Two years ago, I was detained in
Paris by police for 3 days -- the longest they can hold someone before charging them.
In an unprecedented move, French authorities accused the head of a major platform of crimes committed by its users.
That
investigation is still ongoing, although it makes less sense with each passing year.
Why?
Because we now have extensive evidence that Telegram was neither worse than other popular platforms at moderation,
nor the worst at cooperating with authorities.
So why was Telegram singled out?
Over the last two years, we have seen a pattern emerge in multiple countries: Telegram is quietly asked to grant political
favors -- such as illegal censorship or surveillance. When we refuse, local media and non-governmental organizations launch orchestrated campaigns portraying Telegram as a cesspool of crime, from child pornography to terrorism.
Our moderation is no worse than that of other major platforms. Yet these campaigns instill the idea that Telegram should be persecuted or restricted.
Suddenly, officials start caring about crime and protecting children -- but only on platforms that reject their secret political demands. Platforms that accept such deals get away with almost anything -- including literally
selling ads promoting child pornography.
Is the French investigation against me political? It certainly fits the pattern we see elsewhere, mostly in authoritarian countries. And it definitely raises questions.
In time, this investigation may itself be investigated -- especially now that Macron's war against free speech is facing pushback. This month, France's Constitutional Council struck down his social media ban for children under 15 on
freedom-of-expression grounds.
In the end, freedom and truth will prevail
