Connect with us

Business

Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom

Published

27 minute read

Pavel Durov of Telegram speaks during the Digital Life Design conference (DLD) at HVB Forum on January 24, 2012, in Munich, Germany

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas

The message being sent to every tech visionary, journalist, or outspoken citizen is if you don’t play by the new rules, the state will come for you. They’ve got the global mandate to ensure that dissenting voices are silenced, one way or another.

Picture this: a tech billionaire, who’s made his fortune building a platform that prioritizes privacy and free speech, is arrested at a Paris airport. Sounds like the plot of a dystopian thriller, right? Except it’s real life. Pavel Durov, the brain behindĀ Telegram, found himself in handcuffs at Le Bourget airport over the weekend, marking another dark chapter in the ongoing war against free speech.Ā 

What’s Durov’s crime, you ask? Well, it depends on which bureaucrat you ask. According to the official indictment, he’s guilty of everything short of kicking puppies – fraud, drug trafficking, organized crime, encouraging terrorism, and, just for good measure, providing encryption. The French authorities must have felt ambitious that day, throwing in the entire criminal code just to be sure. Let’s not forget that this whole circus started because Durov reportedly had the audacity to support free speech. Apparently, in 2024, that’s enough to get you a one-way ticket to a Parisian jail cell.Ā 

READ:Ā Telegram founder Pavel Durov arrested in FranceĀ 

Durov’s detention has been extended by 96 hours. Because, you know, it takes a while to figure out which of these ludicrous charges will stick when the real crime was defending free speech.Ā 

French President Emmanuel Macron assures everyone that Durov’s arrest is nothing more than a purely ā€œjudicial,ā€ non-political act. You know, the kind of legal housekeeping every free society must endure to keep its otherwise robust freedoms from accidentally going rogue. Because, clearly, when you find the head of a privacy-focused tech giant behind bars, it’s all about upholding legal standards, right?Ā 

But before we crown France this month’s champion of authoritarianism, let’s take a quick tour around the globe. In the European Union’s ever-benevolent grasp,Ā a high-ranking official isĀ threatening to drag U.S. social media platformsĀ  through the censorship ringer. What’s the endgame? To ensure that the EU’s favorite brand of speech policing crosses the Atlantic. Forget about free expression – it’s all about toeing the line, or else.Ā 

Not to be outdone, Brazil’s Supreme Court is adding its own flair to the global crackdown with secretiveĀ censorship orders slapped on online platforms. The idea here is simple: if you can’t kill the message, just gag the messenger. No court hearings, no appeals – just pure, unfiltered control.Ā 

So, here we are, watching as the pillars of free speech are bulldozed in broad daylight, with tech moguls like Durov tossed behind bars for daring to build platforms that don’t kowtow to government censorship. The arrest of a billionaire for refusing to censor, a prime minister having citizens arrested for social media posts, an EU official threatening American companies with censorship demands, and a Brazilian judge unleashing secretive orders – this isn’t just a bad month for free speech; it’s a full-on assault.Ā 

What’s the message being sent to every tech visionary, journalist, or outspoken citizen? Simple: if you don’t play by the new rules, the state will come for you. They’ve got the handcuffs, the secret orders, and, apparently, the global mandate to ensure that dissenting voices are silenced, one way or another.Ā 

This isn’t just about Durov or Telegram. This is about the battle lines being drawn between governments that want absolute control and a shrinking pool of platforms still willing to fight for freedom. These are dangerous times for free speech, and if we don’t pay attention, we might just wake up to find it gone for good.Ā 

Durov, who departed Russia in 2014 following disagreements with the Kremlin over internet freedoms, particularly related to his refusal to close opposition groups on the VK social network which he founded at the age of 22, has since dedicated his efforts to developing Telegram.Ā 

Yet, after escaping Russia and its oppressive censorship demands, it’s now Western governments that have been the ones to make censorship demands.Ā 

