You know, this might be the first time I've seen a CEO arrested for their app/company. I expected it to be for totally unrelated crimes, but nope. I have mixed feelings on this. While there's...
Durov was travelling aboard his private jet, TF1 said on its website, adding he had been targeted by an arrest warrant in France as part of a preliminary police investigation.
TF1 and BFM both said the investigation was focused on a lack of moderators on Telegram, and that police considered that this situation allowed criminal activity to go on undeterred on the messaging app.
You know, this might be the first time I've seen a CEO arrested for their app/company. I expected it to be for totally unrelated crimes, but nope.
I have mixed feelings on this. While there's definitely concerns about it being used for criminal activity and misinformation, this move also easily veers into free speech and censorship territory. My knowledge of Telegram is admittedly pretty limited, but as the article notes, it plays a big role in spreading information about both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It also doesn't seem to be trying to push a narrative or agenda the way Elon is with X/Twitter by censoring information or posts and promoting others. It seems to be quite the opposite, actually, based on the bit about a lack of moderators.
France better handle this investigation very carefully. This arrest feels more political than criminal, if that makes sense. Russia is already using this to try to paint France as a dictatorship despite their own previous attempts to censor it. It also feels like this could set a precedent for accountability for other platforms, for better or worse.
This is reminiscent of another platform CEO, Kim Dotcom's arrest. Given that Megaupload was a filesharing tool without an ostensible speech channel, it was easy to prosecute the carding, copyright...
This is reminiscent of another platform CEO, Kim Dotcom's arrest. Given that Megaupload was a filesharing tool without an ostensible speech channel, it was easy to prosecute the carding, copyright theft, and CSAM claims against Dotcom.
Imo the only outcome that would lead to content moderation on Telegram would mean prohibition of end to end encrypted communication. To me that seems absolutely terrible, nothing mixed about it.
I have mixed feelings on this. While there's definitely concerns about it being used for criminal activity and misinformation, this move also easily veers into free speech and censorship territory.
Imo the only outcome that would lead to content moderation on Telegram would mean prohibition of end to end encrypted communication. To me that seems absolutely terrible, nothing mixed about it.
Nor is Telegram the only one on the market able to facilitate crimes. I'm starting to disagree with the direction of "regulation" governments are steering towards, where it's more akin to...
Nor is Telegram the only one on the market able to facilitate crimes.
I'm starting to disagree with the direction of "regulation" governments are steering towards, where it's more akin to surveillance than it is actually regulating something.
In the context of regulating illegal communication and various forms of piracy, I think this was always the case - repeatedly trying to push regulations that the majority doesn't want and hiding...
I'm starting to disagree with the direction of "regulation" governments are steering towards, where it's more akin to surveillance than it is actually regulating something.
In the context of regulating illegal communication and various forms of piracy, I think this was always the case - repeatedly trying to push regulations that the majority doesn't want and hiding behind terrorism or children's safety. This is one of the few areas where EU is imo consistently in the wrong, in the long term.
To quote irregularcircle's comment: So it seems like they're playing ball and enforcing rules whereas Telegram isn't.
To quote irregularcircle's comment:
This is more like Facebook allowing illegal content to stay up and refusing to moderate and also not handing over plaintext user data they retain and profit off of that they definitely have full access and knowledge of which is related to illegal conduct at issue.
So it seems like they're playing ball and enforcing rules whereas Telegram isn't.
I doubt it, as they aren't going after Signal. Telegram is unique because it advertises itself as a secure messaging platform when it isn't. By default, all chats are not encrypted. E2EE has to be...
I doubt it, as they aren't going after Signal.
Telegram is unique because it advertises itself as a secure messaging platform when it isn't. By default, all chats are not encrypted. E2EE has to be enabled on a per-chat basis, and comes with a litany of restrictions that simply don't exist on truly secure alternatives like Signal. A good example of this is the complete lack of encrypted group chats.
Because of this, Telegram is knowingly hosting group chats being used to share CSAM or coordinate terrorist attacks and the company isn't doing anything about them. When you know which accounts on your platform are doing illegal things and do nothing to stop them, then you are breaking the law.
I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram is fully compromised by the Kremlin.
I have assumed so for some time, though that does not really change my opinion on regulation and I see it as a separate topic, possibly a more interesting one than the topic of moderation. Though...
I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram is fully compromised by the Kremlin.
I have assumed so for some time, though that does not really change my opinion on regulation and I see it as a separate topic, possibly a more interesting one than the topic of moderation. Though about moderation, specifically regarding terrorism Telegram supposedly cooperates with Europol, it's all the other shit (including drug sales etc.) that seems to be the problem.
