First Meta, then X, and followed closely by Pavel Durov’s Telegram - recently there has been a string of clashes between domestic governments and the current ruling class of technology, where the kings of the land are held culpable for the misdeeds wrought upon their subjects. Yet the governing bodies’ decision to focus their attention on those who created the networks rather than the criminals themselves seems to be setting a precedent that prevents more crime on digital networks. In doing so, it suggests that freedom of speech, which fundamentally accompanies these social networks, is expendable.
The most recent and disconcerting of these clashes is that of Pavel Durov’s arrest by the French government on the 24th of August. The arrest occurred as part of a wider investigation into the criminal activity that takes place over Telegram. Yet Durov himself was placed under investigation for a number of charges, including complicity in managing an online platform enabling illegal transactions and refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. The illegal transactions included drug trafficking and the distribution of child sexual abuse images.
This refusal to cooperate follows a marked trend in Durov’s career as a social network owner. In 2014, with his previous venture Vkontakte - a Russian social network that Durov founded with his brother - Durov refused an FSB request to hand over the personal data of Ukrainian protesters and opposition leaders. This was during the events of Euromaidan, where President Yanukovych chose to align more closely with Russia, sacrificing a free trade agreement with the European Union.
Given his history with the law, it may be easy to paint Durov, and by extension the other major tech moguls, as figures that disregard the law in favour of the preservation of their income and reputation. Yet the patterns of behaviour that have culminated in recent governmental conflicts are seemingly brought together by the belief in freedom of speech.
This is to be expected from social network services. Their purpose is to allow their members to speak their mind at any given time. Whether it be to a single friend or the wider public, individuals are empowered to articulate their thoughts with ease. The level of accountability that governments are beginning to seek would require the social platforms to actively monitor all interactions that take place on their networks, constantly scanning them to ensure that all information does not fall below a standard that the government would deem unsavoury.
This is currently being sought after by the Brazilian government, at odds with Elon Musk’s ‘X’. In Brazil, X is banned, and on Monday 2nd of September, the Brazilian Supreme court unanimously upheld the ban. This follows a feud between Musk and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the judge who has spearheaded the suspension of dozens of X accounts for the offence of spreading disinformation. The now suspended accounts sought to instigate military intervention through a coup and the murder of opposition leaders, following former President Jair Bolsonaro’s loss in the 2022 election. Following the suspension of these X accounts, Musk closed his Brazilian offices in August, after the X legal representative in Brazil had been threatened with arrest if she did not comply with orders that X described as ‘censorship’.
In comparison to the illicit activity taking place on Durov’s Telegram, the political furore over X users seems fairly trivial. Yet the powers exercised by governments are the same. Highlighting that regardless of the crime, freedom of speech would be compromised should governments be successful in their pursuit of their technological scapegoat.
This pursuit is also alive and well in the United States where in 2021 the Biden administration allegedly pressured Zuckerberg’s teams at Meta to censor ‘disinformation’ content that centred around the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2021, the US surgeon general Vivek Murthy asserted that the misinformation was a serious threat to public health.
While Durov in particular may be blameworthy for creating and enabling the landscape for these activities to take place, through Telegram’s Secret Chat feature, holding him accountable for the crimes of others would be akin to holding a gun manufacturer culpable for a shooting. It would be more conducive for governments to direct their resources towards apprehending the true culprits of these crimes, rather than focusing on the creators of the tools.
This illustrates how government-imposed accountability can lead to limitations on the freedom of speech on these social platforms. Regardless of whether the belief in the freedom of speech that Durov and Musk so fervently proclaim is genuine, it must be protected all the same. If the social networks were to bend to the will of governments in these instances, it could pave the way for more intensive scrutiny over their platforms and in particular their users.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/TechCrunch & Schreibvieh
No image changes made.
Comments