuild the internal architecture of the platform in view of the threats it poses to the world with its anonymity and insufficient channel moderation. It brings up to date the age-old issue of Telegram channel registration, which comes up every time in the media community when media legislation is discussed. Indeed, there is no legal requirement in any country to register Telegram channels as media. And this poses a huge problem of lack of control over the content and communications that take place on this platform. Despite the existence in the EU of the best and most modern regulatory framework that regulates digital services, European regulators cannot deal with Telegram due to its unaccountability and formal unqualifiedness as a media structure. More precisely, they could not until the moment of the arrest of its owner. They believe that in this way Europe has finally “showed its teeth”, proving that accusations of weakness by the European elites are inappropriate. There are even opinions that France played the role of a “legal proxy” in this context.

As you know, Telegram channels function as meta-media and offer users promising features: end-to-end encryption (which prevents anyone but the sender and recipient from accessing the message), secret chats, self-destructing messages. The combination of these different functions on one platform is the reason why criminal groups use Telegram as a “command and control center”, gather on this platform, and then move to other platforms – X (Twitter), Facebook, etc. According to Nikita Poturaev, head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy, the charges against Durov are serious, so no democratic country will tolerate the presence of such a platform in its media space. He added that if charges are brought against Durov, it could become a basis for taking measures in Ukraine, for example, through the decision of the National Security Council.

Telegram’s official response and Elon Musk’s defense

A reaction to Durov’s delay appeared in the official Telegram channel. Management of the messenger said that it complies with the requirements of the EU Digital Services Act, and that its moderation policy is in line with industry standards. Moreover, it is constantly being improved. Telegram considers the assertion that the platform and its owner are responsible for its abuse to be absurd. Telegram management reminded the world that almost a billion users use it as a means of communication and receiving important information.

Elon Musk and Carlson Tucker defended Pavel Durov. Musk posted on his page in X hashtag FreePavel and attached an interview of the founder of Telegram to the notorious journalist Tucker. Tucker himself presented Durov’s detention as an attack on freedom of speech and called Durov “a living warning to any platform owner who refuses to censor the truth at the behest of governments and secret services.” As you know, Durov gave Tucker an interview. In it, the founder of Telegram talked about the pressure from the Russian authorities, which forced him to leave the country, and also rejected accusations of cooperation with Russian security forces.

There was also a financial component

At the beginning of March, the Financial Times newspaper also published the first interview with Pavlo Durov in seven years. He shared Telegram’s plans for an IPO (initial public offering) and estimated the company’s value at $30 billion. In this connection, among media specialists, opinions appeared about the financial basis of this detention. In the world of global capitalism and technology, talented and independent entrepreneurs like Pavlo Durov can become victims of a system that does not tolerate competitors and seeks to control important resources, including digital platforms. Regardless of the achievements or ideals of such entrepreneurs, they can be destroyed or “absorbed” by more powerful players who see them as a threat or an opportunity for their own enrichment.

There are many interpretations of Durov’s detention. Among them are completely conspiratorial ones, in particular, about the “voluntary surrender” of the founder of Telegram to the French authorities due to fear of Putin, who allegedly demanded Durov’s cooperation during the meeting in Baku.

What could a strike on Telegram mean for the Ukrainian media community?

We hope that conclusions will be drawn about the dangers of this platform and that it will come under closer supervision of regulators. The popularity of Telegram as a news source in Ukraine, which after the full-scale Russian invasion became the number 1 source for most Ukrainians, has long been a concern of media critics

TGStat estimated that 88,000 Telegram channels are aimed at the Ukrainian audience, and their number is constantly growing. Who is behind these channels? How credible and neutral are the narratives they promote? How many of them are of Russian origin, but mimic Ukrainian in order to promote the messages needed by the aggressor countries? Of course, all these questions are addressed not only to Durov, but it is his principled position in the field of confidentiality and anonymity that makes it impossible to control those groups and institutions that use Telegram for criminal purposes.