The less interesting thing Telegram's integrity is that afaik there has been indirect proof of both group chats and individual chats being compromised by whatever agency close to Kremlin. The more interesting thing is that there has no doubt been some communication and likely cooperation between Durov and Kremlin, the evidence being a sudden change of attitude towards Telegram by the latter a few years ago, but the relationship seems to be much less clear than one might assume from that.
Apparently Durov recently tried to meet with Putin in Azerbaijan, who went there on some other business. However, Putin refused him. After that, Durov decided to fly to France on his private jet, where he knew there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest, even though he could have flown to Dubai (double citizenship), where he would not have been arrested. Does he assume that he's in danger from Putin and being locked up in France is safer?
On that front, a hacker group claims there is an undocumented API that allows for any and all chats to be exfiltrated if there’s a bot in the channel. They claim this is explicitly for the FSB....
I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram is fully compromised by the Kremlin.
This is my concern. It's really easy to spout platitudes about free speech, but if you're correct in your assertion, there's something that fundamentally feels wrong about that arrangement. That...
I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram is fully compromised by the Kremlin.
This is my concern. It's really easy to spout platitudes about free speech, but if you're correct in your assertion, there's something that fundamentally feels wrong about that arrangement. That is, using an app as a tool to destabilize countries that have free speech laws by an opposition that doesn't.
And my objection is based on free speech principles, because I imagine the desired outcome is a change in government to one that is more amenable to the opposition, who will - having accomplished their goal - use their influence to ban the app, "free speech" having outlived its usefulness.
I don't understand this argument – the groups that we are talking about are public group chats. You said in response to @lintful that Telegram would try to encrypt these chats to get around...
the only outcome that would lead to content moderation on Telegram would mean prohibition of end to end encrypted communication
I don't understand this argument – the groups that we are talking about are public group chats. You said in response to @lintful that Telegram would try to encrypt these chats to get around content moderation requirements, but I fail to see how this solves the problem (even slightly) for Telegram: these chats are public and access is open to the public, i.e. anyone can obtain a key and read all the messages.
Presumably the more likely option if Telegram really cares about providing unmoderated group chats is that Telegram would cease to provide services in the EU? This is also what happened in Russia in response to Russian attempts to coerce Telegram.
I don't think it is. There have been failed attempts at banning end to end encryption in the past and I don't see what else could happen if Telegram decides to implement it to circumvent the...
I don't think it is. There have been failed attempts at banning end to end encryption in the past and I don't see what else could happen if Telegram decides to implement it to circumvent the moderation demands (if FSB or whoever allows it, since Telegram is likely compromised). And whatever happens, other apps and protocols do use e2e for group chats, so all it may do is bring this issue into the spotlight again.
Something tells me this isn't about spreading misinformation but Telegram being a major hub for illegally sharing media and allowing widespread pirating. It seems this case is being treated in a...
Something tells me this isn't about spreading misinformation but Telegram being a major hub for illegally sharing media and allowing widespread pirating. It seems this case is being treated in a similar way to torrent sharing websites and forums that allow the spread of child sexual assault material. Those behind such websites also get arrested when caught, this is just the first example we're seeing of a very high profile public figure being arrested. I'm not saying I agree with the arrest (though I do feel Telegram could use some moderation to avoid egregious examples of lawbreaking), but it doesn't feel to me like a new precedent is being set.
Which is something that's both needed but also incredibly difficult to not mess up if you ask me. In the end, something like this was probably coming at some point given the impact social...
It also feels like this could set a precedent for accountability for other platforms, for better or worse.
Which is something that's both needed but also incredibly difficult to not mess up if you ask me. In the end, something like this was probably coming at some point given the impact social media/messaging apps/whatever has on our society, and due to our lack of experience with this we don't really have any good measure on how to handle this.
This was probably going to be something we'll have to navigate eventually. But that doesn't make it any less tricky. If anything, it probably makes it only more tricky.
Just wanted to note this last point which I haven't seen discussed yet. If Telegram was legally required by the French police to assist with a criminal investigation by handing over user data or...
France's BFM and TF1 said that Durov, who has dual French and United Arab Emirates citizenship, was arrested as part of a preliminary police investigation into allowing possible criminality due to a lack of moderators on Telegram and a lack of cooperation with police.
Just wanted to note this last point which I haven't seen discussed yet.
