Telegram: Another Counterforce Down for the Count

The arrest in Paris of Telegram Messenger founder Pavel Durov on August 28 is the first of its kind in social media. The encrypted messaging app – with close to one billion users – is on the front lines in the war being waged between tech entrepreneurs and state regulators.

Franco-Russian Durov is being accused of a multitude of crimes he himself did not commit, ranging from extortion and drug trafficking to cyber-stalking, promoting terrorism, and fraud according to French authorities.

He’s being blamed for a failure to exercise the restraint necessary for keeping a host of bad actors at bay.

Keeping the balance of power in check

Durov founded Telegram Messenger in 2014 after leaving VK, a Russian Facebook-type media platform he started in 2006. VK played a major role in the popular 2012 uprisings with Durov himself emerging as a threat to Vladimir Putin’s hold on power.

But the opposition movement didn’t last long as the Putin regime quickly intervened by accessing confidential information for the purpose of taking measures against VK users. In an open conflict with co-investors, including a Russian oligarch and an investment fund with close ties to the government, Durov decided it was time to leave his stake in VK behind.

Durov initially created Telegram Messenger as way of taking control of ideas and individuals away from both totalitarian and non-totalitarian political administrations. To accomplish this, encryption and confidentiality had to be at the core of everything. There can be no half-measures here. If the encryption process is not end-to-end, it’s just not encryption. Period.

Governments are champing at the bit for even the smallest non-secure opening so they can intervene. And if they can’t find one, they’ll use force to make one. 

Facebook is well-known for collaborating with ruling authorities and law enforcement agencies around the world, giving them access to confidential data of users suspected of illegal activities.

So it was no coincidence that when Wagner Group CEO Yevgeny Prigozhin decided to lead a mutiny of sorts against the government in 2023, he used Telegram to criticize Russia’s military leadership and to announce his march on Moscow. Certainly there was no other platform anywhere that would allow such open opposition against any party in power, especially one as totalitarian as Russia’s. Unfortunately there was no other way at that point that Prigozhin could not be stopped except in a highly suspicious and very convenient plane crash.

Freedom of online expression is on everyone’s mind

For the past twenty-five years freedom of expression and the political framework for safeguarding it have been front and centre in the debate on online policy.

There’s no denying that the internet’s libertarian roots, despite their many virtues, are also behind much of the increased instability, crime, and violence worldwide. The internet’s near-total global penetration has put tremendous pressure on every level of government to find solutions to somehow rein in social media’s noxious effects and limit its damage to the public at large. 

The ease that opposition forces have in harnessing platforms like Telegram to launch their attacks is what makes the status quo so uncomfortable.

A good example of this discomfort is the European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen, requesting the resignation of France’s European commissioner, Thierry Breton, after his public altercation with X and Meta over internet safety regulations. In a rambling letter written in high-level civil service newspeak, a political representative of one nation warned the political representative of another nation to be careful what he says.

It’s hard to imagine a high-ranking Canadian civil servant posting an open letter, even before the embargo is lifted, warning CTV or TVA against their own programming. Or someone moderating a political debate to suit their own purposes.

Of course disagreements like these are old hat. Just a few decades ago watershed masterpieces like Clockwork Orange and Last Tango in Paris were universally banned outright.

Opening the door to intervention by regulators also means accepting a certain form of political and bureaucratic dogma contrary to values promoted by social media like VK.

True crimes and false accusations

Obviously no sane person would disagree with banning sales of weapons to just anyone or hawking child pornography online.

Not that digital libertarians ever hesitate in reminding anyone who cares to listen that it’s the price they must pay for platforms that promote encrypted freedom of expression. They also believe there must be other ways of apprehending perps and that no one should ever be coerced into being a police informant.

Whenever overtly illegal acts are excluded from the equation, the question of content moderation suddenly becomes very complex. Platforms with advanced forms of moderation and control and that encourage users to report inappropriate content invite all kinds of abuse from penalizing to banning dissenters.

The fight against misinformation has the same modus operandi. Satirical, ironic, humorous, and artistic content often gets axed as unorthodox by ideologically fueled pile-on campaigns which, in turn, reinforce or prohibit certain forms of thought.

A middle ground must be found where healthy debate can take place. Protecting individual rights, the rule of law, and freedom of expression should never be the exclusive bailiwick of elected officials, civil servants, public opinion, or social media CEOs.

Unless stability can be established between divergent forces, we’ll continue gravitating towards interventions that exercise restraint and encourage the emergence of opposing views while acting as a counterforce. The great danger we must avoid is the temptation to punish anything that goes beyond the pale, that does not conform, or that disinforms or misinforms, or we will end up neutralizing one of the main safeguards of democracy … the right to think freely.


Francis Gosselin
Francis has a doctorate in economics and is a multipreneur. Associated with the Sage Consulting Group since 2018, he is also the president of Norbert Hill and chairman of the board of directors of FailCamp, an NPO dedicated to promoting entrepreneurism and apprenticeship. He has worked as a consultant in the fields of education, media, real estate and financial services for clients such as Ubisoft, École des sciences de la gestion (ESG UQAM), Radio-Canada, Lune Rouge, BNP Paribas, Allied Properties and the Institut de Développement Urbain. He is a staunch believer in the virtues of social and philanthropic engagement, sits on the board of directors of the MUTEK Festival and is a member of HEC Montréal’s Club of 100 young philanthropists. Since 2012, he raises MIRA dogs for the benefit of people in need and contributes financially to this important cause.
Read Bio