Telegram's founder arrested by French authorities.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 13 minutes.

ICYMI.

We have two great pieces of content I wanted to make you aware of:

1. On Friday, we unlocked and sent a members-only post to all our readers where I shared 28 reflections from attending the DNC. You can read that post here.
2. On Sunday, we published a reader essay from a former member of the Minnesota National Guard who shared his perspective on the controversy around Tim Walz’s service. You can read that post here. (Paywall)

Quick hits.

1. Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign wants the microphones to be live for the duration of the Sept. 10 debate, while former President Donald Trump’s campaign says it is indifferent but wants to keep the previously agreed upon rules. (The dispute) Separately, former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI), who served in Congress as a Democrat but switched her affiliation to independent in 2022, endorsed Donald Trump for president. (The endorsement)
2. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) stating that senior Biden administration officials pressured the company to censor content related to Covid-19. Zuckerberg also said he would not fund nonprofits to assist in state election efforts as he did in 2020. (The letter)
3. Special counsel Jack Smith asked a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court’s decision to dismiss the criminal case against former President Donald Trump for his alleged mishandling of classified documents. (The appeal)
4. A federal judge in Texas paused a Biden administration policy that would give spouses of U.S. citizens legal status without having to first leave the country. (The order)
5. A privacy watchdog in the Netherlands fined Uber roughly $324 million for breaching the European Union’s rules against transferring the personal data of drivers from the EU to the U.S. (The fine)
6. BREAKING: Israel said it has rescued a Bedouin man from an underground tunnel in Gaza, making him the eighth hostage to be rescued by Israeli military operations. (The rescue)

Today's topic.

The arrest of Pavel Durov. On Saturday, French authorities arrested Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov as part of an investigation into illicit activity on the messaging app, including money laundering, drug trafficking, and child abuse. The arrest comes as governments across the globe grapple with how to best regulate social media and messaging platforms. Durov has not been formally charged but can be held for questioning until Wednesday under French law. 

Back up: The 39-year-old Russian-born Durov came to prominence when he founded VK, often called the "Russian Facebook." In 2014, he sold his stake in VK and fled Russia after refusing to comply with government demands to shut down and hand over data about opposition communities on the site to Russian authorities.

He founded Telegram in 2013, growing it to become one of the largest and most used messaging platforms in the world. It has roughly 900 million active users and is especially popular in Russia and Ukraine. The app is best known for its encryption features and stringent privacy policies for users, which has made it particularly valuable to journalists and government dissidents.

However, Telegram has also come under sharp scrutiny for lax moderation policies that have allowed criminal activities like sex trafficking, fraud, and organized crime to proliferate on the platform. After the January 6 riots at the Capitol, Durov received requests from members of Congress to access certain data on the app, which he refused.

What just happened: Durov was arrested when he landed outside Paris while traveling from Azerbaijan on his private jet. French officials had been looking into Telegram's moderation policies and potential legal infractions, specifically the trafficking of child pornography and drugs. In February, the European Union (EU) rolled out new regulations on online content moderation, which included rules about flagging illegal goods and services. Under this law — the Digital Services Act — the EU has opened an investigation into the social media platform X over “the dissemination of illegal content in the context of Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel.”

Durov has previously claimed that the United States and Russia both tried to introduce backdoors into the apps in order to access data on its users. Though he says he rebuffed those attempts, some Russian dissidents suspect the app has ties to Moscow and claim Russian authorities have used the app to locate, detain, or threaten activists. Russia has also dropped attempts to ban the app. After his arrest, the Russian embassy in France demanded consular access to Durov, while urging France to ensure his rights were being protected.

France's President Emmanuel Macron confirmed the arrest, insisting it was made as part of an ongoing investigation. Telegram did not offer details about the arrest but said it abides by European Union laws and its moderation was "within industry standards.” On Monday, French authorities released a statement outlining 12 potential offenses that led to Durov’s arrest, including allegations that Telegram has been designed to enable illegal activity.

