How Telegram Became the Battlefield for Democracy and Deception!

Dear readers,

I originally hesitated to include this piece in my newsletter, but after sharing it on social media and receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback, I felt compelled to share it here as well. I believe it’s a conversation worth having, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could help spread this commentary. We need more in-depth discussions on this topic, and your support would make a significant difference.

Telegram transcends ideological boundaries, and isn't a monolithic echo chamber for any single worldview - be it far-right, far-left, pro-NATO, or pro-Russian. Rather, Telegram stands as a bastion of unfettered communication, a neutral ground where ideas clash and coalesce without predetermined allegiances. The current debate transcends simplistic labels of "far-right" or "tech bros." It's not about crafting more laws to muzzle expression. This is a pivotal battle for the very soul of democracy and the sanctity of free speech. We stand at a crossroads where the fundamental pillars of open discourse are under siege. This isn't a skirmish between ideological factions or a tug-of-war with Silicon Valley. It's a defining moment that will shape the future of human communication and societal progress.

Historical and Geopolitical Context

During the 2020 civil unrest in Belarus, Telegram emerged as a vital channel for sharing credible information when the government took down the internet for several days, highlighting the app's critical role in scenarios where free speech is restricted. This importance was mirrored in Russia during the mobilization efforts to support opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Both Russian and Belarusian authorities have attempted to block Telegram, not for its encryption, but due to its refusal to provide user data and its utility in organizing dissent. Telegram was celebrated by the liberal left and gave freedom to the oppressed.

Telegram's Utilization in Warfare and Intelligence

The use of Telegram surged in Ukraine after the 2022 invasion. According to a survey, over 63% of Ukrainians adopted the platform, with Russian usage also increasing by 66% in the initial five months of the conflict. Both the Ukrainian and Russian military leveraged Telegram to collect intelligence on troop movements. The Ukraine Government and President Volodymyr Zelensky, used it extensively to broadcast vital updates and pro-Ukraine narratives. And in Russia, Telegram channels promote pro-Kremlin narratives. Telegram is a platform for psychological warfare (PsyOps).

Telegram's global user base now stands at 900 million, with significant adoption in Russia and Ukraine. Although the platform offers encrypted messaging options, most users opt for standard, non-encrypted messages, which are stored on central servers. This has made Telegram a valuable resource for intelligence agencies and military analysts seeking real-time open-source intelligence.

Every intelligence agency and startup already has access to the data. Take startups like Panopsis, for example—they’re leveraging Telegram data, satellite imagery, and news sources combined with multi-modal AI to track civilian information, military communications, and Open Source Intelligence. This raw data is then transformed into knowledge graphs and presented as Short Reports (SPOTREP), even allowing users to interact with these reports in a chat format. So, this isn't about gaining access to all public Telegram data; it’s about how that data is being utilized.

Critique of Western Motivations and Actions

There are valid reasons to be skeptical about whether NATO countries, such as France, are genuinely moderating platforms like Telegram to address issues like hate speech, child pornography, or drug trafficking. These serious concerns are often used as pretexts for implementing digital surveillance and content moderation, which can be a deceptive and risky approach in areas of great consequence. By cloaking agendas in the fight against serious crimes, governments may curate a facade of heroism. Labeling such measures as essential for "democracy" or as tools to fight "online disinformation" can lead them down a path of manipulation, misinformation, and authoritarianism. This method of governing and communicating with the public brings up serious doubts about the state of democracy. It implies a condescending view that the public is unable to comprehend or handle democratic processes, leading to governance where a few dictate terms without inclusive dialogue or consent.

Broader Implications for Democracy

Democracy flourishes in an environment of openness, not in the dark. When leaders assert that they are safeguarding justice while actually restricting information access, they act not as protectors but as precursors to a more controlled future. Using the fight against crimes like child exploitation or drug trafficking as justifications for extensive censorship is not only misleading but perilous. This approach can set the stage for a system filled with biased information, dishonesty, and slowly encroaching authoritarianism. Such strategies directly challenge the principles of democracy they aim to uphold, setting up a scenario where freedoms need to be curtailed to preserve order. This troubling trend can inadvertently cause a degradation of trust and liberty, pushing societies toward autocratic tendencies under the pretense of maintaining security. Censorship or moderation could make it impossible not only to express a dissenting opinion, but to think it at all.

Historical Context of Psychological Operations

Historically, psychological operations (#PsyOps) have played crucial roles in conflicts, dating back to World War I and the Korean War, where propaganda significantly influenced enemy soldiers and civilian populations. In today's digital age, Telegram acts as a pivotal "social media bridge" between the Western and Russian worlds, offering a platform for cross-cultural perspectives on global events. This dichotomy presents Telegram as a contemporary tool for truth and manipulation, echoing the thematic choices of reality versus illusion seen in films like "The Matrix."

Conclusion and Reflection on Free Speech

As debates over content moderation and the role of digital platforms intensify, the paramount challenge becomes not just a technical or policy issue, but a profound battle to safeguard the very bedrock of democracy and free speech. Throughout history, censorship has often marched in lockstep with propaganda, not merely to filter information but to systematically enforce a singular worldview and silence dissent.

The stakes are monumental: it is about protecting the diversity of thought and the democratic discourse essential for a free society.

"Where they burn books, they will also burn people" Heinrich Heine.