Telegram: Free Speech, Safety, and Content Moderation

This post is a shortened version of my weekly-ish newsletter. Subscribers get additional content including early access to research, free goodies and downloads, and exclusive interviews. You can read full versions here.

The full version of this dispatch includes understanding how to repair relationships after a rupture, how to plan for the future without missing the present, and why Visual Truth is dying.

Telegram: The Dark Side of Social Networks

I’ve been holding back on commenting about the recent arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov in Paris, waiting for more clarity on the charges against him. Despite the outcry from Silicon Valley tech circles demanding Durov’s release, it was clear that the French authorities—known for their tech-friendly stance—wouldn’t take such a bold step without a compelling reason. Politico was first to break the story: Durov’s arrest stems from Telegram’s refusal to cooperate with a French police inquiry into child sex abuse. Reportedly, arrest warrants were issued after multiple judicial requests to identify a Telegram user suspected of crimes against minors went unanswered.

Charging the CEO of a social media platform for the content created and circulated on that platform is unprecedented, raising complex questions about responsibility and liability for harmful online content. If Durov can be held accountable, does that mean every other tech CEO—from Musk to Zuckerberg—could also be on the hook? The answer, like everything these days, is far from simple.

Telegram, founded by Durov in 2013 as a defiant response to the Russian government’s crackdown on free expression, has always positioned itself as a bastion of privacy and encrypted communication. It’s a lifeline for activists, dissidents, and everyday users seeking protection from prying eyes. But that same promise of privacy has made it a preferred tool for those with far more sinister agendas. Durov’s hands-off approach to moderation has turned Telegram into a hotbed for gun running, drug trafficking, terrorist activities, child exploitation, and conspiracy theories. As encrypted spaces rise, they bring with them a disturbing complexity: where does private communication end and criminal activity begin?

Recent reports from South Korea highlight just how dark Telegram’s corners can be. University students were found operating illegal chatrooms sharing sexually explicit deepfake content of female classmates. One of these channels had 220,000 members creating and distributing manipulated images of students, teachers, and military personnel. This isn’t just a privacy issue; it’s a harrowing example of technology’s potential to dehumanize and exploit, turning victims into objects of digital abuse. The South Korean government is treating this as a "Deepfake Porn Epidemic."

Across the globe, Telegram’s darker uses continue to grow. In the U.S., Bloomberg reports that far-right groups are using the platform to organize attacks on power grid infrastructure, aiming to incite chaos and societal collapse. This case study documents how ISIS uses Telegram to raise cyrpto-currency funds. In Turkey, a cyber-espionage ring selling data was just uncovered.

In the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, Telegram has become a critical digital battleground. Ukrainian-run bots like “I Want to Live” help Russian soldiers defect or surrender, while Russian security forces have spun up fake versions of these bots to trap would-be defectors. Both sides leverage the lack of moderation to post graphic, uncensored footage from the front-lines. It’s a stark reminder that modern warfare is no longer confined to the battlefield; it’s also being fought in the encrypted channels of our smartphones.

At the heart of all this is a fundamental question about content moderation—a topic that will only grow more pressing as technology makes it easier to generate, manipulate, and spread all forms of media with a simple click. Who bears the responsibility for policing these digital spaces? Should tech companies step up their regulatory efforts, or is it law enforcement’s job to adapt to this new landscape? Finding a balance between protecting privacy rights and preventing abuse is becoming an increasingly urgent challenge.

Navigating this terrain means rethinking how we safeguard both our freedoms and our security in an era where the lines between protection and exploitation are more blurred than ever.