Amazon co-founder MacKenzie Scott has donated over $19 billion to charity in just five years
Diamond batteries powered by nuclear waste promise 28,000 years of clean energy
An Official Message from Telegram
Telegram recently issued a new message to all its users. In this communication, the platform claims that the European Union nearly passed a law that would allow scanning of all private messages. It specifically accuses France of spearheading this initiative, supported by several ministers and the ruling party. The message suggests that only ordinary citizens would be monitored, while criminals would find ways to circumvent the law. Germany is depicted as the sole defender of privacy.
A Well-Executed Communication Strategy
This is not the first instance of Telegram sending out such messages. For several months, the app has openly criticized France. In May, a message already claimed that the French government was attempting to censor certain political opinions, and more recently regarding the Moldovan elections. Each time, the tone is consistent: Telegram portrays itself as the last bastion of privacy, opposing states that seek to exert total control.
These messages are not sent randomly. They are part of a strategy led by Pavel Durov, the CEO of Telegram. He frequently uses the app to share his political stances directly, bypassing traditional media outlets. He primarily targets countries that seek to limit the use of encryption, including France.
A Tense Legal Context
Pavel Durov is at odds with the French authorities. He is set to be indicted in 2024 for failing to cooperate with the judiciary in matters related to Telegram. Since then, he has remained highly critical of the government. The message from October 14th also needs to be viewed in this context.
Telegram aims to galvanize its users against European legislative proposals that seek to combat certain illegal contents. However, by simplifying and exaggerating the truth, the platform does blur the lines quite a bit.
What’s the Takeaway?
Telegram is no longer just a messaging tool: the app now uses its user base to pressure governments. The core of the debate is real, and regulations or measures aimed at curtailing user privacy are a legitimate concern, but the method is questionable. This message seems more like a political attack than a genuine alert about digital freedoms. Don’t you think?