The Cost of Telegram's Pursuit of Neutrality: Should Platforms Be Responsible for Content?

#628

GM,

Last week, I participated in my first online meeting since being selected for the Devcon Scholars Program. The meeting mainly served as a meet-and-greet and to handle some administrative matters. Although I don’t have the complete list of participants, I learned from the Telegram group that there are two scholars selected from Taiwan. One of them is Martinet Lee, representing ETH Taipei. Congratulations to him as well!

However, I’m a bit concerned that we might need to find a different platform for this Telegram group. A few days ago, Telegram’s founder and CEO, Pavel Durov, was arrested by the police at an airport in France. He could potentially face up to 20 years in prison. Why was he arrested? Most reports suggest that Telegram hasn’t fulfilled its responsibility in managing the platform and preventing illegal activities. In other words, the platform is being held accountable for the content shared on it.

This article discusses the boundaries between regulation and freedom, and how this relates to decentralization.

Freedom Fighter

Telegram is the fourth largest messaging app globally, with as many as 950 million users. Yet, the entire operation is managed by only 30 engineers, and Pavel Durov himself serves as the sole product manager and HR head. Durov is deeply involved in many aspects, personally handling communication with engineers and designers. It’s said that he even personally pays the server bills. He’s essentially the principal and janitor all in one.

Recently, in an interview, Pavel Durov revealed that he once asked Twitter’s founder, Jack Dorsey, why Twitter needed so many employees. Dorsey responded that if Twitter were to lay off a large number of staff, shareholders might think something was seriously wrong with the company, causing the stock price to plummet. Durov’s tone carried a sense of superiority, as he believes that a flat organizational structure is key to Telegram's high efficiency. Since Telegram is not a publicly traded company and doesn’t have to answer to shareholders, it can maintain a minimal workforce.

However, sometimes redundancy is necessary to cope with unexpected events. According to a report by iThome:

Telegram’s founder and CEO, Pavel Durov, was arrested last Saturday (8/24) when his private jet landed at an airport near Paris, France. The primary reason for his arrest was the lack of content management mechanisms on the Telegram platform, which has made it a haven for criminal activities, leading a French judge to issue Durov’s arrest warrant. Durov now faces a litany of potential charges, including supporting terrorism, drug trafficking, large-scale fraud, money laundering, pedophilia, evading sanctions, or conspiring to commit crimes.

Although Telegram quickly issued a statement claiming that the platform operates legally, I have no intention of defending Telegram. The reason Telegram has become a hotbed for criminal activities is a "deliberate" choice by Durov. He wants Telegram to remain neutral and provide users with the maximum degree of freedom. To understand this, we need to look back at Durov’s first venture.

Durov was born in Russia and founded the social platform VKontakte (VK) in 2006. After VK’s rapid rise in popularity, Durov earned the title of "Russia’s Zuckerberg."

Because dissidents also used VK to rally people for street protests, VK gradually became a thorn in the side of the Russian government. The Russian government demanded that Durov hand over the list of protest organizers. Faced with this pressure, Durov refused to comply and chose to side with his users, even if it meant selling off his shares in VK and going into exile rather than betraying them.

Durov claims that he pursues freedom and does not want to take orders from anyone. This stance earned him fame, making him known as a freedom fighter who protects users' privacy. In 2013, Durov launched his second venture, introducing Telegram, an instant messaging app that emphasized speed and security. It quickly attracted a large number of users.

People trusted that Durov would not betray his users, believing that Telegram was the safest fortress. However, this also made Telegram a haven for illicit activities. The infamous Nth Room case in South Korea used Telegram as its base of operations. More recently, Telegram has been actively integrating the TON blockchain. As the platform evolves to not only transmit information but also transfer assets, the more features it adds, the bigger the problems become.

Durov’s recent arrest in France has sparked polarizing reactions among netizens. Those in favor of regulation applauded, saying he should have been caught long ago. On the other hand, freedom advocates launched the #FreePavel movement, protesting against government oppression of free speech. Where exactly is the line between freedom and regulation? This is the issue explored in the 2024 book The Dilemma of Internet Freedom.