If Telegram was legally required by the French police to assist with a criminal investigation by handing over user data or chat logs and they failed to comply, it makes sense that they would start threatening legal action towards Telegram and/or making arrests.
Telegram championing user privacy is great, but I can't agree with them also protecting and enabling criminal activities like "drug trafficking, child sexual content and fraud". If police obtained a warrant to gain access to specific data of Telegram users to counter this activity, I think Telegram is obligated to assist.
I think this is a far more likely reason for the arrest than anything to do with moderation policy, though I think that Telegram like any media platform has an obligation to perform responsible moderation.
They may come after Signal eventually for the same thought process, yet they won't be able to help. It's E2E and requires the end user devices. Telegram is proprietary and says the same, but I...
They may come after Signal eventually for the same thought process, yet they won't be able to help.
It's E2E and requires the end user devices.
Telegram is proprietary and says the same, but I think we've all worked out that it isn't quite true.
I think this arrest is not necessarily an attack on end-to-end encryption, but more on the lack of moderation on telegram, especially in telegram channels.
I think this arrest is not necessarily an attack on end-to-end encryption, but more on the lack of moderation on telegram, especially in telegram channels.
Its not an attack on e2ee, Telegram is first and foremost an unencrypted service. It can offer limited novel encryption for private chats but I think thats only person to person (and its...
Exemplary
Its not an attack on e2ee, Telegram is first and foremost an unencrypted service. It can offer limited novel encryption for private chats but I think thats only person to person (and its definitely not by default), it also collects a ton of "unencrypted" data through all the permissions it requires to use the app.
This is more like Facebook allowing illegal content to stay up and refusing to moderate and also not handing over plaintext user data they retain and profit off of that they definitely have full access and knowledge of which is related to illegal conduct at issue.
If Telegram was actually an end to end encrypted service, they would probably be on better footing.
Edit - I'm okay if this misunderstanding actually galvanizes the public to realize the importance of e2ee/encryption in general and make this issue politically radioactive but there will always be totalitarian snoops who want access to everything and anyone for their own selfish purposes
What exactly are people envisioning when they say "moderation"? My understanding is that if I start a Telegram group or channel of appreciable size, I get to be the first moderator, and the root...
What exactly are people envisioning when they say "moderation"?
My understanding is that if I start a Telegram group or channel of appreciable size, I get to be the first moderator, and the root of trust for the space. If people don't follow the group's rules, I can kick them and delete their posts. I'm not sure what mod tools there are beyond that; I may or may not be able to appoint other members of a mod team.
"Moderation" is about keeping a discussion space on track and doing what it is intended to do for the people in it, and stopping people from polluting or derailing it.
If you want people to shut down spaces in which things are being communicated that you do not like, or that are against the law, that's not "moderation". If 100 Nazis are happily planning murders in an online space somewhere, and flamewars are immediately shut down to allow them to get back to the business of doing evil, the problem is something other than a lack of moderation.
I think many people's (and certainly most service provider's) definition of moderation would be a bit broader and include removing illegal content as well as hate speech (both that which is...
"Moderation" is about keeping a discussion space on track and doing what it is intended to do for the people in it, and stopping people from polluting or derailing it.
I think many people's (and certainly most service provider's) definition of moderation would be a bit broader and include removing illegal content as well as hate speech (both that which is illegal but also a lot of technically legal hate speech).
Isn't that still done in service of making the space pleasant and functional, or keeping it from getting shut down for what it hosts? If you're on a forum about bodybuilding, the mods are going to...
Isn't that still done in service of making the space pleasant and functional, or keeping it from getting shut down for what it hosts?
If you're on a forum about bodybuilding, the mods are going to remove posts with pirated MP3s attached. If you are on a dark web forum for pirating music, the mods would leave those up but probably ban people who go on 100% legal racist tirades. I don't think it makes sense to call the second one unmoderated or even poorly moderated, unless you say moderator-ship always comes with a moral duty to lead one's flock away from the sins of bootleg music recordings.
I guess the complaint here could be that Telegram is insufficient in its duty to search out and shut down groups and channels that have moderators who are themselves evil? And that that is some sort of platform-level form of moderation, in that it is the enforcement of a set of acceptable standards for behavior?
You know, this might be the first time I've seen a CEO arrested for their app/company. I expected it to be for totally unrelated crimes, but nope.
