I recently read about Telegram’s founder being arrested. What are your thoughts on all of that?
Hi there, and welcome back to another week of Ask Trish! I hope you’re well and enjoying a wonderful September.
Thank you so much to this week’s question-er for the topical, important question. For those of you who don’t know, the messaging app Telegram has been in the news quite a bit recently. Most of that coverage was focused on the arrest of Telegram’s inventor and CEO, Pavel Durov. It’s not every day that a tech CEO gets arrested…which raises the question: what, exactly, is going on there? And, to the question-er’s query, what should we think about all of this? In this week’s post, I’ll aim to give you all an overview, speaking briefly (and I mean brief! I said earlier this year that I was going to go for shorter blog posts, and I’m committed to making that happen) about i) what Telegram is and why it was created, ii) why it’s been the subject of so much criticism – and why Pavel Durvo was arrested, and iii) my reflections on all of this, including the interesting questions and insights that this situation raises.
Sound like a plan? Let’s get into it:
First and foremost, what is Telegram? Telegram is a messaging and social media app used by hundreds of millions – nearly 1 billion – people globally. Like other messaging apps, Telegram allows users to connect individually and groups; it also enables users to subscribe to channels for topic-specific content and news updates. (Channels are quite diverse, covering everything from reality shows to preparing for competitive government exams.) Importantly, Telegram is largely free from moderation or oversight. Russian-born Pavel Durov, the app’s creator, wanted to create a service that embodied internet freedom, freedom that he didn’t have in Russia. He strongly believes that established authorities, like governments or experts, ought to stay out of people’s communications, and that folks should be able to say what they want to say. Those principles have been operationalized in Telegram in a few key ways: i) everything you share on Telegram is encrypted end-to-end, so there’s no way to “hack” folks’ communications and figure out what they’re saying and ii) as referenced, there’s largely no formal moderation for harmful, offensive content. In some cases, those principles have yielded positive results. For instance, Telegram is used by countless dissenters in authoritarian governments around the world; for them, the app is a lifeline, a way to communicate without fear from policing.
But too often, Telegram is used for another reason – and this is why it is criticized so much – crime and illegal activity. Because there’s so little oversight, criminals and even terrorist groups have flocked to Telegram. Said the New York Police Department’s commissioner for intelligence and counterterrorism, “Telegram is the most popular place for ill-intentioned, violent actors to congregate.” A New York Times investigation found 1,500 Telegram channels operated by white supremacists who use the app to coordinate with 1 million people globally. The same investigation found that the messaging app is also rampant with child sex abuse material, disinformation, and criminal activity, like advertising and selling drugs and money laundering. Terrorist groups like ISIS also thrive on Telegram, posting content that sometimes amasses hundreds of millions views. And through all of this, what has Telegram done? Largely, nothing. And that’s a big part of the reason that Pavel Durov was arrested by the French authorities last month. He has refused to work with law enforcement to prevent the spread of illegal activities and content, like child pornography, and, French prosecutors allege, has been complicit in the distribution of such content.
So what are my reflections on all of this? In my view, the Telegram case raises a really interesting, increasingly important question: can tech CEOs be held liable for what their users say and do? In the US, the answer to that question is a pretty glaring “No.” But plenty of activists have been arguing that tech CEOs ought to be held responsible for their decisions, particularly when those decisions have the power to enable – or minimize – harm on a massive scale. Others strongly push back against that view, arguing that such an approach is effectively censorship – and indeed, many of Pavel Durov’s followers argued that his arrest was a form of censorship. There’s no clean, clear cut answer here…but it is a fascinating question to think about. Another important insight that this case brings to light? The role that technology increasingly plays in the world of crime. This is just one app…but the dark web and plenty of other digital spaces increasingly facilitate crime. New digital technologies, like AI, are also increasingly being used as the means for crime, e.g., to generate child pornography. How do we stop tech from being used in this way? Can we do that? Those are questions we must urgently answer.
I hope you found this post informative. For those of you wanting to learn more, I’d suggest that you use this post as a launchpad for further research. And while you’re doing that research, if anything internet/tech-related makes you think, “Huh. I wonder why that is…,” share your thoughts and musings with me here. Remember, anything you’re wondering about is 100% valid. Thank you so much in advance for contributing your perspective.
Have a great week,
Trish