"Telegram's CEO Pavel Durov has nothing to hide and travels frequently in Europe," Telegram said in a statement. "It is absurd to claim that a platform or its owner are responsible for abuse of that platform."

Today, we're going to share views on Durov’s arrest from the left and right — as well as some perspectives from abroad. Then, my take.

What the left is saying.

• The left thinks it’s plausible that Durov violated European laws but says authorities need to release more details about the decision to arrest him.
• Some say the move could prompt other tech companies to take content moderation more seriously. 

In Techdirt, Mike Masnick said Durov’s arrest leaves “more questions than answers.”

“Is the arrest of Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, a justified move to combat illegal activities, or is it a case of dangerous overreach that threatens privacy and free speech online? We had hoped that when French law enforcement released the details of the charges we’d have a better picture of what happened. Instead, we’re actually just left with more questions and concerns,” Masnick wrote. “The Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris released a press release with some more details about the investigation (in both French and English). All it does is leave most of the questions open, which might suggest they don’t have very good answers.”

“A lot of this does seem potentially very problematic. So far, there’s been no revelation of anything that makes me say ‘oh, well, that seems obviously illegal.’ A lot of the things listed in the charge sheet are things that lots of websites and communications providers could be said to have done themselves, though perhaps to a different degree,” Masnick said. “While it’s useful to see the details of this investigation, and it makes me lean ever so slightly in the direction of thinking these potential charges go too far, we’re still really missing many of the details. Nothing released today has calmed the concerns that this is overreach, but nothing has made it clear that it definitely is overreach either.”

In The Guardian, Chris Stokel-Walker argued arresting “Durov could be a smart move.”

“Turning the other cheek to government requests made Durov’s platform popular for those who wanted to avoid the scrutiny of other apps and digital services that regularly accede to such requests. The fact that Telegram provides encrypted messages helps. It’s not coincidental that the riots in the UK earlier this summer were organised through Telegram groups,” Stokel-Walker wrote. “But the Russian’s arrest may signal that Europe’s historic inaction – at least relative to its fighting talk – may be about to change. Europe has had a long-running antagonistic relationship with big tech, which insists its attempt to enforce strong regulation designed to limit the harms of social media is a brake on innovation.”

Durov’s arrest “is a sign that [Europe] is perhaps starting to talk the talk. A European legislative package, including the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, has given the EU the strength to attempt to rein in big tech excesses. Action and fines have already been threatened. And now that executives know what was previously unthinkable – that they might have to take personal responsibility for the actions of the companies they own – is [in] the cards,” Stokel-Walker said. “With the power those in charge of global platforms wield, it’s no bad thing for them to have a nagging fear in the back of their minds.”

What the right is saying.

• The right is critical of the arrest, suggesting France does not have the authority to charge Durov. 
• Others call the move an attack on free speech. 

For The Cato Institute, Will Duffield criticized Durov’s “unprecedented arrest.”

“Telegram’s neutrality might have become an annoyance, but this shift alone doesn’t explain Durov’s perplexing arrest. Telegram has long been more pugnacious in its relations with courts and regulators than most publicly traded platforms, but it is far from unique in offering encrypted messaging,” Duffield said. “It is hard to see how France has jurisdiction over Telegram. Telegram isn’t a French company. France might have personal jurisdiction over Durov as a French citizen, but operating a social media platform offering encryption isn’t a criminal act in France. To the extent that Durov’s arrest is related to Telegram’s platform policies rather than Durov’s private activity, France has just taken a hostage.”

“France owes Durov, Telegram users, and the internet as a whole, a rapid explanation. Its actions are already damaging its reputation as both a friend of liberty and a safe place to do business. More importantly, Durov’s opaque arrest threatens Telegram’s unique neutrality and potentially the safety of its users on both sides of the conflict. The appearance of capture can be just as damning as the real thing. If France is truly an ally committed to a free internet, it should free Pavel Durov.”

