Opinion / Chiara Rimella
Getting the message
Messaging app Telegram has a spotty record. Protesters in Belarus, Hong Kong and Iran have used the platform to co-ordinate their efforts in pro-democracy demonstrations and it has been a bastion of free speech in countries where the media is restricted. It was also the medium by which Capitol rioters were able to connect and spread misinformation unchecked.
Both these uses are at play during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Many Ukrainians use this Whatsapp-Twitter hybrid to get live updates on the war and many Russians use it to access information, especially now that most independent outlets, foreign media and social-media platforms have been curtailed. Russian propaganda is also rampant on Telegram: its Russian-born founder Pavel Durov (pictured) recognised this when he announced that his app was “increasingly becoming a source of unverified information”.
Is a lack of trustworthiness the price to pay when access to information is so difficult and so crucial in Ukraine and Russia? And, whether you think of it as a media lifeline or a necessary evil, what does Telegram’s success tell us of our willingness to compromise on accuracy? Durov has clashed with the Kremlin in the past. The first time was when his former social networking site V Kontakte refused to censor anti-government protesters; the second when he refused to hand over Ukrainians’ data following the 2014 invasion of Crimea. Durov has since fled the country.
Today, he and a small group of colleagues continue to refuse to be cowed by the Kremlin, though messages on Telegram are not encrypted unless users decide to opt for “secret chat mode”. Placing so much responsibility in the hands of a single social-media company is a risky thing to do. For now, many are grateful that Telegram exists but in the long run, unregulated social media platforms can’t and shouldn’t be a replacement for news that we can genuinely trust.