Created with his brother Nikolai in 2013, Telegram initially functioned similarly to other messaging services but has evolved into a more complex social network, facilitating large-scale communication through channels and groups.Ā 

Despite residing in Dubai, where he enjoys citizenship alongside France and the UAE, Durov champions the app as a bastion of neutrality and free speech in an increasingly monitored digital world.Ā 

In a statement on Telegram, the company said, ā€œTelegram abides by EU laws,ā€ mentioning theĀ Digital Services ActĀ in particular and adding that Pavel Durov ā€œhas nothing to hide.ā€Ā 

The sight of Russian officials donning the mantle of ā€œfree speech defendersā€ is like watching a fox petition for chicken rights. Yet, here we are. Moscow is outraged – not at the idea of censorship (they do enough of that themselves) but because they’re not the ones holding the keys to the cell. French authorities, evidently too busy trying to build a legal house of cards against Telegram’s founder have somehow managed to snub their Russian counterparts, who are now demanding consular access and throwing diplomatic shade from the Russian embassy in Paris.Ā 

Enter Vladislav Davankov, the deputy speaker of Russia’s State Duma, who’s managed to turn Durov’s arrest into a soapbox moment. Davankov’s allegation? That Durov’s detention is nothing more than a thinly veiled scheme by the West to hack into Telegram’s treasure trove of user data. According to him, this kind of violation of privacy ā€œcannot be allowed.ā€ That’s rich, coming from a regime that’s never met a dissident it didn’t want to silence or a data packet it didn’t want to intercept. But his allegations against the French government may actually be pretty close.Ā 

To understand why Moscow is crying foul over Durov’s arrest, one must rewind the clock to 2014, when a 29-year-old Durov found himself at odds with the Kremlin. Back then, the Russian government was trying to twist his arm to shut down opposition groups on VK, the social network Durov had built from the ground up. Instead of capitulating, Durov took a stand for internet freedom, packed his bags, and left Russia for good. Fast forward a decade, and Durov is now based in Dubai, where he enjoys triple citizenship and a lifestyle reportedly far removed from his Kremlin-tangled past.Ā 

Durov’s masterpiece, Telegram, started as just another messaging app, but has since morphed into a digital juggernaut. With 950 million monthly users, it’s a lifeline for news, a platform for both truth (and yes, like any other platform or legacy news outlet, misinformation) and, much to the chagrin of various governments, a symbol of digital resistance. In the chaotic storm of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Telegram has become a critical tool for both reporting on the conflict and narratives that governments find increasingly difficult to control.Ā 

The irony in all of this is that after fleeing Russia’s oppressive demands, it’s now the so-called free world coming after Durov. The man who said ā€œnoā€ to the Kremlin’s censorship now finds himself in the crosshairs of Western governments, who are just as eager to force his hand. While the West has long championed itself as a bastion of free speech, Durov’s recent experience suggests otherwise.Ā 

Telegram’s official statement makes this clear enough: ā€œTelegram abides by EU laws,ā€ it reads, with a polite nod to the much-vaunted Digital Services Act. But the real interesting part comes with the company’s assertion that Durov ā€œhas nothing to hide.ā€ This could be true – or it could be the last defiant proclamation before the doors are kicked in by the data-hungry enforcers of digital orthodoxy.Ā 

For Durov, this ordeal must feel like a twisted rerun. The same man who once resisted Moscow’s censorship demands now finds himself dodging the West’s increasingly sharp regulatory spears. It’s a grim reminder that no matter which flag flies over the government building, those in power seem to share one common goal: control.Ā 

The arrest, coupled with the Kremlin’s performative outrage, lays bare the truth about the state of global free speech: it’s under attack from all sides. Whether it’s through overt censorship, as seen in Russia, or the subtler, but equally insidious, pressures from the West, the aim is the same: silence dissent, control the narrative, and pry open every digital lock that doesn’t fit the state’s key.Ā 

