Telegram CEO Arrested for Allowing Free Speech
Russian-born billionaire Pavel Durov, 39, was arrested last Saturday in France shortly after his private jet landed at the Le Bourget Airport. His crime? Allowing free speech to flourish on Telegram.
Durov founded the Telegram messaging service with his brother Nikolai in 2013. Less than a decade later, Telegram made headlines for being the most downloaded app on the planet (January 2021). With more than 950 million monthly active users, the free-to-use app remains one of the most popular messaging services in the world.
From the beginning, Telegram was known for being a “free space” with virtually no content moderation and Durov – who fled Russia in 2008 after refusing to hand over private information belonging to Ukrainian users of the social media network he created in 2007 – was celebrated as a champion of free speech.
The Dubai-based app is unique in that it does not rely on algorithms to filter content. Instead, users subscribe to specific channels and can scroll through content posted in chronological order. Lately, the app has been abuzz with uncensored updates on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Not surprisingly, officials throughout Europe take issue with the lack of content moderation on Telegram and claim the app is fueling disinformation and spreading pro-Kremlin propaganda. Many have blamed the app for exacerbating the violent protests that occurred in the UK earlier this month. According to French authorities, an investigation is now underway to determine whether Durov refused to cooperate with federal demands that he censor the app to prevent crimes including drug trafficking, fraud, cyber scams, child pornography, and the promotion of terrorism. The case against him was launched by a French cybercrime unit based in Paris.
“Telegram’s CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe,” said Telegram in a statement. “It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.”
Durov, famous for taking shirtless photos and dressing like Neo from the The Matrix, has citizenship in both France and the UAE. He was most recently living in Dubai. Reports suggest he remains in detention, though both the UAE and the Russian Embassy in France have demanded access to him.
Author’s Note: As we know from the legal battles surrounding Facebook and Google, content moderation too often becomes a battle over free speech. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Sources:
Telegram CEO Pavel Durov arrested in France, reports say
Telegram founder Pavel Durov net worth: Detention in France puts freedom at risk
This rehash of the Dumpster’s story is a much better, but not great, 360 view.
“According to French authorities, an investigation is now underway to determine whether Durov refused to cooperate with federal demands that he censor the app to prevent crimes including drug trafficking, fraud, cyber scams, child pornography, and the promotion of terrorism. The case against him was launched by a French cybercrime unit based in Paris.” This says it all. My question: “got a problem with that?”
That said, Alice could still expand on Durov. His history is interesting; it does not look like he’s an oligarch or oligarch financed. That’s cool and interesting, as is his family history.
He seems to be a free internet extremist believing in zero guardrails and governors on lies or other forms of communications malfeasance. That’s interesting and cool too until you see criminals and terrorists taking advantage of his platform solely because of that. And at some point, you may think that’s the point. To make money by supporting criminal conversations, even empowering them. You can use his platform to say things you can’t in email, the phone, text, and most other routine forms of communications. IOW — he may be seen as cheating in order to make a buck.
If Alice had expounded on his history, family history, and how he makes his buck supporting criminal and terrorist secret communications —- this story would be fantastic. And it’s already good and so much better than the Dumpster’s. He sources defrocked Bitchute; Alice has NPR and The Economic Times. Congrats —- guess you can sit at the Horist table at the next PBP company pick-a-nick.
So you think free speech needs “guardrails”? Who determines that? Are the police allowed to have access to every conversation under every circumstance? Should the entire population submit to having their conversations listened to, just because 0.00001% of the users of the platform are criminals? The telephone system is used for criminal activity all the time, should we arrest the CEO’s of Verizon and AT&T? Typical liberal, you should re-read the first amendment – or just move the China. It is not the role of the citizen to submit his every activity to authorities for monitoring and approval, even if the reason is to catch criminals who are not you.
Joe, just for the record, I never said I, in your words, “you think free speech needs “guardrails”?” I said, and I quote: “He seems to be a free internet extremist believing in zero guardrails and governors on lies or other forms of communications malfeasance.” He, being Durov.
You could be remembering that I do say we already have free speech guardrails as enumerated by the SCOTUS over the years. Here’s the list, some you know well: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions*
First point is you do know there are already free speech constraints. Let’s deal with an easy one, you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater. Easy enough to understand, seems to make common sense. I have to believe that you believe in that mandate.
Now let’s look at history. When the first amendment was written, in the late 1700’s, let’s see, you have the press and the mouth. No wires, no airwaves. If you created a message in NY, how long to get to Miami? As fast as a speeding letter by boat or horse.
Then we had the telegraph. Messaging got faster and wider in dissemination. Between radio and TV, we invented the concept of “public airways,” and restricted the fuck out of free speech there. We even called them censors. That’s gets us to the 60’s. Somewhere in there we invented cable, and as a fledging industry against airwave oligopoly, we took the censors off cable. Then the internet, again no censors, this time by design and because no one was using it either, yet.