In Reason, Nick Gillespie asked “is Pavel Durov the next Julian Assange?”

Durov’s arrest “is an outrage—and a reminder that, at least on the surface, Europe and the United States have fundamentally different approaches to unregulated speech that go back centuries,” Gillespie wrote. “Durov's arrest should also serve as a reminder even to Americans who have yet to jettison governance models that seek to command and control speech. Governments and, in different and usually less effective and invasive ways, corporations and religions are still fighting a battle to control speech, freedom, and innovation despite no possible ultimate victory.”

“The distance from Julian Assange, who spent well over a decade in various forms of involuntary confinement after publishing government documents, to Durov is shorter than it might appear, and the trend always goes in one direction: The people who want to keep speech and information under lock and key go after the people who want to force transparency and hold space for more discussion. God help you if you create a way to share that information and discuss it without asking permission.”

What international writers are saying.

• Some writers abroad say the arrest highlights the EU’s efforts to rein in tech companies. 
• Others say it’s not clear whether Durov is a free speech icon or a pawn of Russia. 

The Le Monde editorial board said the “Telegram affair poses a test for the European Union.”

Telegram is “a double-edged messaging system. It is invaluable for government opponents, who can communicate free from the surveillance of dictatorial regimes. However, it also provides an encrypted platform for pedophiles, criminals, cyber-criminals and terrorists of all kinds, who can extend their networks freely. It is this second dimension that explains the arrest of Durov,” the board wrote. “Particularly exposed to terrorism and disinformation campaigns that seek to destabilize democracies, European countries are obliged to step up their vigilance, while respecting the rule of law.

“For this, the EU had to cross swords with American giants, imbued with the culture of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression, and the liberalism of the Silicon Valley – which is also concerned with preserving its capacity to innovate and its immense profits,” the board said. “Usually a man of few words, Durov is a special case… Telegram is widely used in Russia, including by the government, which protested against Durov's arrest. Perhaps the Kremlin needs to be reminded that in Europe, no one is above the law.”

In The Moscow Times, Konstantin Sonin wrote about “why Pavel Durov's detention shook both the Russian opposition and Putin's regime.”

“Unsurprisingly, free-market and free-speech absolutists were among the first to rally behind him, cherishing Telegram’s absence of moderation and its reluctance, if not outright refusal, to comply with laws and regulations. Russian opposition figures and opinion leaders, who have relied on Telegram to spread their message, also expressed concern. Yet, intriguingly, Russian military bloggers, worried about the potential for the West to access Telegram’s secrets, joined the chorus of supporters. Even Russian government officials and Putin’s propagandists — those who once pushed Durov out of business and out of the country — are now voicing their support.”

“In fact, nobody knows what Telegram shares with which governments and under what conditions. There’s no question that Putin’s secret services and intelligence agencies wanted Durov to give them control over Telegram, just as they did with VKontakte. It’s less clear how much he actually yielded,” Sonin said. “Durov’s story defies a simple narrative. What is seen as alluring laissez-faire by some is viewed as a capitalist jungle by others… He certainly made good use of the opportunities provided by Putin’s corrupt and militaristic regime, but he is also a victim of that same regime.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• We still don’t know a lot about Durov’s arrest, but it certainly gives me concerns about regulating free speech.
• There is always a push and pull between protecting individual rights and investigating real crimes with online speech moderation.
• The EU — and Russia — have different attitudes about free speech, and I worry about what this arrest means for tech platforms in the U.S.

It's only possible to discuss Durov's arrest based on what we know — and to leave some room for my opinion to change if the details do. French authorities have listed the potential charges, which mostly include "complicity" in horrible things (like the exchange of child pornography) that the platform facilitates. Still, given the limited information we have, this is the kind of arrest that makes the hair on my neck stand up. And it should make yours, too.

