Durov’s arrest and the global information war

Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram, was arrested in France, and this event has dominated global political and media circles. The arrest has raised numerous questions and speculations regarding its motives and true reasons. More importantly, it has sparked discussions about its implications within the framework of freedom of expression and democracy. The West often portrays itself as the sole guardian and trustee of these standards, sending a message to the world that it holds the keys to their implementation.

Regardless of the accusations against Durov, who holds nationalities from the UAE, France, and Russia, the charges essentially boil down to a lack of oversight on the Telegram platform. The French police argue that this lack of supervision allows criminal activities to persist on the application without deterrence.

The situation escalated when the French authority responsible for combating violence against minors issued an arrest warrant against Durov. This warrant was part of an initial investigation into alleged crimes, including fraud, drug trafficking, cyberbullying, organized crime, and the promotion of terrorism. The authorities assert that Durov failed to take measures to limit the criminal use of his platform. Consequently, all alleged violations on Telegram are being attributed to Durov, leading to demands for an investigation into these charges.

Telegram has defended its CEO from the outset, arguing that it is illogical to hold a platform or its founder responsible for the misuse of the service by others. This stance is quite reasonable, given the numerous legal regulations enacted in many countries, and the EU, to limit the misuse of social media platforms. These legal frameworks are designed to ensure a safe environment and hold platforms accountable for violations of prevailing laws, but they do not necessarily implicate the platform owners directly.

The UAE, where Durov holds citizenship in addition to his Russian nationality, took on the responsibility of providing legal protection for him. The French authorities did not respond to Russia’s request to ensure Durov’s legal rights, likely due to deteriorating relations with Moscow in the wake of the Ukraine war. In this context, the UAE played a prominent role in protecting one of its citizens. This is consistent with the UAE’s longstanding commitment to caring for its citizens, both within and outside the country, without discrimination. The UAE’s dedication to its citizens is well-known, and it does not require further elaboration, as it is one of the pillars of Emirati citizenship.

What concerns me is not the specific accusations against Durov, but rather what lies behind these accusations and their broader implications. Telegram is one of the largest social media platforms, with significant reach in countries like Russia, Ukraine, and the former USSR states. The platform has previously faced great pressure in Russia when it refused to hand over user data, leading to a ban in 2018, which was lifted after about three years. Telegram has since become one of the most important sources for news about the Russia-Ukraine war. Some Russian analysts even believe that Durov’s arrest is an attempt to access the data of Russian leaders and officials, potentially allowing for control over the Telegram platform.

The tightening of restrictions on famous social media platforms has become a common practice in the West. These restrictions are legally justified and require technology companies to remove content that violates national laws. These growing restrictions are not limited to Telegram but affect all communication platforms. This is part of what is known as “liberal censorship,” a concept that combines contradictory ideas but is promoted in various ways. The key aspect is the pressure on platform founders and owners, who are being pursued by legal means as part of coordinated efforts to restrict these platforms’ control over public freedoms.

This issue reflects a broader conflict of interests, involving economics, trade, and politics, with security, military, and intelligence dimensions. These factors interact in the struggle for control over information amid intense regional and international competition. The competition is centered on reshaping the global system and defining the roles of regional and international powers in the coming period. This concern is evident in the Russian media’s reaction to Durov’s detention in France, as they fear that intelligence agencies could obtain the encryption keys to Telegram.

The Moskovskij Komsomolets newspaper even suggested that Telegram could become a tool in NATO’s hands if Durov is forced to comply with French intelligence. This concern stems from the vast amount of strategic information contained in Telegram conversations, which are of vital importance, particularly given the widespread use of the application among the Russian military leadership. The newspaper expressed fears that any disruption to the application could impact Russian army operations in Ukraine, indicating that Telegram is a primary means of communication for forces there.

In general, the freedom of social media platforms has become a major concern for states and governments. This is not only about information control but also about suppressing opposition and imposing censorship. It is a topic of discussion even within the US, where Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg expressed deep regret for yielding to pressure from the Biden administration to censor American citizens who opposed its policies. Elon Musk, the owner of the X platform, had a similar experience.

Some argue that the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies makes censorship necessary given the sensitivity of information related to international conflicts. In this climate, the neutrality of platforms, whether for commercial or principled reasons, is no longer tolerable. The prevailing view is that platforms must choose sides.