I have mixed feelings on this. While there's definitely concerns about it being used for criminal activity and misinformation, this move also easily veers into free speech and censorship territory. My knowledge of Telegram is admittedly pretty limited, but as the article notes, it plays a big role in spreading information about both sides of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It also doesn't seem to be trying to push a narrative or agenda the way Elon is with X/Twitter by censoring information or posts and promoting others. It seems to be quite the opposite, actually, based on the bit about a lack of moderators.
France better handle this investigation very carefully. This arrest feels more political than criminal, if that makes sense. Russia is already using this to try to paint France as a dictatorship despite their own previous attempts to censor it. It also feels like this could set a precedent for accountability for other platforms, for better or worse.
This is reminiscent of another platform CEO, Kim Dotcom's arrest. Given that Megaupload was a filesharing tool without an ostensible speech channel, it was easy to prosecute the carding, copyright theft, and CSAM claims against Dotcom.
Imo the only outcome that would lead to content moderation on Telegram would mean prohibition of end to end encrypted communication. To me that seems absolutely terrible, nothing mixed about it.
Nor is Telegram the only one on the market able to facilitate crimes.
I'm starting to disagree with the direction of "regulation" governments are steering towards, where it's more akin to surveillance than it is actually regulating something.
In the context of regulating illegal communication and various forms of piracy, I think this was always the case - repeatedly trying to push regulations that the majority doesn't want and hiding behind terrorism or children's safety. This is one of the few areas where EU is imo consistently in the wrong, in the long term.
Not wrong, but ending E2E in the name of saving terrorism or fighting the kids is an argument from both sides of the pond really.
Are you implying other services are given a free pass?
Well. Aren't they? I can buy drugs on WhatsApp, to be delivered in 15 minutes, right now. And I don't see the Zucc in chains.
To quote irregularcircle's comment:
So it seems like they're playing ball and enforcing rules whereas Telegram isn't.
When cops hand Facebook a warrant asking for data they have on a particular account, Facebook complies.
I doubt it, as they aren't going after Signal.
Telegram is unique because it advertises itself as a secure messaging platform when it isn't. By default, all chats are not encrypted. E2EE has to be enabled on a per-chat basis, and comes with a litany of restrictions that simply don't exist on truly secure alternatives like Signal. A good example of this is the complete lack of encrypted group chats.
Because of this, Telegram is knowingly hosting group chats being used to share CSAM or coordinate terrorist attacks and the company isn't doing anything about them. When you know which accounts on your platform are doing illegal things and do nothing to stop them, then you are breaking the law.
I wouldn't be surprised if Telegram is fully compromised by the Kremlin.
I have assumed so for some time, though that does not really change my opinion on regulation and I see it as a separate topic, possibly a more interesting one than the topic of moderation. Though about moderation, specifically regarding terrorism Telegram supposedly cooperates with Europol, it's all the other shit (including drug sales etc.) that seems to be the problem.
The less interesting thing Telegram's integrity is that afaik there has been indirect proof of both group chats and individual chats being compromised by whatever agency close to Kremlin. The more interesting thing is that there has no doubt been some communication and likely cooperation between Durov and Kremlin, the evidence being a sudden change of attitude towards Telegram by the latter a few years ago, but the relationship seems to be much less clear than one might assume from that.
Apparently Durov recently tried to meet with Putin in Azerbaijan, who went there on some other business. However, Putin refused him. After that, Durov decided to fly to France on his private jet, where he knew there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest, even though he could have flown to Dubai (double citizenship), where he would not have been arrested. Does he assume that he's in danger from Putin and being locked up in France is safer?
On that front, a hacker group claims there is an undocumented API that allows for any and all chats to be exfiltrated if there’s a bot in the channel.
They claim this is explicitly for the FSB.
It’s an interesting series of events to be sure.
This is my concern. It's really easy to spout platitudes about free speech, but if you're correct in your assertion, there's something that fundamentally feels wrong about that arrangement. That is, using an app as a tool to destabilize countries that have free speech laws by an opposition that doesn't.
And my objection is based on free speech principles, because I imagine the desired outcome is a change in government to one that is more amenable to the opposition, who will - having accomplished their goal - use their influence to ban the app, "free speech" having outlived its usefulness.
I don't understand this argument – the groups that we are talking about are public group chats. You said in response to @lintful that Telegram would try to encrypt these chats to get around content moderation requirements, but I fail to see how this solves the problem (even slightly) for Telegram: these chats are public and access is open to the public, i.e. anyone can obtain a key and read all the messages.
Presumably the more likely option if Telegram really cares about providing unmoderated group chats is that Telegram would cease to provide services in the EU? This is also what happened in Russia in response to Russian attempts to coerce Telegram.