In the EU, the Digital Services Act has been rolled out with all the fanfare of a revolutionary triumph, marketed as a safeguard for user ā€œsafety.ā€ The truth, however, is far more sinister. What the EU is really doing is tightening its grip on the digital world, muzzling dissent under theĀ guise of combatingĀ ā€œmisinformationā€ and ā€œhate speech.ā€Ā The arrest of Durov in France is just the latest – and most brazen – example of this creeping authoritarianism dressed up in bureaucratic language.Ā 

The DSA is the EU’s shiny new tool for keeping social media and tech companies under its thumb. ItĀ mandates that platforms like Telegram must now answer to Big Brother, swiftly addressing so-called ā€œdisinformationā€ or risk facing severe penalties. The law is designed to force companies to do the dirty work of governments, effectively turning them into enforcers of state-approved narratives. It’s not about protecting users; it’s about controlling them. And in the world of modern governance, where the line between regulation and repression is blurrier than ever, Durov’s arrest is a warning shot.Ā 

Digital speech under siege: Europe’s march toward censorshipĀ 

Let’s not mince words: the EU’s relentless push to ā€œenhance user safetyā€ is a euphemism for ramping up censorship. By couching these regulations in the language of public good, the EU manages to dodge the inconvenient truth that its real goal is to control the flow of information. The Digital Services Act, hailed as a ā€œsignificant overhaulā€ of the EU’s digital policy, is little more than a power grab disguised as a public service. And the timing of Durov’s arrest in France – an EU stronghold – couldn’t be more telling.Ā 

Durov, who’s spent years fighting back against censorship, now finds himself in the middle of a battle over the future of online speech. He’s built his reputation on refusing to bow to government demands, whether from the Kremlin or the West. But with his arrest in a supposedly free country, we see just how far the EU is willing to go to enforce its new digital regime.Ā 

The DSA gives the EU unprecedented control over tech companies, demanding rapid responses to whatever it deems unfit for public consumption. For Telegram, this means beefing up content moderation or facing the wrath of Brussels – a stark choice between betraying its principles or suffering the consequences.Ā 

READ:Ā Christian doctor in Germany receives 2,500-euro fine for warning about COVID jab dangers in 2021Ā 

The global chill: Durov’s arrest as a warning to tech CEOsĀ 

Durov’s arrest sends a clear and chilling message: no one is safe from the reach of the state. If a billionaire tech CEO can be nabbed at an airport and held on dubious charges for daring to defend free speech, what hope is there for anyone else? The EU’s new laws and the arrest of Durov mark a dangerous escalation in the global war on free expression. Other tech leaders who have championed privacy and resisted censorship must be watching with a mix of fear and trepidation, wondering if they’re next on the hit list.Ā 

The implications are profound. Durov’s stand against censorship has made him a symbol of resistance, but it’s also turned him into a target. The arrest coincides with an era where tensions over digital freedom are reaching a boiling point. Governments across the globe are tightening their noose on online platforms, and the EU’s DSA is the latest weapon in this fight. What we’re witnessing is the opening salvo in a broader campaign to control the digital public square, to ensure that only the ā€œcorrectā€ information sees the light of day.Ā 

The digital guillotine: How the EU’s DSA is reshaping the internetĀ 

In the tradition of authoritarian overreach, the EU’s DSA represents more than just regulation – it’s the construction of a digital guillotine. The law doesn’t just keep tech companies in check; it keeps them in fear. With the power to fine, sanction, or even shut down platforms that don’t toe the line, the DSA is a blueprint for modern-day censorship, one that’s already beginning to claim its first high-profile victim in Durov.Ā 

Tech bosses are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs of powerful states eager to bend digital platforms to their will. Just ask X owner Elon Musk, who has escaped the wrath of both Brazil and the European Union this month.Ā 

