[ad_1]
The arrest of Pável Dúrov, founder and CEO of the instant messaging platform Telegram, by the French government has raised concerns about the future of digital rights around the world. The “crime” was Telegram’s lack of cooperation with French authorities in combating child pornography, drug trafficking and money laundering within the app.
“This action looks more like a political conspiracy than a measure to combat disinformation and calls into question France’s commitment to liberal and legitimate democratic values. Durov’s arrest sets a precedent that other countries may use to undermine fundamental rights in the digital age.”
The arrest is based on the false premise that Telegram is responsible for content spread on its app. This idea is wrong and dangerously disproportionate. Messaging platforms like Telegram, WhatsApp, or even social networks like Facebook or YouTube are not responsible for the content posted by their users. These services act as intermediaries, providing spaces where people can communicate freely, as long as they abide by the community rules established by the platforms themselves.
In the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects no internet platform from legal liability for content posted by its users. This legislation protects free speech online and allows digital platforms to thrive without fear of legal retaliation for third-party actions.
While the principles of Section 230 are not universal, Durov’s arrest in France ignores lessons from other contexts where protecting intermediaries is key to maintaining a free and open digital ecosystem.
Durov’s case is not the only one where the government has taken tough measures against digital platforms. In Colombia, Uber was the victim of competition rulings and attacks by taxi unions, which pushed for restrictions on its operations on the grounds that its business model was illegal. This persecution affected the collaborative economy, limited consumer choice, restricted competition and limited the right to mobility.
In Brazil, WhatsApp and Telegram faced temporary blocks for refusing to comply with court orders that violated user privacy. A few weeks ago, businessman Elon Musk announced that X (Twitter) was leaving Brazil, also because of a court ruling. These actions show a worrying pattern: governments use laws to try to control digital narratives at the expense of citizens’ digital rights.
The capture has geopolitical overtones beyond concerns about misinformation. Durov, a Russian and a critic of Vladimir Putin, has rejected Kremlin demands to hand over user data, putting him at odds with the Russian government. Still, it seems unlikely that France would act on Putin’s behalf, given strained relations between the two countries during the war in Ukraine.
On the contrary, Durov’s arrest shows that France is willing to sacrifice principles such as freedom in an attempt to gain influence in the geopolitical sphere. It is difficult to imagine how this action will change the course of the war between Russia and Ukraine, or improve France’s relationship with Putin. What is obvious is that such measures undermine France’s credibility as a defender of human rights and free speech.
The problem of misinformation and hate speech in the digital world needs to be addressed without going after the leaders of digital platforms. Instead of criminalizing tech companies, governments should focus on constructive and collaborative solutions.
There has been a lot of discussion about improving digital literacy in early classrooms and citizens so that they can identify and resist misinformation, from adapting educational programs in schools to awareness campaigns. Platforms have also been asked to be more transparent about how their content recommendation and moderation algorithms work, and to come up with best practices without sacrificing free speech.
Following Parisian logic, all social media CEOs should be concerned about their own safety. Facebook, X, YouTube, TikTok and other platforms also host toxic and problematic content. We have not seen the arrest of Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai or Shouzi Zhou. From now on we recommend not setting foot in France. So why Durov?
Telegram claims to offer higher levels of privacy and encryption, so its focus on free speech and resistance to censorship makes it a target for governments that want more control over their citizens’ communications.
Too often, it is political actors who poison the digital public square. From misinformation campaigns to the use of bots and zealous followers to confuse public opinion, politicians are the first to exploit loopholes in digital regulation for their own gain. Thanks to them, false information and hate speech proliferate, while the platforms are accused of not controlling something that in many cases is driven by those who have or crave power. Since 2019, a report by the Oxford Internet Institute shows that manipulation attempts have grown exponentially and have been used by both democratic and authoritarian governments in 70 countries.
“The arrest of Pavel Durov in France is a direct attack on free expression and a threat to the future of digital rights. Rather than simply and disproportionately punishing platforms that provide spaces for communication, authorities should focus on educating and empowering users to use these spaces responsibly.”
____________________________________________
Twitter: @beltmondi
[ad_2]
Source link
