CEO of Telegram claims France’s intelligence services tried to use him to influence Moldova’s elections

• Telegram CEO Pavel Durov alleges French intelligence attempted to coerce him into removing Moldovan channels ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
• Durov claims the offer included a quid pro quo involving favorable treatment in his legal case.
• Telegram removed some channels that violated its policies but refused to comply with further demands.
• The French government disputes Durov’s claims, citing previous denials of similar accusations.
• Durov remains under judicial supervision in France and is a central figure in debates over freedom of speech and digital censorship.

French intelligence services are under scrutiny for allegedly attempting to pressure Telegram CEO Pavel Durov to remove certain Moldovan channels from the platform ahead of last year’s presidential election. Durov, who was arrested in August 2024 on charges related to alleged crimes committed by Telegram users, made this bombshell revelation in a viral post on X. The allegations have sparked intense debate about the balance between national security and freedom of speech, particularly in the digital realm. Here’s what happened and why it matters.

The initial contact and subsequent requests

In a series of exchanges with French intelligence through an intermediary, Durov claims that he was approached while under judicial supervision in France. The initial request involved the removal of several Moldovan channels that authorities believed were violating Telegram’s terms of service. Durov and his team reviewed the flagged content and removed a few channels that indeed violated the platform’s rules. However, the pressure intensified when the intermediary offered a quid pro quo: in exchange for expanded cooperation, French intelligence promised to “put in a good word” with the judge overseeing Durov’s case. This offer, according to Durov, was both unethical and unacceptably invasive. “This was a blatant attempt to manipulate justice,” Durov wrote on X, describing it as an exploitation of his legal vulnerability to sway Eastern European politics.

Telegram’s response and maintenance of free speech principles

Telegram refused to comply with further requests, even when a second list of “problematic” channels was presented. Durov asserts that nearly all of these channels were legitimate and fully compliant with Telegram’s rules, their alleged violation stemming solely from political opposition to the French and Moldovan governments. “Telegram stands for free speech,” Durov emphasized. “We will not remove content for political reasons, and I’ll keep exposing every attempt to bully our platform.”

Censorship and other attacks on free speech becoming the norm

Durov’s allegations come at a time when discussions about digital censorship and government oversight of online content are increasingly contentious. The arrest of Pavel Durov in August 2024, following suspicions that Telegram was used for extremism and child abuse, highlighted the tension between user privacy and national security. The platform’s subsequent shift in data-sharing policies—agreeing to hand over more user information to law enforcement, including phone numbers and IP addresses—signaled a significant departure from Telegram’s previous stance. These changes were made following intense pressure from law enforcement agencies and a series of court rulings that underscored the platform’s vulnerabilities in the face of legal scrutiny.

On the brink of another heated election

Moldova is gearing up for a pivotal parliamentary election, which pits President Maia Sandu’s pro-EU Action and Solidarity Party against the Patriotic Electoral Bloc. The stakes are high, and the involvement of external voices in the political discourse has the potential to inflame tensions further. Durov’s allegations not only raise questions about France’s role in Moldova’s internal affairs but also the ethical implications of using political pressure to influence judicial outcomes. Telegram’s commitment to free speech and its resistance to political interference mark a critical stand for civil liberties in the digital age.

Upholding digital democracy

As Pavel Durov prepares to expose further details about the attempted coercion, the broader implications of his accusations cannot be overstated. His steadfast defense of free speech and resistance to political pressure illustrate the importance of maintaining a free and open internet, even in the face of legal challenges and external pressures. The French government’s tepid response and previous denials of similar accusations hint at a broader struggle over the balance of power between governments and digital platforms. As the world watches, the integrity of internet freedom is once again under the microscope, with the fate of digital democracy hanging in the balance.

Sources for this article include:

ZeroHedge.com

Mitrade.com

MSN.com