Musk’s crime was refusing to play ball with their censorship demands. Brazil, never one to shy away from the strong-arm approach, even threatenedĀ to lock up X employeesĀ if they didn’t secretly censor users. Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s response was toĀ shut down operations in Brazil entirely – an audacious move, but one that highlights the growing tension between tech innovators and authoritarian government actions.Ā 

But the Durov saga takes this conflict to a new, terrifying level. While it’s not Brazil’s first rodeo – remember when they threw Facebook’s Diego Dzodan behind bars in 2016 for WhatsApp’s encryption? – Durov’s arrest marks a grim first: the CEO of a major messaging platform being jailed for refusing to censor. The message to tech leaders is crystal clear: stand up to government overreach, and you might just find yourself in a cell.Ā 

A screenshot of a Washington Post 2016 article titled, "Senior Facebook executive arrested in Brazil after police are denied access to data."The Washington Post – 2016

A chilling effect on innovationĀ 

Durov’s arrest is a dire warning to anyone who dares to innovate in the realm of communication.Ā 

The chilling effect this could have on innovation cannot be overstated. Imagine the next generation of tech entrepreneurs, who might now think twice before developing a revolutionary new app or encryption tool, fearing they’ll end up like Durov.Ā 

This crackdown could particularly cripple the burgeoning crypto industry, where privacy and decentralization are core tenets. If tech CEOs are too scared to push the boundaries of free communication, the progress in these fields could grind to a halt. The digital market would be poorer for it, as the space for free expression shrinks and the room for government surveillance expands.Ā 

Elon Musk, never one to shy away from controversy, wasted no time showing solidarity with Durov. His ā€œ#FreePavelā€ post accompanied a video clip of Durov praising X for fostering innovation and freedom of expression.Ā 

Musk’s tweet was a clear shot across the bow, aimed at governments who think they can bully tech leaders into submission. But he didn’t stop there. In a further swipe at the powers that be, Musk called out the hypocrisy surrounding Durov’s arrest by questioning why other tech leaders – looking at you, Mark Zuckerberg – haven’t faced similar legal heat.Ā 

Musk’s point is as sharp as it is damning. Zuckerberg, the poster child for compliance, has avoided the kind of scrutiny that’s now falling on Durov.Ā 

Musk pointed out the glaring double standard: while Durov is arrested for standing up to censorship, Zuckerberg seems to skate by, despite Instagram being plagued by a ā€œmassive child exploitation problem.ā€ According to Musk, the difference is simple – Zuckerberg ā€œalready caved into censorship pressureā€ and ā€œbackdoorsā€ making him a darling of the same governments now going after Durov. In Musk’s eyes, it’s not about justice or protecting users; it’s about punishing those who refuse to kneel.Ā 

The future of free speech: A digital Cold WarĀ 

Durov’s arrest, coupled with Musk’s pointed critique, highlights a deepening divide in the tech world. On one side, we have leaders like Durov and Musk, who are willing to fight for digital freedom, even if it means taking on the most powerful governments in the world. On the other hand, there are those who’ve chosen to play it safe, complying with censorship demands to avoid the kind of fate that’s now befallen Durov.Ā 

But the stakes in this digital Cold War are high. If governments succeed in making examples out of leaders like Durov, the era of free and open digital communication could be nearing its end. Innovators might retreat from building the next Telegram or X, knowing that doing so could land them in jail.Ā 

If you needed another sign that the battle for free speech is turning into a full-blown exodus, look no further than Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, who has just packed his bags and left Europe after a visit.Ā 

Pavlovski, a vocal critic of government censorship, could be staring down the barrel of the same threats that led to Durov’s detention. But unlike most tech CEOs who prefer quiet compliance to public defiance, Pavlovski is making it clear: he’s not going down without a fight.Ā 