Telegram doesn't e2ee group chats though, so this argument seems tangential.
I don't think it is. There have been failed attempts at banning end to end encryption in the past and I don't see what else could happen if Telegram decides to implement it to circumvent the moderation demands (if FSB or whoever allows it, since Telegram is likely compromised). And whatever happens, other apps and protocols do use e2e for group chats, so all it may do is bring this issue into the spotlight again.
Something tells me this isn't about spreading misinformation but Telegram being a major hub for illegally sharing media and allowing widespread pirating. It seems this case is being treated in a similar way to torrent sharing websites and forums that allow the spread of child sexual assault material. Those behind such websites also get arrested when caught, this is just the first example we're seeing of a very high profile public figure being arrested. I'm not saying I agree with the arrest (though I do feel Telegram could use some moderation to avoid egregious examples of lawbreaking), but it doesn't feel to me like a new precedent is being set.
Which is something that's both needed but also incredibly difficult to not mess up if you ask me. In the end, something like this was probably coming at some point given the impact social media/messaging apps/whatever has on our society, and due to our lack of experience with this we don't really have any good measure on how to handle this.
This was probably going to be something we'll have to navigate eventually. But that doesn't make it any less tricky. If anything, it probably makes it only more tricky.
Just wanted to note this last point which I haven't seen discussed yet.
If Telegram was legally required by the French police to assist with a criminal investigation by handing over user data or chat logs and they failed to comply, it makes sense that they would start threatening legal action towards Telegram and/or making arrests.
Telegram championing user privacy is great, but I can't agree with them also protecting and enabling criminal activities like "drug trafficking, child sexual content and fraud". If police obtained a warrant to gain access to specific data of Telegram users to counter this activity, I think Telegram is obligated to assist.
I think this is a far more likely reason for the arrest than anything to do with moderation policy, though I think that Telegram like any media platform has an obligation to perform responsible moderation.
They may come after Signal eventually for the same thought process, yet they won't be able to help.
It's E2E and requires the end user devices.
Telegram is proprietary and says the same, but I think we've all worked out that it isn't quite true.
I think this arrest is not necessarily an attack on end-to-end encryption, but more on the lack of moderation on telegram, especially in telegram channels.
Its not an attack on e2ee, Telegram is first and foremost an unencrypted service. It can offer limited novel encryption for private chats but I think thats only person to person (and its definitely not by default), it also collects a ton of "unencrypted" data through all the permissions it requires to use the app.
This is more like Facebook allowing illegal content to stay up and refusing to moderate and also not handing over plaintext user data they retain and profit off of that they definitely have full access and knowledge of which is related to illegal conduct at issue.
If Telegram was actually an end to end encrypted service, they would probably be on better footing.
Edit - I'm okay if this misunderstanding actually galvanizes the public to realize the importance of e2ee/encryption in general and make this issue politically radioactive but there will always be totalitarian snoops who want access to everything and anyone for their own selfish purposes
What exactly are people envisioning when they say "moderation"?
My understanding is that if I start a Telegram group or channel of appreciable size, I get to be the first moderator, and the root of trust for the space. If people don't follow the group's rules, I can kick them and delete their posts. I'm not sure what mod tools there are beyond that; I may or may not be able to appoint other members of a mod team.
"Moderation" is about keeping a discussion space on track and doing what it is intended to do for the people in it, and stopping people from polluting or derailing it.
If you want people to shut down spaces in which things are being communicated that you do not like, or that are against the law, that's not "moderation". If 100 Nazis are happily planning murders in an online space somewhere, and flamewars are immediately shut down to allow them to get back to the business of doing evil, the problem is something other than a lack of moderation.
I think many people's (and certainly most service provider's) definition of moderation would be a bit broader and include removing illegal content as well as hate speech (both that which is illegal but also a lot of technically legal hate speech).
Isn't that still done in service of making the space pleasant and functional, or keeping it from getting shut down for what it hosts?
If you're on a forum about bodybuilding, the mods are going to remove posts with pirated MP3s attached. If you are on a dark web forum for pirating music, the mods would leave those up but probably ban people who go on 100% legal racist tirades. I don't think it makes sense to call the second one unmoderated or even poorly moderated, unless you say moderator-ship always comes with a moral duty to lead one's flock away from the sins of bootleg music recordings.
I guess the complaint here could be that Telegram is insufficient in its duty to search out and shut down groups and channels that have moderators who are themselves evil? And that that is some sort of platform-level form of moderation, in that it is the enforcement of a set of acceptable standards for behavior?