Deliver Us From Digital Sovereignty: A Call to Have a Principled Approach to the Recent Digital Governance Events

I was waiting for the dust to settle before writing this blog about Telegram and the recent arrest of its CEO, and to mention a few things about Starlink and the blocking of X in Brazil. But this landscape seems to be evolving. So, I’ve decided to take a semi-live blog approach to cover what is happening around the world regarding digital governance and assertion of digital sovereignty and shifting away from human rights and Internet principles.

My main aim is to call for a principled stance in our analysis, which is more important than ever. By a principled stance, I mean applying the long-held principles of human rights and Internet governance to the issues at hand, regardless of the democratic nature of governments, the “person” in charge of a tech company, and prioritizing the protection of users’ human rights over other factors.

What is Telegram? Who are Telegram users?

Telegram is not just a messaging app, and this distinction is crucial for the discussion. Comparing it to other messaging apps that have limited features is misleading. To understand what an online platform does, it is necessary to look at what its users do. Telegram is a multi-sided global platform with various products and features. News agencies, such as VOA and BBC, host channels; users can hold public live audio sessions in chat groups; and in some regions, people even set up shops on Telegram, using it like Instagram. Influencers also use it, and, importantly, Telegram has been extensively used by vulnerable communities during uprisings in places like Iran, Belarus, and Hong Kong. But like any platform, it also gets abused and criminal activities can be facilitated on the platform. All in all Telegram was not set up to facilitate solely criminal activities, it is not a criminal enterprise and it has diverse users around the world.

Telegram and Its Governance Problems

Telegram has severe governance problems. Telegram’s CEO has a top-down approach to governance, which is often based on “gut feelings” rather than principles. Instead of focusing on self-regulatory and community approaches and following a human rights oriented approach, it changes its approach under threat. Durov also has a knack for responding positively when he receives messages from the governments around the world or is threatened by their courts. In 2021, I extensively elaborated on these governance shortcomings in a report. Civil society organizations have also been active in criticizing Telegram, with many writing letters to Durov urging him to improve the platform’s governance mechanisms. Last year, I collaborated with the National Democratic Institute on a piece that discussed how under-scrutinized platforms like Telegram could be held accountable and how civil society can contribute to governance efforts.

France and Internet Freedom

France arrested Telegram’s CEO primarily on complicity charges for the content and conduct of its users. This case raises important questions about platform liability, which experts like Daphne Keller have extensively explored. However, it’s essential to recognize that Telegram is not solely used for malicious or illegal purposes. Unfortunately, many news reports fail to provide an accurate picture of its legitimate uses. Millions of people globally rely on Telegram, and by asserting its digital sovereignty in this way, France risks disrupting the lives of users and impacting third-party interests around the world.

As I mentioned earlier, when analyzing digital governance actions by nation-states, companies, or other organizations, we must adopt a principled approach. Let’s look at France’s Internet governance track record.

When Macron spoke at the Internet Governance Forum in 2018, I wrote a blog titled “Deliver Us From Multilateral Internet Governance”. The president expressed that the Internet was an unmitigated disaster and that only governments could save us from it. He specifically said:

“Today, when I look at our democracies, the internet is much better used by those on the extremes. It is used more for hate speech or the dissemination of terrorist content than by many others. This is the reality, and we must face up to it.”

There’s no real way to prove Macron’s claim, and his administration didn’t even attempt to align with the language used by other democratic countries or the multistakeholder Internet community. Since then, we have witnessed a shift in France’s approach. In 2023, during riots, Macron remarked in a press conference that if necessary, they would block social media platforms. And just a year later, in May 2024, France blocked TikTok for 10 days during protests in New Caledonia under its State of Emergency law.

The French government has been discussing how to regulate “small platforms,” particularly concerning terrorist content, for years. So, when President Macron stated that Durov’s arrest was not a political but merely a judicial decision, I was skeptical.

Disproportionate Measures to Achieve Digital Trust and Safety

It’s clear that Durov was arrested due to Telegram’s lack of initiative on trust and safety issues. But this arrest was disproportionate, and it could render the app inoperable, impacting its global user base. Such actions also deter some companies from offering services globally. The Internet is designed for the global provision of services, and while discriminatory approaches exist, the principle of non-discriminatory access and connectivity has prevailed in many online services.

If one of the world’s most democratic countries arrests a CEO for not complying with its demands, how can we expect service providers to continue offering their services worldwide.

The Conversation Will Continue

The recent events surrounding Telegram’s CEO arrest and broader digital governance challenges highlight the urgent need for a consistent, principled approach. Whether it’s a platform as large as Telegram or the potential blocking of services like X in Brazil, we must resist knee-jerk reactions driven by political or national interests. A principled approach rooted in fundamental human rights, non-discriminatory access, and global Internet governance principles is crucial to protect users worldwide, regardless of the governing nation’s nature or the company’s leadership.

Governments, especially those in democratic nations, must remember the global impact their actions have on digital platforms and the services they provide to vulnerable and diverse communities. Disproportionate actions, such as arresting CEOs or blocking platforms, risk not only stifling access to vital services but also setting dangerous precedents that could deter other companies from offering their services globally.

In our increasingly interconnected world, we must uphold principles that promote openness, fairness, and the safeguarding of digital rights. Only by doing so can we ensure a balanced and responsible digital governance framework that works for everyone, not just those in power.