Rumble, a platform built on the promise of free expression, has been under fire from France for some time. The French government has beenĀ relentless in its push to censor content on the platform, leading toĀ ongoing litigation. But Durov’s arrest has pushed Pavlovski to escalate his stance. On X, he blasted France for crossing a red line, calling Durov’s arrest a blatant violation of fundamental human rights. ā€œRumble will not stand for this behavior,ā€ he declared, vowing to use every legal weapon in his arsenal to defend free speech. His message is clear: the fight for digital freedom is global, and it’s far from over.Ā 

Pavlovski’s critique of the French government’s actions goes beyond mere rhetoric. By linking Durov’s arrest to a broader crackdown on free expression, he’s framing this as a global issue – one that tech companies can no longer afford to ignore. The implications of Durov’s arrest are chilling. It’s not just about one CEO being dragged off a plane; it’s about the growing power of governments to intrude into private communications on platforms that were once considered safe havens for free speech.Ā 

READ:Ā Expert: US intelligence agencies using psyops to thwart Trump, undermine democracyĀ 

Pavlovski’s words resonate with a fundamental truth: the war on digital freedom is escalating, and it’s playing out in courtrooms and boardrooms across the world.Ā 

The question now is how many other tech leaders will join in taking a stand. Will they rally behind Durov, Musk, Pavlovski, or will they buckle under the pressure, opting for the safety of compliance over the risk of resistance? One thing is certain: as the war on free speech heats up, the choices made by today’s tech CEOs will determine the landscape for years to come. And for those who believe in the sanctity of free expression, there’s no room left for complacency in this fight.Ā 

Reprinted with permission fromĀ Reclaim The Net.Ā 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

The ESG Shell Game Behind The U.S. Plastics Pact

Published on

 

From theĀ Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jack McPherrin and H. Sterling Burnett

In recent years, corporate coalitions have increasingly taken center stage in environmental policymaking, often through public-private partnerships aligned withĀ environmental, social, and governanceĀ (ESG) goals that promise systemic change.

One of the most prominent examples is theĀ U.S. Plastics PactĀ (USPP). At first glance, the USPP may appear to some as a promising solution for reducing plastic pollution. But in practice, it has encouraged companies to make changes that are more cosmetic than environmental—and in some cases, actively counterproductive—while increasing their control over the market.

The USPP, launched in 2020, consists of more than 850 companies, non-profits, research institutions, government agencies, and other entities working together to create a new ā€œcircular economy for plastics.ā€ Dozens of major retailers and consumer goods companies—including Coca-Cola, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Target, and Unilever—have signed on as ā€œActivators,ā€ pledging to eliminate certain plastics, shift to recyclable packaging, and increase the use of recycled plastics.

Yet, rather than curbing plastic production or reducing waste, the USPP has led many companies to simply transition from polystyrene toĀ polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This shift has been encouraged by claims that PET is moreĀ widely recyclable, easier to sort, and better aligned with existing U.S. recycling infrastructure.

However, polystyrene is more moldable, is recyclable, and has insulation properties that PET doesn’t. In addition, PET is approximatelyĀ 30 percent heavierĀ than polystyrene, meaning more material is required for the same functional use. Moreover, PET requires more energy and is more expensive to produce than polystyrene. And PET’s denser packaging increases transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and raises costs even more—though these higher costs don’t bother USPP participants, as they simply pass them on to consumers.

OnlyĀ 5 to 6 percent of all plasticsĀ in the United States are recycled. Even for PET products, the overall recycling rate remains low. JustĀ one-third of PET bottles are recycled, while theĀ  recycling rate for many other PET products such asĀ thermoformsĀ is less than 10 percent. Most PET products end up in landfills.

This ineffective, costly, and counterproductive shift was not accidental. It reflects the broader incentives baked into ESG scoring systems that reward superficial compliance over substantive outcomes.