For starters, Durov’s arrest is a reminder that our European contemporaries have a different posture toward free speech than we do. It's hard to imagine U.S. authorities arresting Elon Musk at a New York City airport for violations of moderation policies on X, or throwing Mark Zuckerberg in jail because Facebook inadvertently allowed election misinformation to spread. Punishing companies for violating content-related laws is one thing; arresting executives for things other people are doing on their platforms is an entirely different matter.

Kate Ruane, the director of the Free Expression Project, said this to The Washington Post:

“Arresting platform executives because of their alleged failures to sufficiently moderate content, even content as disturbing and harmful as content that harms children, starts us down a dangerous road that threatens free expression and gives too much power to the government to suppress speech.”

I think that is about as succinctly as you can put it.

Seemingly the worst thing Durov has done is refuse to hand over relevant information to authorities about users on his platform who are suspected of criminal activity. This is no small thing — Telegram will have to operate within the legal boundaries of the countries where it operates, which means Durov will have to cooperate with authorities under certain circumstances. Europe has beefed up its laws on digital content moderation, and Durov’s arrest is an early flashpoint in its enforcement. French authorities claim they are primarily investigating an individual who appears not to be Durov, and perhaps they view Telegram’s CEO as an impediment to that investigation. Every country is different, and it's possible that some Telegram higher-up has violated French law by refusing to give certain information to law enforcement.

At the same time, Durov understands (rightly) that opening his platform up to authorities in any way undermines the very purpose of Telegram for many users: secure communication. It's easy to sympathize with French authorities seeking a backdoor to Telegram data while investigating the exchange of child pornography. But if Durov grants that request, he sets a precedent — what happens if French President Emmanuel Macron wants to investigate leaks from his office? What if Russian authorities want to crack down on dissidents? If a future U.S. president decides to round up “political extremists” for prosecution? 

What's perhaps most frightening about this ordeal is that it could normalize this kind of government strong-arm enforcement internationally, including here at home. As Nick Gillespie pointed out in Reason, two members of the competing presidential tickets in our election this year have already shown an ignorance or disregard for free speech laws and culture. Donald Trump has long desired to "open up" libel laws so he could sue his critics, and Tim Walz has said "there's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy." More to the point, U.S. law is similar to France's in that it does not protect platforms from prosecution over knowingly permitting transmission of sex abuse or terrorist material. If we follow Europe’s lead in dealing with these platforms, U.S. authorities could also start to crack down on similar tech.

Obviously, nobody — including me — is rooting for the free exchange of child pornography or the planning of terrorist plots. But that’s the never-ending trade-off of free speech. We accept that some people will do horrible things with their freedom, while others will use it to pursue innovative new ideas. Telegram is a perfect example of a place where freedom-seeking dissidents are just as safe as organized criminals. 

What happens next? I genuinely don't know. Durov may not be nearly as sympathetic of a character as he seems; plenty of Telegram users abroad believe he is already in cahoots with the Russian government and not exactly the free-speech warrior he has been made out to be. 

Some reporting suggests that Durov will be released as soon as Wednesday, and that perhaps the French government got a little ahead of itself. On the surface, it certainly seems that way. This looks like the kind of government overreach that we should all reject — and it could be the beginning of a long-feared government crackdown on platforms that are still very much worth fighting for.

Take the survey: What do you think of Pavel Durov’s arrest? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

Q: Hezbollah — a known terrorist organization — attacked a Druze community in Israel, killing 11 people (including children). Much of the media, including Tangle, referred to the area as “Israel-occupied Golan Heights”. I am confused — why is the land being referred to as “Israel occupied”? While that land used to be part of Syria, Israel was attacked in 1967 (starting the Six Day War) and captured that land from Syria, again as the victims of aggression, not as the attackers… am I missing something? I recognize the extreme nuance and history needed here but saying “Israel occupied” shows a significant bias.

— Julien from Cincinnati, OH

Tangle: This is a great question, and one that comes from being a sharp reader. So I appreciate the ask.

