French Ministry of Justice is weighing Pavel Durov’s charges to decide whether he will be placed under formal investigation following his recent arrest as part of a probe into organised crime on the messaging platform. Durov, who was detained on Saturday evening after landing at a Paris airport on a private jet, now faces scrutiny over the potential criminal liability of app providers and the broader debate about the balance between freedom of speech and law enforcement.
Telegram boasts nearly 1 billion users and is particularly popular in Russia, Ukraine, and former Soviet republics. Being placed under formal investigation in France does not imply guilt but signals that judges believe sufficient evidence exists to continue the probe. Such investigations can take years to either go to trial or be shelved. If Durov is formally investigated, judges will also consider whether he should be placed in pretrial detention, mainly if there is concern he might flee.
Currently, the broader investigation is focused on unidentified individuals and examines allegations including facilitating illicit transactions, possession of child sexual abuse material, drug trafficking, fraud, withholding information from authorities, and providing cryptographic services to criminals. The prosecutor’s office has not clarified which specific charges, if any, Durov might face and declared that an update on the investigation is expected soon.
Durov’s French lawyer has not responded to repeated requests for comment. His arrest has exacerbated tensions between Russia and France, especially given France’s support for Ukraine in its ongoing conflict with Russia. President Emmanuel Macron has officially stated that the arrest was not politically motivated.
Durov has been in police custody since his arrest on Saturday and can be held for a maximum of 96 hours, or four days before judges must decide whether to proceed with a formal investigation.
Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg has disclosed in a recent letter that senior Biden administration officials pressured his company to censor COVID-19 content during the pandemic. The letter, sent on 26 August to the US House Judiciary Committee, reveals Zuckerberg’s regret over not publicly addressing this pressure sooner and his acknowledgement of questionable content removal decisions made by Meta.
Zuckerberg detailed in the letter that, in 2021, the White House and other Biden administration officials exerted considerable pressure on Meta to suppress certain COVID-19-related content, including humour and satire. According to Zuckerberg, this pressure led to frustration when Meta did not fully comply.
The letter, which the Judiciary Committee on Facebook shared, highlights Zuckerberg’s criticism of the government’s actions. He expressed regret for not being more vocal about the situation and reflected on the decisions made with the benefit of hindsight.
Mark Zuckerberg just admitted three things:
1. Biden-Harris Admin "pressured" Facebook to censor Americans.
2. Facebook censored Americans.
3. Facebook throttled the Hunter Biden laptop story.
— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) August 26, 2024
The White House and Meta have not commented on the matter outside regular business hours. The Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, has labelled the letter a ‘big win for free speech,’ noting Zuckerberg’s admission that Facebook censored some content.
Additionally, Zuckerberg announced that he would refrain from contributing to electoral infrastructure for the upcoming presidential election. The approach follows his controversial $400 million donation in 2020 through his Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, which faced criticism and legal challenges from some groups who perceived it as partisan.
According to French authorities, Pavel Durov, the founder of the messaging app Telegram, was detained in France as part of an ongoing investigation into several serious crimes, including child pornography, drug trafficking, and fraud. The arrest occurred at Le Bourget airport near Paris, and French President Emmanuel Macron later confirmed the news, stressing that the arrest was not politically motivated.
I have seen false information regarding France following the arrest of Pavel Durov.
France is deeply committed to freedom of expression and communication, to innovation, and to the spirit of entrepreneurship. It will remain so.
The arrest is tied to an investigation launched in July by the Paris prosecutor’s office, focusing on Telegram’s alleged role in facilitating illegal activities, including running an online platform for illicit transactions and refusing to provide information to authorities. The probe also includes allegations of money laundering and giving cryptographic services to criminals. Durov, who holds several citizenships, including the French, could be detained further as the investigation progresses.
When you say you are committed to freedom of expression, you are lying. We have a letter from France that proves this, without a doubt.
We had to shutdown Rumble in France because you have NO committment to freedom of expression.
Telegram, which boasts nearly a billion users worldwide and is especially popular in Russia and Ukraine, responded by stating that it complies with the EU laws and maintains industry-standard moderation practices.
The company dismissed claims that the platform or Durov himself was responsible for criminals’ app misuse.
On the other side, the Kremlin has expressed concerns that France’s accusations against Telegram founder Pavel Durov could be an attempt to limit freedom of communication unless supported by substantial evidence. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov announced that Russia is prepared to assist Durov due to his Russian citizenship, though his French citizenship presents additional challenges. Peskov emphasised that the gravity of the charges requires equally serious evidence to avoid perceptions of an effort to curtail communication freedoms.
It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested
Peskov also suggested that the case might be used to intimidate a prominent business leader and questioned French President Emmanuel Macron’s assertion that Durov’s detention was free from political motives. Russia has previously faced challenges in blocking Telegram and has fined the company for not removing content it deemed illegal.