ESG frameworks reward companies financially and reputationally forĀ achieving certain narrow targetsĀ such as reductions in single-use plastics or increases in the use of packaging that is technically recyclable. However, these metricsĀ often fail to accurately assessĀ total plastic use in a product’s lifecycle, associated emissions, and real-world recovery. A package that uses more plastic and energy—and therefore generates more emissions—may still earn high sustainability marks, so long as the plastic is recyclable in theory. This is a textbook example of greenwashing.

A closer look at the USPP reveals that some of the world’sĀ top plastic users and producers—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—are among the Pact’s strongest backers. These corporations, which produceĀ billionsĀ of PET containers per year, benefit substantially from signing onto agreements such as the USPP, adopting ESG standards, and pledging support for various green goals—even if they do not deliver any green results. In fact, aĀ 2022 report foundĀ that a large majority of retail signatories to the USPP actually increased their consumption of virgin plastic from 2020 to 2021.

Many of these same companiesĀ fundĀ the non-profit that organized the USPP: the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This creates a feedback loop in which large companies shape sustainability standards to their own advantage, defining which materials are ā€œacceptable,ā€ reaping the rewards of ESG compliance, and marginalizing smaller firms that lack the resources to adapt.

For example, by promoting PET as the preferred packaging material, the USPP conveniently reinforces the existing supply chains of these multinational bottlers, while sidelining other materials such as polystyrene that may be more cost-efficient and suitable for specific applications. Smaller manufacturers, who can’t easily switch packaging or absorb the added costs, are effectively squeezed out of the marketplace.

The USPP has not built a circular economy. Rather, it has constructed a closed circle of corporate sponsors that gain reputational boosts and higher ESG scores on the backs of consumers, despite increasing energy and plastics use.

The USPP unites ESG financiers, government agencies, nonprofits, and the largest corporate polluters in a mutually beneficial arrangement. This system rewards compliance, deflects scrutiny, manipulates public trust, eliminates free-market competition, stifles innovation, and increases costs to consumers—all while creating more waste.

Policymakers and consumers alike must recognize that ESG-aligned coalitions such as the U.S. Plastics Pact are nothing more than corporate lobbying groups disguised as sustainability initiatives. They do not improve environmental quality, but they do profit immensely from the illusion of doing so.

Jack McPherrinĀ ([email protected])Ā is a Research Fellow for the Glenn C. Haskins Emerging Issues Center and H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.,Ā ([email protected])Ā is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, both at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta’s industrial carbon tax freeze is a good first step

Published on

ByĀ Gage Haubrich

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is applauding Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s decision toĀ freezeĀ the province’s industrial carbon tax.

ā€œSmith is right to freeze the cost of Alberta’s hidden industrial carbon tax that increases the cost of everything,ā€ said Gage Haubrich, CTF Prairie Director. ā€œThis move is a no-brainer to make Alberta more competitive, save taxpayers money and protect jobs.ā€

Smith announced the Alberta government will be freezing the rate of its industrial carbon tax at $95 per tonne.

The federal government set the rate of the consumer carbon tax to zero on April 1. However, it still imposes a requirement for an industrial carbon tax.

Prime Minister Mark CarneyĀ saidĀ he would ā€œimprove and tightenā€ the industrial carbon tax.

The industrial carbon tax currently costs businesses $95 per tonne of emissions. It is set to increase to $170 per tonne byĀ 2030. Carney has said he would extend the current industrial carbon tax frameworkĀ untilĀ 2035, meaning the costs could reach $245 a tonne. That’s more than double the current tax.

The Saskatchewan government recentlyĀ scrappedĀ its industrial carbon tax completely.

Seventy per cent of Canadians said businesses pass most or some industrial carbon tax costs on to consumers, according to a recentĀ Leger poll.

ā€œSmith needs to stand up for Albertans and cancel the industrial carbon tax altogether,ā€ Haubrich said. ā€œSmith deserves credit for freezing Alberta’s industrial carbon tax and she needs to finish the job by scrapping the industrial carbon tax completely.ā€

Continue Reading

Trending

X