First off, I’d like to point out that Tangle did not, in fact, refer to the Golan Heights as “Israel-occupied.” We called it “Israeli-controlled,” which was an intentional distinction meant to acknowledge both sides of the debate on this issue (and to note that we were referring to the part of Golan Heights controlled by Israel, given that some of it still belongs to Syria). To your point, the expression “Israeli-occupied” is a very contentious term in the region, one that I’m well aware of, especially as it applies to the Golan Heights. 

Second, the history: Israel began occupying the Golan Heights militarily during the 1967 Six-Day War. But it wasn't until 1981 that it annexed part of the Golan it held, and it’s worth pointing out that even today it controls two-thirds of the 700 square mile region. The eastern third is now controlled by Syria, but was fought over by Syrian factions for years. A portion of the Druze community is, quite literally, stuck in the middle of this battle.

Third, let’s consider the last few decades. In 2008, Syria and Israel were discussing a full withdrawal from the region, in talks that were moderated by Turkey. Those talks ultimately broke down. In 2010, Israel began developing the Golan more aggressively, which set off a dispute among the Golan Druze living there. Some applied to be Israeli citizens, and many are loyal to Israel, but others still affirm their loyalty to Syria. It is, simply put, very complicated. Today, the only country that recognizes Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights is the United States (the Golan is viewed as occupied territory by the United Nations and under international law). Given that status, it’s fair to qualify it when describing it as part of Israel.

These kinds of editorial choices are always hard. We’ve explained how we make choices like this on issues like abortion, race, and immigration, and this is just another topic where we try to walk a line that is both accurate and acceptable to the widest range of readers. Some, like you, believe the Golan Heights is part of Israel. Others (the majority of the world) believe that Israel is occupying it. We landed on “Israeli-controlled,” which is both accurate and recognizes both perspectives.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On Monday, the National Park Foundation (NPF) announced it had received the largest gift in the organization’s history: a $100 million grant from an Indiana-based philanthropic endowment. Created by Congress in 1967, the NPF is the official nonprofit of the National Park Service that enables private citizens and organizations to support the Park Service through financial and land donations. The $100 million award will likely be shared among hundreds of national park sites, and the NPF’s CEO said the organization hopes to announce an initial round of grants by the end of the year. The Hill has the story.

Numbers.

• $15.5 billion. Pavel Durov’s estimated net worth, according to Forbes.
• 900 million. The approximate number of monthly Telegram users. 
• 100 million. The approximate number of total Telegram downloads in Russia, roughly 10% of the app's total downloads, according to World Population Review. 
• 20 million. The approximate number of total Telegram downloads in the United States. 
• #8. Telegram’s rank among the most popular social networks worldwide based on monthly active users, according to Statista. 
• +300%. The approximate percent increase in Telegram users between March 2018 and July 2023. 
• 49%. The percentage of Americans who want to increase regulation of tech companies, according to a 2021 survey from The Cato Institute. 
• 58%. The percentage of Americans who believe social media companies are better than the government at content moderation. 
• 73%. The percentage of Americans who believe that lawmakers and regulators don’t understand technology and technology companies well enough to regulate them wisely. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just released a Friday mailbag edition.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was our reader essay on Tim Walz’s National Guard service.
• Nothing to do with politics: Boston Red Sox catcher becomes the first baseball player to play for two teams in the same game.
• Yesterday’s survey: 1,034 readers responded to our survey on whether the presidential race would have been better off with RFK fully involved with 45% saying it would have been improved. “I really wish our system gave third party candidates a chance,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

In India, a number of states provide bicycles free of charge to many girls attending school in an effort to support their enrollment. The program began in 2004 and similar initiatives exist in other nations, including Colombia, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Indian girls dropped out of school more than their male counterparts, often due to household responsibilities and a distance barrier to school. Nibha Kumari, who received a bicycle as a teenager, reflected, “If I didn’t have a cycle, I don’t think I could have finished high school. It changed my life.” BBC has the story. 

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 120,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!