Denying someone a platform is not censorship, it’s just editing

For defenders of the right to free speech — and anyone who read these pages last week will know that I am one — the encrypted messaging app Telegram presents something of a conundrum.

I cannot remember when I signed up to the app, or why: probably idle curiosity. I have never used it to send a message, nor am I likely to, since I am not an organized criminal, a child pornographer, a drug trafficker, a fraudster, a money launderer, a pro-war Russian military blogger or a senior officer in the armed forces currently invading Ukraine.

That motley crew constitute most of Telegram’s user base. They and others are up in arms at the detention in Paris of Pavel Durov, the creator of Telegram, on charges of complicity and negligence over the app’s use for criminal activity and failing to cooperate with investigators. Critics view Durov’s arrest as a threat to free speech and many of the usual suspects have been swift to man the barricades.

Critics view Durov’s arrest as a threat to free speech and many of the usual suspects have been swift to man the barricades

Ross Anderson

Elon Musk, fresh from confidently predicting civil war in the UK, created a #FreePavel hashtag and told his 195 million followers on X: “It’s 2030 in Europe and you’re being executed for liking a meme,” thus further illustrating that foretelling the future is not his strong suit. The brain-wormed, bear corpse-dumping, anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., erstwhile US presidential candidate, was also worried. “The need to protect free speech has never been more urgent,” he said. And bringing up the rear was the former TV host Tucker Carlson, who declared that Durov’s arrest was “a living warning to any platform owner who refuses to censor the truth” — which you might think was a bit rich coming from a man fired by Fox News.

Musk in particular is a stalwart defender of free speech, except when it could harm his companies’ profits. For example, X’s content guidelines warn users: “If we receive a valid and properly scoped request from an authorized entity, it may be necessary to withhold access to certain content in a particular country.” And the platform in its entirety is banned in China, but Musk is cool with that for as long as the Chinese permit him to manufacture his Teslas there.

Fortunately, however, we are not here to judge Durov by his supporters. The issues are, first, whether his arrest is really a threat to free speech; and, second, whether the sort of free speech that proliferates on Telegram deserves protection in the first place.

The phrase ‘the medium is the message’ is not true. It is important to distinguish between the medium and the message

Ross Anderson

Both defenders and critics of Telegram are, I think, making the same mistake that the Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan made in 1964, when he wrote: “The medium is the message.” It is a telling phrase and it gained McLuhan the attention he sought, but it is not true. It is important to distinguish between the medium and the message.

The editor of Arab News, if he wished, could open the opinion pages of this newspaper to writers who wished to preach hate. In choosing not to do so, he exercises responsible editorial judgment. Exactly the same option is open to the owners of social media platforms — and I would argue that it is not only their responsibility, but also their duty.

Denying someone a platform to spout, for example, Islamophobia or antisemitism, is not censorship or the denial of free speech — it is simple editing, and it silences no one. Anyone who wishes to is free to obtain a soapbox, stand on the corner of the street and say whatever they want, within the law of whichever country they happen to be in: no editor, or social media platform owner, can stop them.

• Ross Anderson is associate editor of Arab News.