But now, a 1700’s free speech that could travel point to point from NY to FL by horse, travelled across the entire globe to billions at the speed of light, not horse. And both businesses and individuals had an even chance at the same global audience. Anyone could practice free speech and billions could see it communicated at the speed of light. Speakers could be masked, fakes, and no one can know. It’s the same but different free speech we have today. It’s not a man with a press printing pamphlets he snail mails to friends.
And we have liars, thieves, patriots, zealots and terrorists all with a level playing field for free speech and the ability to mask the speaker. Somehow, it would be nice to filter out the lies, to unmask the secret speakers, and to stop the communications that cause physical and mental harm. Especially physical. I do not know how, all of your rhetorical questions are sound, but I do know it would be nice. Don’t you feel it would be nice to end all the filth, lies, and worse?
Somewhere along the lines, the scotus stepped in man time to qualify free speech which generally means restriction. From WIKI: “Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising.
Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also a category which is not protected as free speech.”
Back to our example, yelling fire is not protected.
How about knowingly, falsely, yelling covid vaccines kill you, avoid vaccines, to the entire nation?
Estimates are that we lost 250,000 believers in the vaccine fire who willingly did not take them because free speech killed them. Is that right? Wouldn’t be nice not to lie about vaccines and have those people living? Is talking someone to death with lies a reason for free speech?
Kids bullied to the point of suicide, is that right? I am not sure it’s so nice to have free speech if kids are offing themselves do to it. Wouldn’t be nice to avoid that?
Free speech to perform illegal actions like selling drugs, girls, guns, bombs, and plans to terrorize communities —- is that right? I would rather not create a conduit for crime.
Lastly, and I know you know this: the first amendment is not a mandate for private business owners like social media site owners, etc. so it actually does not apply. (can’t speak to French law on this) so therefore, most of your argument is moot. By law, site owners can limit speech anyway they want. Personally, I like when it’s documented, transparent, and has an arbitration process. And that’s the rub; it’s legal for site owners to control this but a choice not to. The site owners, according to the Constitution, have the legal right to moderate and control. It’s their choice, and if they don’t act, I suggest we make it a law. IMO, we should convince all site owners that free speech is a benefit, but scotus restrictions should apply to all communications mediums. Period. Cable, internet, press, whatever. And if that does not work, and so far it hasn’t, we should treat them like public airwaves and act accordingly.
No matter what, guardrails mean restrictions and I have clearly said I do not have an answer on the fair and just way of doing it. I just know that in the world of free speech, I’ll take the public airwaves over the internet free speech protocols any day of the week. I tire of fucking foul language, bullying, and mostly — the lies. Policing that that without bias, persecution, is one I can’t give an answer except to say it’s expensive overhead for sure. And who determines it adds risk of corruption.
As far as police, I think you are extending this. There’s no police in the public airwaves’ censorship for example. And hey, Joe, I thought you were CIA; you do know all our phones are listened to, that trigger words will set off alarms, and the meta data is kept forever.
FYI: calling me the typical liberal is funny and a badge of honor at the same time. Thanks for the chuckle and the pat on the back. How about right back at ya with a twist: you are not the typical conservative; you therefore are abnormal. Ah, that’s fun. Just kidding to pick on your stereotyping with the intent to demean.
And thanks, I did reread the first amendment. You should try reading all the scotus decisions putting guardrails on the first amendment. Or move to Antarctica where you can feel free to be yourself.
I have no answer to free speech protections and controls. But I do know we have a problem with disinformation, misinformation, fake news, child bullying, terrorism communication highways, and now criminal facilitation and more. It’s amplified by speeds and reach the world has never seen before and the founders did not have a clue about when they wrote the first. We have created our own Tower of Babel that we need to control while maintaining as many freedoms as possible without corruption, persecution, and the like.
Not having a good answer does not mean that the problem does not exist. And saying free speech trumps child suicide, needless covid deaths, doxing, etc. seems to slough off the problems in lieu of this principle being worth it.
One last question: do you not see a problem in this? Are you really content with all the bullshit lies your site promulgates or is pride of your free speech defense and the profits just too good. Since I doubt, you’re able to move to Dubai, I am guessing you believe this is right and good, stay the course, and let the chips fall where they may. It sure is cheaper for you to act that way; no moderation expense whatsoever. But if that’s the case, I will close with the fact that your wife is so ugly, I would not fuck her with your dick. At least I heard she was that ugly on X. Yeah, I would have no problem with restricting that and giving me a timeout and a ban if I continue.
So:
1. Do we have a problem here?
2. What do we do about it?
Dont everyone know that only certain ppl can give there option without getting banned. I am always getting banned on here for word that have bubble meaning by dem s FB is one of the worst and many like this one want let some options out Sounds like France needs new leadership are will that get me banded also