The UAE has also called for clearer information about the arrest and investigation. The UAE’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that it is closely monitoring Pavel Durov’s case and has requested the French government to urgently provide consular services. The ministry emphasized prioritising its citizens’ care, safeguarding their interests, and ensuring comprehensive support are key commitments for the UAE.
Ultimately, Elon Musk confronted Emanuel Macron by responding directly to his post on X, claiming that ‘It would be helpful to the global public to understand more details about why he was arrested’, as he described it as an attack on free speech.
The founder of the Telegram messaging app from Russia, Pavel Durov, was arrested at Le Bourget airport near Paris after landing on a private jet from Azerbaijan. The arrest has sparked broader reactions, with Moscow warning Paris about ensuring Durov’s rights and criticism from X owner Elon Musk, who called the incident an attack on free speech in Europe.
🚨 RUSSIA DEMANDS ACCESS TO TELEGRAM CEO | FRANCE HESITATES
Pavel Durov was detained by French police, allegedly for refusing to grant authorities access to his encrypted messaging app, which has over 1 billion users worldwide.
The French authorities allegedly detained Durov based on an arrest warrant related to his involvement in a preliminary investigation and his unwillingness to grant authorities access to his encrypted messaging app, which has over 1 billion users worldwide. In response, Russian officials have demanded consular access, but France, citing Durov’s French citizenship as primary, has remained unresponsive. The Russian Embassy in Paris is seeking an explanation and urging France to protect Durov’s rights.
The investigation concerns Telegram’s alleged role in enabling a wide range of crimes due to insufficient moderation and lack of cooperation with law enforcement. Durov, who allegedly holds several citizenships, including Russian (from the devolution in 1991, previously the Soviet Union from birth), Saint Kitts and Nevis (from 2013), French (from 2021) and UAE (from 2021), may face indictment soon.
Telegram, based in Dubai and widely used across Russia and the former Soviet Union, has faced scrutiny for its role in disseminating unfiltered content, especially during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Durov, who left Russia in 2014 after refusing to comply with government demands, has consistently maintained that Telegram is a neutral platform committed to user privacy and free speech.
In 2011, Durov said the Russian government asked him to delete the accounts of anti-government people on his social media platform. He refused. After the 2014 coup in Ukraine, Durov refused to provide the Russian government with information about users involved in the event. pic.twitter.com/hqnijdiBJ5
The Russian government has responded to Durov’s arrest with solid criticism. Maria Butina, a Russian lawmaker, labelled him a political prisoner, while former President Dmitry Medvedev criticised Durov for underestimating the global security landscape. However, days before Telegram founder Durov was arrested in France, he was negotiating directly with President Putin to secure his return to Russia after years of self-imposed exile in 2014. Putin allegedly refused to meet with Pavel Durov.
Meanwhile, Telegram’s increasing scrutiny in Europe, particularly over security and data breaches, raises concerns among authorities. Elon Musk’s response to the arrest highlights the broader debate on free speech in Europe, making Durov’s situation a focal point for discussions on the role of tech platforms in geopolitics and the balance between security and freedom.
An Australian transgender woman has won a significant legal battle against a female-only social networking app, Giggle for Girls, after being removed from the platform. The Federal Court ruled that the app’s decision to revoke Roxanne Tickle’s account amounted to indirect gender identity discrimination, awarding her A$10,000 in damages plus legal costs.
The court’s decision marks the first ruling on gender identity discrimination since the country amended the Sex Discrimination Act in 2013. The judge, Robert Bromwich, highlighted that Giggle for Girls only recognised sex assigned at birth as a valid basis for identifying as a man or woman. Tickle had undergone gender-affirming surgery and had her birth certificate updated.
Experts view the ruling as a victory for transgender rights in Australia, with Professor Paula Gerber from Monash University stating that the case sends a clear message against treating transgender women differently from cisgender women. The app, which was marketed as a safe space for women, had previously suspended operations but is expected to relaunch soon.
Tickle expressed relief at the verdict, calling it ‘healing’ after facing online abuse. Giggle for Girls’ founder, Sally Grover, acknowledged the judgement and affirmed that the fight for women’s rights would continue.
‘2024 will be marked by an interplay between change, which is the essence of technological development, and continuity, which characterises digital governance efforts.’, said Dr Jovan Kurbalija in one of his interviews, predicting the year 2024 at its beginning.
Judging by developments in the social media realm, the year 2024 indeed appears to be the year of change, especially in the legal field, with disputes and implementations of newborn digital policies long in the ‘ongoing’ phase. Dr Kurbalija’s prediction connects us to some of the main topics Diplo and its Digital Watch Observatory are following, such as the issue of content moderation and freedom of speech in the social media world.
