In the news
On 24 August, the founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Telegram, Pavel Durov, was arrested at Le Bourget airport in Paris. Head of the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office Laure Beccuau stated that the arrest of Durov was part of a probe into alleged criminal activities conducted through Telegram, alongside a lack of cooperation with authorities. 

On 25 August, France’s President Emmanuel Macron stated that the arrest of Durov was part of an ongoing judicial investigation and not a political decision.

On the same day, Telegram responded to the arrest that Durov had “nothing to hide.” The app added: “It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform.” It added that it abides by digital laws and moderation guidelines of the EU.

Issues at large
First, the case against Telegram. French prosecutors alleged that the app failed to regulate and been complicit in criminal activities. 12 offences were listed including child sexual abuse, drug trafficking, illicit transactions and fraud. It was additionally accused of failing to cooperate and provide information to law enforcement authorities. Secretary-General of OFMIN Jean-Michel Bernigaud stated that Durov was arrested for Telgram’s failure to moderate its platform and cooperate in the fight against crimes against children. Telegram allowed end-to-end encrypted group chats with up to 200,000 people. Besides, the app’s negligent content moderation allowed the rampant spread of misinformation. 

Second, the debate over free speech and government control. Tech billionaire and owner of social media platform X, Elon Musk, defended Durov by sharing the hashtag #FreePavel. Musk describes himself as a free speech absolutist, limiting content moderation on X. The absolute free speech supporters including Musk claim that the government has no right to regulate the opinions of individuals. In 2015, Durov commented that privacy was more important than issues like terrorism. Meanwhile, the EU tried to investigate and regulate tech companies for violating rules for allowing the spread of hateful content promoting racism, sexism and conspiracy theories. The EU passed the Digital Services Act to counter illegal content and online harassment on social media. It aimed at holding platforms accountable for spreading content targeting race and gender, children, and cyberbullying, with the consequences of fines and an EU-wide ban. Similarly, Australia passed the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material Act which provisioned criminal penalties for tech companies, jail sentences of up to three years for tech executives and financial penalties worth up to ten per cent takeover of a company’s shares if found guilty of hateful content spread.

Third, increasing social media abuse. Telegram was accused of allowing pornographic material targeting children. In 2022, it was found that explicit images of thousands of women were shared through Telegram without consent. Similarly, pornographic material involving children spread across the app. On 26 July, Telegram banned 2,193 groups and channels related to child abuse. The lack of regulations on Telegram caused fake news on the Ukraine war and the UK riots. X also faces similar allegations. In 2023, X removed the feature allowing users to report misinformation. The platform has been accused of allowing antisemitic and white nationalist messages. In 2022, human rights groups accused the Myanmar military, Tatmadaw, of using Facebook to incite hatred against the Rohingya community.

In perspective
The arrest of Pavel Durov marks a turning point, with governments taking more action to regulate content on social media. Recently, the platforms have come under greater scrutiny for their role in allegedly promoting violence and hatred in society. The arrest asserts that while free speech deserves to be protected, it does not mandate damaging the rights of others. It also reminds that social media content has a real-world impact and requires regulation. Nevertheless, the governments should be even-handed in their approach, and not be excessively regulatory. However, the fine line between how far the government can regulate social media without infringing upon free speech will be a forever debate.