Durov has become a hero in the eyes of those who champion an internet free of mediation, including those in cryptocurrency, even if that freedom leads to people using that network for all kinds of morally problematic and even illegal things. But Telegram, which is the channel of choice for nearly everyone in Web3, is not exactly the encrypted nirvana we might want, ideally. As tech journalist Casey Newton explains:
“Telegram is often described as an ‘encrypted’ messenger. But as Ben Thompson explains today, Telegram is not end-to-end encrypted, as rivals WhatsApp and Signal are. (Its ‘secret chat’ feature is end-to-end encrypted, but it is not enabled on chats by default. The vast majority of chats on Telegram are not secret chats.) That means Telegram can look at the contents of private messages, making it vulnerable to law enforcement requests for that data.”
Durov has often presented Telegram as a “secure messenger,” but outside of its secret chat function, the service is more open to government intrusion than Signal, WhatsApp and iMessage. Telegram is not Bitcoin, where transactions are unstoppable. It’s not a blockchain, which accords privacy in a different way from something like Telegram, which, structurally, is both a free speech haven and a honeypot for intermediaries, whether criminal or governmental.
The beauty of blockchains is we don’t have to debate the motivations and machinations of men like Elon Musk, Pavel Durov, and Mark Zuckerberg. The freedom of expression is baked into the code. The free-speech principles at play in Durov’s case should clearly have the crypto community’s support. But ideally we would have public online commons that are genuinely free from government intrusion and the whims of single men, however well-meaning.
Comments (No)