This taxonomic dichotomy could easily make us think of how, in the dimly lit corridors of power, where influence and control intertwine like the strands of a spider’s web, the role of social media has become a double-edged sword. On the one hand, platforms like 𝕏 stand as bastions of free speech, allowing voices to be heard that might otherwise be silenced. On the other hand, they are powerful instruments in the hands of those who control them, with the potential to shape public discourse narratives, influence public opinion, and even ignite conflicts. That is why the scrutiny 𝕏 faces for hosting extremist content raises essential questions about whether it is merely a censorship-free network, or a tool wielded by its enigmatic owner, Elon Musk, to further his agenda.
The story begins with the digital revolution, when the internet was hailed as the great equaliser, giving everyone a voice. Social media platforms emerged as the town squares of the 21st century, where ideas could be exchanged freely, unfiltered by traditional gatekeepers like governments or mainstream media. Under Musk’s ownership, 𝕏 has taken this principle to its extreme, often resisting calls for tighter content moderation to protect free speech. But as with all freedoms, this one also comes with a price.
The platform’s hands-off approach to content moderation has led to widespread concerns about its role in amplifying extremist content. The issue here is not just about spreading harmful material; it touches on the core of digital governance. Governments around the world are increasingly alarmed by the potential for social media platforms to become breeding grounds for radicalisation and violence. The recent scrutiny of 𝕏 is just the latest chapter in an ongoing struggle between the need for free expression and the imperative to maintain public safety.
The balance between these two forces is incredibly delicate in countries like Türkiye, for example, where the government has a history of cracking down on dissent. The Turkish government’s decision to block instagram for nine days in August 2024 after the platform failed to comply with local laws and sensitivities is a stark reminder of the power dynamics at play. In this context, 𝕏’s refusal to bow to similar pressures can be seen as both a defiant stand for free speech and a dangerous gamble that could have far-reaching consequences.
But the story does not end there. The influence of social media extends far beyond any one country’s borders. In the UK, the recent riots have highlighted the role of platforms like 𝕏 and Meta in both facilitating and exacerbating social unrest. While Meta has taken a more proactive approach to content moderation, removing inflammatory material and attempting to prevent the spread of misinformation, 𝕏’s more relaxed policies have allowed a more comprehensive range of content to circulate. Such an approach has included not just legitimate protest organisations but also harmful rhetoric that has fuelled violence and division.
The contrast between the two platforms is stark. Meta, with its more stringent content policies, has been criticised for stifling free speech and suppressing dissenting voices. Yet, in the context of the British riots, its approach may have helped prevent the situation from escalating further. On the other hand, 𝕏 has been lauded for its commitment to free expression, but this freedom comes at a price. The platform’s role in the riots has drawn sharp criticism, with some accusing it of enabling the very violence it claims to oppose as the government officials have vowed action against tech platforms, even though Britain’s Online Safety Act will not be fully effective until next year. Meanwhile, the EU’s Digital Services Act, which Britain is no longer part of, is already in effect and will allegedly serve as a backup in similar disputes.
The British riots also serve as a cautionary tale about the power of social media to shape public discourse. In an age where information spreads at lightning speed, the ability of platforms like 𝕏 and Meta to influence events in real time is unprecedented. This kind of lever of power is not just a threat to governments but also a powerful tool that can be used to achieve political ends. For Musk, acquiring 𝕏 represents a business opportunity and a chance to shape the global discourse in ways that align with his future vision.
Musk did not even hesitate to accuse the European Commission of attempting to pull off what he describes as an ‘illegal secret deal’ with 𝕏. In one of his posts, he claimed the EU, with its stringent new regulations aimed at curbing online extremist content and misinformation, allegedly tried to coax 𝕏 into quietly censoring content to sidestep hefty fines. Other tech giants, according to Musk, nodded in agreement, but not 𝕏. The platform stood its ground, placing its unwavering belief in free speech above all else.
The European Commission offered 𝕏 an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us.
While the European Commission fired back, accusing 𝕏 of violating parts of the EU’s Digital Services Act, Musk’s bold stance has ignited a fiery debate. And here, it is not just about rules and fines anymore—it is a battle over the very soul of digital discourse. How far should governmental oversight go? And at what point does it start to choke the free exchange of ideas? Musk’s narrative paints 𝕏 as a lone warrior, holding the line against mounting pressure, and in doing so, forces us to confront the delicate dance between regulation and the freedom to speak openly in today’s digital world.
Furthermore, the cherry on top of the cake, in this case, is Musk’s close contact and support for the potential new president of the USA, Donald Trump, generating additional doubts about the concentration and acquisition of power by social media owners, respectively, tech giants and their allies. Namely, in an interview with Donald Trump, Elon Musk openly endorsed the candidate for the US presidency, discussing, among others, topics such as regulatory policies and the juridical system, thus fueling speculation about his platform 𝕏 as a powerful oligarchic lever of power.
