The past few weeks have been a wake-up call for social media companies who thought they were free to ignore the laws of the countries they operated in.
Late last month, Pavel Durov was arrested and charged in France for offences relating to his social media and messaging platform Telegram. He faces charges relating to allowing crimes to happen on the platform and refusing to hand over documents to law enforcement that he was legally required to. For those not familiar, the messaging and social media app has 900 million users and is popular with people ranging from crank conspiracy theorists to Russian generals to European leaders.
Then, over the weekend, X, formerly Twitter, was taken offline in Brazil after a Supreme Court judge ordered that it be blocked. Judge Alexandre de Moraes made the decision after X owner Elon Musk failed to appoint a legal representative for the company amid an ongoing case over the platform refusing to comply with an order to ban accounts accused of spreading disinformation.
Supporters of Durov and Musk have argued that these examples represent attacks on free speech. And there’s no doubt that these disputes relate to domestic laws concerning the regulation of speech. But what’s really happened is that both Telegram and X have flown past the “fuck around” stage and landed squarely in the “find out” part of pretending a country’s laws and rules don’t apply to them while they operate there.
In both cases, these platforms have prided themselves on their light moderation. This has allowed scams, crimes and viral bullshit to run rife. Whether it’s purely ideological or partly motivated by the fact that turning a blind eye reduces the significant cost of moderation, the end result is the same.
Musk and Durov are well within their rights to decide to run social media platforms how they like. However, that does not mean they are immune to the consequences of their actions. X and Durov have both been ensnared due to their refusal to comply with their legal obligations. According to the preliminary charges, Telegram has not assisted law enforcement with fighting problems like the child sexual abuse material that’s abundant on the platform. Similarly, a court ordered X to ban seven accounts accused of spreading disinformation following Brazil’s January 2023 capital uprising, but Musk has refused to comply.
Assuming that both Durov and Musk are champions of free speech — and thereby deciding any attempts to force them to comply with local laws is anti-free speech — buys into a simplistic and misleading narrative that benefits exceedingly wealthy men hoping to defy the expectations of democratic nations that they don’t agree with.
Telegram is notorious for routinely ignoring requests for information from regulators and law enforcement agencies. This is not simply an issue of free speech. The company claims to act on child sexual abuse but does not take part in any transparency measures that would prove this, or cooperate with any of the international technology programs that most other social media companies (even X) take part in. Some of France’s charges relate to the proliferation of this content on the Telegram platform. Child sexual abuse material may technically be a form of speech, but even the most ardent advocate would be loathe to explicitly defend it.
Similarly, Musk’s behaviour shows that his commitment to free speech is typically limited to his own self-interest. X has complied with government censorship before in countries like India, and refuses to say a bad word about China. Why? Well, the fact that Musk also owns companies like Tesla that depend or hope to capitalise on these countries may be relevant. He also notoriously uses non-disclosure agreements.
Even if we were to debate this on the grounds of free speech, it’s not clear this would be favourable to these two tech barons. It’s easy to get caught up in the online discourse about free speech, but much of it revolves around America’s extremely limited restrictions on speech. The reality is the majority of Australians want to see the internet more regulated. The vast majority sided with Australian regulators over Elon Musk in another internet stoush. Being a free speech absolutist is an extreme position, even if it might not feel that way when you spend time in online spaces where these issues are debated. It’s worth mentioning, too, that at least some of the charges for Durov are related to providing encryption services. The details of these remain to be seen but these unprecedented charges may in fact be a genuine attack on free speech.
But really, this debate is not about that — or at least, not primarily. This is about two companies who pick and choose when to champion free speech, and when to ignore it, or choose to twist its definition to mean something else altogether. As Musk accuses the Brazilian judge of being an evil dictator, consider this comparison: the legal systems of two democratic nations versus two tech oligarchs, elected by no-one, flaunting the rules of the countries they choose to operate in. Who do you think is exerting unchecked and extreme power over the way we are allowed to talk?
Do you agree with Musk and Pavel’s positions on free speech? How much oversight should governments have of platforms like Telegram and X? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
