Recently, the application Telegram has become a topic of discussion due to concurrent developments involving regulatory restrictions in Russia, judicial investigations related to its founder, and research and security reports discussing the use of some of its channels in illegal activities. These facts do not illustrate a single narrative but rather open up a broader discussion about the nature of digital platforms and their responsibilities.

Russian restrictions and their context

Last week, Russian authorities began restricting access to Telegram, accusing the application of refusing to remove content they describe as “criminal and terrorist.” The Russian Federal Agency for Communications announced that the restrictions would continue until what it views as legal violations are addressed, while the Tass agency reported that the platform faces financial penalties for failing to regulate content.

Thousands of service disruption complaints were reported, according to the Downdetector website. Conversely, the application’s founder, Pavel Durov, stated that attempts to restrict the platform “will fail,” affirming that Telegram stands for freedom of expression and privacy.

This move fits within a broader Russian trend to enhance what is known as “digital sovereignty,” as Moscow promotes an alternative state-run application called MAX, pre-installed on some new devices. Russia had previously tried to ban Telegram in 2018 before later reversing the decision.

Background of the app founder

According to the EL PAÍS newspaper, Pavel Durov is viewed as a tech pioneer who presents himself as a defender of users’ freedom against government interference. He previously founded the VKontakte network in Russia before leaving the country in 2014 following disputes with the authorities, then launched Telegram, which has hundreds of millions of monthly active users worldwide.

Pavel Durov was placed under investigation in France in August 2024 concerning the platform’s responsibility for illegal activities suspected of occurring via Telegram, including issues related to insufficient collaboration with authorities in combating certain digital crimes. The legal proceedings are ongoing, with no final judgment issued.

Research and security reports

Academically, a study published on the arXiv platform analyzed 339 channels linked to digital criminal activities, reaching over 23 million users. According to the study’s results, these channels included trading hacked data, malicious software, and phishing links, while 196 channels closed within three months after being reported, with some activities moving to alternative channels.

Telegram logo. (Websites)

In a related context, the company Kaspersky issued a statement in July 2024 indicating that its Digital Footprint Intelligence team had detected a 53% increase in posts related to criminal activities on Telegram channels during May–June 2024 compared to the same period the previous year.

According to the statement, these activities included discussing fraud schemes, trading leaked databases, and selling services such as Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks as a service.

Analysts at the company noted that the ease of creating channels and the absence of a reputation system similar to dark web forums might attract some criminal actors. However, this does not imply that these activities represent the predominant use of Telegram, which is widely used for legitimate communication purposes by hundreds of millions worldwide.

Between varied uses and regulation

Apart from these reports, some media and research studies have addressed cases in which public channels on Telegram were used to spread misinformation or to coordinate controversial political activities in specific contexts.

In summary, Telegram’s case intersects political, legal, and technical considerations. The application is presented as a space for enhancing privacy and freedom of expression, while official and research reports highlight challenges related to content supervision and preventing misuse. Between these two dimensions, the debate remains open on how to achieve a practical balance between protecting digital freedoms, ensuring compliance with the law, and reducing security risks.