At this point, it is already crystal clear that governments are grappling with how to regulate these platforms and the difficult choices they are faced with. On the one hand, there is a clear need to implement optimal measures in order to achieve greater oversight in preventing the spread of extremist content and protecting public safety. On the other hand, too much regulation risks stifling the very freedoms that social media platforms were created to protect. This delicate dichotomy is at the heart of the ongoing debate about the role of tech giants in a modern, digital society.
The story of 𝕏 and its role in hosting extremist content is more than just the platform itself. It is about the power of technology to shape our world, for better or worse. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, the questions raised by 𝕏’s approach to content moderation will only become more urgent. And in the corridors of power, where decisions that shape our future are made, answers to those questions will determine the fate of the internet itself.
Pakistan has recently experienced widespread reports of slow Internet speeds, with users struggling to access services like WhatsApp, both on mobile data and broadband. The country’s IT minister, Shaza Fatima Khawaja, attributes the slowdown to the widespread use of VPNs, which are often employed to bypass local network restrictions.
Ms. Khawaja explained that when many users resort to VPNs, it can place additional strain on the system, potentially leading to slower Internet speeds. However, this situation is unprecedented, marking the first time that VPN usage on such a scale has been linked to significant regional Internet slowdowns. Meanwhile, Pakistani IT experts are concerned that the government might use this situation as a pretext to tighten digital surveillance and introduce stricter content filtering.
In her statement, Ms. Khawaja hinted at potential future controls to limit content deemed threatening or defamatory to the state or individuals. While she did not specify whether these controls would involve a nationwide firewall, the minister did mention the government’s plan to auction 5G spectrums next year and to lay new Internet cables connecting Pakistan to the Gulf and Africa, aiming to improve Internet speed and stability.
The debate around VPNs in Pakistan is likely to intensify, especially as the government considers regulating these services by approving specific providers. Such measures could impact millions of VPN users in the country, raising concerns about future access to unrestricted Internet services.
Elon Musk’s media platform X announced last Saturday that it would cease operations in Brazil immediately, citing ‘censorship orders’ from Brazilian judge Alexandre de Moraes. According to X, de Moraes allegedly threatened to arrest one of the company’s legal representatives in Brazil if they did not comply with orders to remove certain content from the platform. X shared images of a document purportedly signed by the judge, stating that the representative, Rachel Nova Conceicao, would face a daily fine and possible arrest if the platform did not comply.
Due to demands by “Justice” @Alexandre in Brazil that would require us to break (in secret) Brazilian, Argentinian, American and international law, 𝕏 has no choice but to close our local operations in Brazil.
In response, X decided to close its operations in Brazil to protect its staff, although the service remains available to Brazilian users. The Brazilian Supreme Court, where de Moraes serves, declined to comment on the authenticity of the document shared by X.
TikTok has contested claims made by the US Department of Justice in a federal appeals court, asserting that the government has inaccurately characterised the app’s ties to China. The company is challenging a law that mandates its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest TikTok’s US assets by January 19 or face a ban. TikTok argues that the app’s content recommendation engine and user data are securely stored in the US, with content moderation conducted domestically.
The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, reflects concerns over potential national security risks, with accusations that TikTok allows Chinese authorities to access American data and influence content. TikTok, however, contends that the law infringes on free speech rights, arguing that its content curation should be protected by the US Constitution.
The legislation also impacts app stores and internet hosting services, barring support for TikTok unless it is sold. The swift passage of the measure in Congress highlights ongoing fears regarding data security and espionage risks associated with the app.
Bluesky, a social media platform, has reported a significant increase in signups in the United Kingdom recently as users look for alternatives to Elon Musk’s X. The increase follows Musk’s controversial remarks on ongoing riots in the UK, which have driven users, including several Members of Parliament, to explore other platforms. The company announced that it had experienced a 60% rise in activity from UK accounts.
Musk has faced criticism for inflaming tensions after riots in Britain were sparked by misinformation surrounding the murder of three girls in northern England. The Tesla CEO allegedly used X to disseminate misleading information to his vast audience, including a post claiming that civil war in Britain was ‘inevitable.’ The case has prompted Prime Minister Keir Starmer to respond and increased calls for the government to accelerate the implementation of online content regulations.
Bluesky highlighted that the UK had the most signups of any country for five of the last seven days. Once supported by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, the platform is among the many apps vying to replace Twitter after Musk’s turbulent takeover in late 2022.
As of July, Bluesky’s monthly active user base was approximately 688,568, which is small compared to X’s 76.9 million users, according to Similarweb, a digital market intelligence firm. Despite its smaller size, the recent surge in UK signups to Bluesky appears to be a growing interest in alternative social media platforms.