The Dilemma of Freedom

Should platforms be held accountable for their users’ speech? Even before the internet became widespread, there were similar debates. Back then, the "platform" was a physical bookstore located in Los Angeles, USA.

In 1959, bookstore owner Smith was convicted of violating Los Angeles laws for selling obscene books. Smith argued that he read books very slowly and could not possibly review every book before stocking them. If he had known the books were obscene, he wouldn’t have put them on the shelves.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that holding a bookstore owner responsible for every book on the shelves severely restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press, declaring Los Angeles’ law unconstitutional.

After this ruling, prosecutors had to prove that a bookstore owner knowingly sold obscene books in order to convict them. This case also influenced Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in 1996, which explicitly states that internet platforms are not liable for the content users post. Platforms are seen as the equivalent of an "unaware bookstore owner" who has no knowledge of what "obscene books" are being stocked.

This law is seen as the internet's protective shield, safeguarding later social media platforms, Google reviews, and even Wikipedia. Without it, no one would dare allow users to upload content, as the fines alone would be overwhelming. Naturally, Telegram’s Durov would also claim to be a "bookstore owner," and with so many "books" on his shelves, it would be impossible to review them all. He should theoretically receive the same protection.

However, Durov's pursuit of platform neutrality inherently opposes government censorship. Placing freedom before regulation can potentially cross a red line. The law protects bookstore owners who are willing to cooperate by removing illegal books once discovered, not those who insist on keeping both good and bad books on their shelves. Many people sympathize with Durov, including Elon Musk, who retweeted a post supporting him in recent days:

Imagine this: Back in 1994, Vint Cerf and Rob Kahn are arrested because their invention of TCP/IP refused to install a backdoor, and it was used by drug dealers for illegal transactions. This scenario resonates with Telegram’s recent events.

This is a fictional situation. The author’s point is that while the inventors of the internet protocol TCP/IP are not held responsible for internet crimes, why should Durov be held accountable for illegal content on Telegram? The analogy elevates Telegram to the network layer. The author clearly understands that Telegram is different from other messaging apps, which is why the comparison was made to TCP/IP, another "uncooperative" technology. However, this analogy ends up backfiring.

The Cost of Neutrality

TCP/IP is the infrastructure of the internet, while Telegram is an application on top of it. The former is like a road—it exists neutrally and doesn’t monitor the intentions of those who use it. No one would try to reduce internet crime by targeting TCP/IP; instead, they would look at which platform the crime occurs on.

As a centralized platform, Telegram is recognized as one of the first lines of defense against internet crime, making it difficult for the platform to remain neutral. In fact, Telegram hasn’t always resisted government cooperation. In 2019, Telegram worked with Europol to delete numerous accounts linked to ISIS members. This shows that Telegram is fully capable of removing specific content.

Durov’s arrest by French police marks the heaviest price Telegram has paid in its pursuit of platform neutrality. I believe there’s nothing wrong with Durov’s pursuit of neutrality, but no platform can truly be neutral. For example, if a cryptocurrency exchange claims neutrality, it might end up like Binance founder Changpeng Zhao—behind bars. However, even in cases involving money laundering, no one would hold Bitcoin or Ethereum, the underlying blockchains, responsible, because these are truly neutral infrastructures.

If Durov wishes to continue pursuing neutrality, the path forward is neither to cooperate with governments nor to hide. Instead, he should consider moving towards decentralization. Only by becoming part of the internet's infrastructure can true neutrality be achieved.

Blocktrend is an independent media platform sustained by reader subscription fees. If you find Blocktrend's articles valuable, we welcome you to share this piece. You can also join discussions on our member-created Discord or collect the Writing NFT to include this article in your Web3 records.

Furthermore, please consider recommending Blocktrend to your friends and family. If you successfully refer a friend who subscribes, you'll receive a complimentary one-month extension of your membership. You can find past issues in the article list. As readers often inquire about referral codes, I have compiled them on a dedicated page for your convenience. Feel free to make use of them.