How a Messaging App Is Fueling Global Instability

Are tech platforms like Telegram being held ‘really’ accountable for enabling global destabilization?

Today, over 77% of people rely on social media for news. Whether it's accurate or misleading, harmful or benign, social media content is challenging to regulate due to its vast and dynamic nature.  To make matters worse, the end-to-end encryption and high end security measures to protect the privacy of its users further complicate the efforts to monitor and manage digital content.

Unlike traditional media, where content could be regulated, social media applications such as Telegram operate with minimum oversight and facilitate a much faster dissipation rate- allowing rapid propagation of information—whether factual or misleading. This raises concern over role of these platforms in creating unrest among the public and contributing to global instability.

The Controversial Role of Telegram

In recent years, Telegram has earned a controversial reputation. It would not be incorrect to refer to it as a 'use at your own risk' kind of application. On April 26, 2024, The UK government declared “Terrorgram” as a terrorist organization- the organization which operated through telegram. This highlights the association of app with illicit activities. The app was originally conceived as a means to evade Russian government surveillance, since then, there are numerous reports about telegram being used for illicit matters, drug trafficking, terrorism, and child pornography.

In UK, the app is allegedly used for conducting anti-immigrant riots. In India, the app is under federal radar for being used for alleged involvement in paper leaks and stock market manipulation. The application is also banned in China since 2015 for circumventing internet censorship.

Russia, the home country of Telegram CEO, Pavel Durov, also banned the application in 2018 for refusing to hand over critical details of alleged criminals. During the pandemic, the ban was lifted and it emerged as a popular application among Russian administration for discussing military operations and among residents as a key source of information.

Today, Telegram is banned in 31 nations, including China, Iraq, Thailand, Pakistan, and Brazil. However, the irony is that the app continues to be available on app store and people continue to use it.

Recently the app came to spotlight once again when Pavel Durov, the CEO and founder of Telegram, was arrested on August 24 Le Bourget airport in France. Durov's arrest for failing to moderate content and cooperate with law enforcement underscores the ongoing challenges and controversies surrounding Telegram's role in global communication and security.

Recent Developments and Global Reactions

Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerburg have spoken against the arrest of the tech billionaire. Soon after the arrest of Durov, Musk posted on X that the arrest is direct violation of free speech. Durov, who is also called as Mark Zuckerberg of Russia, has been supported by Mark Zuckerberg. He told the House Judiciary Committee that during the pandemic, government also pressured Meta to censor its pandemic related content on its platform. This raises significant doubts about the role of technology in global political unrest.

Global Implications for Tech Platforms

While Telegram has been accused of enabling illicit activities and inciting global unrest, it is not the only platform being scrutinized for its role in fueling political agendas. Facebook and X have also faced similar allegations.

For example, during the Indian farmers’ protests, a toolkit developed by Poetic Justice Foundation was shared by climate activist Greta Thunberg, which many believed was part of a larger campaign to destabilize India. This toolkit, reportedly created even before the farmer laws, raised suspicions of a pre-planned agenda which extended far beyond justice for farmers.

Similarly, technology played a significant role during the Trump campaign in the United States. Through ‘Project Alamo,’ the Trump team was able to categorize voters using harvested Facebook data to influence voter behavior. The most notable highlight was targeting Black Americans to suppress votes through negative ads against Hillary Clinton. This operation highlighted that Governments worldwide are not simply struggling to regulate these tech giants due to a lack of understanding of AI and digital platforms; instead, many are at the heart of using technology and AI for spreading propaganda.

This operation highlights how social media platforms have been weaponized for political manipulation, a tactic that has been seen globally.

Regulatory Challenges and Potential Solutions

The regulatory framework to address such fraudulent acts often proves inadequate. After the crackdown, Facebook was asked to pay £500,000 to UK privacy Watchdog, which was worth 15 minutes of Facebook’s profit. Such minimal penalties fail to exert the right pressure on billion-dollar organizations- such as Telegram and Meta.  These organizations can easily absorb these costs without any substantial impact on their operations or reputation.

The penalties should extend beyond financial fines. What we need is a complete ban on applications that are involved in heinous crimes- and stringent regulations which on one hand should protect user privacy but at the same time curb its exploitation.

In light of these, other major tech companies, such as Meta and Apple, are actively engaged in content moderation, addressing explicit content and pornography. However, Telegram demonstrates a markedly different approach.

Telegram, the 80-billion dollar organization is run by a mere 30 employees, with minimal resources dedicated to content moderation. The platform has repeatedly exhibited a lax attitude towards the type of content shared and it seems that Telegram prioritizes user privacy over content moderation and governmental regulations. These social media platforms openly refuse to comply with governmental requests for information on criminal activities on their platforms.

Conclusion

The real cost of such an approach to user privacy is significant. It potentially facilitates the spread of harmful content while undermining efforts to address and prevent criminal activities.