When Pavel Durov arrived in France on his private jet last Saturday, he was greeted by police and promptly arrested. As the founder of the direct messaging platform Telegram, he was accused of promoting a wide range of crimes that take place on it.
The following day, a French judge extended Durov’s initial detention period, allowing police to detain him for up to 96 hours.
Telegram has rejected the allegations against Durov. In a statement, the company said:
It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner is responsible for the misuse of that platform.
The case could have far-reaching international implications, not just for Telegram but also for other global technology giants.
Who is Pavel Durov?
Born in Russia in 1984, Pavel Durov also holds French citizenship. This may explain why he felt free to travel despite his app’s role in the Russia-Ukraine war and its widespread use by extremist groups and criminals.
Durov launched VKontakte, a social media site that is very popular in Russia, in 2006. However, he had to leave the company in 2014 due to a dispute with the way the site’s new owners were operating it.
Durov had created Telegram shortly before this. This platform provides a means of communication and exchange as well as the security of encryption, making it harder than ever to track and deal with crime. But this same security also enables people to resist authoritarian governments that seek to stifle dissent or protest.
Durov also has ties to well-known tech figures Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, and enjoys widespread support in the vocally libertarian tech community. But his platform is not immune to legal challenges — even in his birth country.
A strange goal
Pavel Durov is in some ways an odd target for the French authorities.
Meta’s WhatsApp messenger app is also encrypted and has three times the number of users, while X’s incitement to hate speech and other problematic content is becoming more public and increasingly widespread.
There is also no indication that Durov himself was involved in creating any illegal content. Instead, he is accused of indirectly promoting illegal content by maintaining the app.
However, Durov’s unique background may help explain why he was taken on.
Unlike other major tech players, he does not hold US citizenship. He comes from a country that has had a checkered past on internet activity — and a diminished diplomatic standing globally because of its war against Ukraine.
Their app is big enough to have a global presence. But at the same time it is not big enough to garner the unlimited legal resources of major players like Meta.
Combined, all these factors make it a more accessible target for testing the enforcement of an expanded regulatory framework.
A question of restraint
Durov’s arrest is another example of the often confusing and contradictory conversation about how much responsibility platforms take for the content on their sites.
These platforms, which include direct messaging platforms such as Telegram and WhatsApp, as well as broader services such as those offered by Meta’s Facebook and Musk’s X, operate around the world.
Thus, they have to deal with a variety of legal environments.
This means that any ban imposed on any platform ultimately affects its services worldwide – making regulation complex and often frustrating.
On the one hand, there is a push to either hold platforms accountable for illegal content or provide details about the users who post it.
In Russia, Telegram was also under pressure to make available the names of protesters organised through its app to oppose the war against Ukraine.
Conversely, free speech advocates have fought against users being banned from the platform. Meanwhile, political commentators cry foul about being “censored” for their political views.
These contradictions make regulation difficult, while the global nature of platforms makes enforcement a difficult challenge. This challenge works in the favor of platforms, as they can exercise a relatively strong sense of platform sovereignty in the way they operate and develop.
However, these complexities can obscure the ways in which platforms can directly influence public opinion and even serve as publishers of their own content.
As one example, both Google and Facebook leveraged their central positions in the information economy to advertise politically oriented content to oppose the development and implementation of Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code.
The construction of the platform also directly impacts what content can be shown and recommended – and hate speech can provide opportunities for clicks and screen time.
Now, there is growing pressure on platforms to hold themselves accountable for how they regulate their users and content. In Europe, recent regulations such as the Media Freedom Act aim to prevent platforms from arbitrarily removing or restricting news producers and their content, while the Digital Services Act requires these platforms to provide mechanisms for removing illegal content.
Australia has its own Online Safety Act to prevent harm caused through platforms, although the recent case involving X shows its capabilities may be quite limited.
Future implications
Durov is only being held in custody for the time being, and it remains to be seen what will happen to him in the coming days.
But if they are charged and successfully prosecuted, it could lay the groundwork for France to take broader action against not just the tech platforms, but also their owners. It could also encourage countries around the world — Western and beyond — to launch their own investigations.
In turn, this could prompt tech platforms to think more seriously about the criminal content they host.
Timothy Kosky, Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Media and Communications, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
