Telegram abides by EU laws, including the Digital Services Act

Platform responsibility & moderation

• Central dispute: whether it is “absurd” to hold a platform or its owner responsible for abuse on the platform.
• Critics argue Telegram is a major hub for drug markets, malware, CSAM, and revenge porn, and often ignores takedown requests, citing academic studies and government complaints.
• Others counter that they have successfully reported and had scam/drug channels removed, suggesting uneven or context‑dependent enforcement (public vs private spaces).
• Comparisons:
  • Meta/Facebook/Instagram seen as also full of scams, drugs, and abuse, with weak or inconsistent moderation despite formal policies.
  • Some argue the key difference is that Meta at least claims to enforce rules and cooperates with regulators, while Telegram’s rhetoric denies responsibility.
  • Several note Instagram is identified in research as the primary platform for networks selling illicit sexual content involving minors.

Law, liability & the Digital Services Act (DSA)

• Multiple comments insist EU law does impose duties on platforms regarding illegal content; if Telegram says otherwise, it is either misreading the law or rejecting it.
• Others note the DSA is being invoked rhetorically in Telegram’s defense, but the CEO’s arrest is formally under French law, not the DSA.
• There is debate over whether other large platforms quietly grant governments access to user data and whether non‑cooperation by Telegram is the true irritant for authorities. Claims here are contested and details are unclear.

Durov’s arrest & motivations

• Some see the arrest as selective enforcement or politically motivated, especially given lack of detailed public charges and wartime context (Ukraine–Russia, Russian use of Telegram).
• Others stress that hosting massive amounts of CSAM and other serious crimes in public channels, while failing to cooperate with law enforcement, can legitimately trigger criminal liability, analogized to Tor exit operators hosting abuse content.
• A number of commenters emphasize insufficient information: what exactly Telegram failed to do, which laws were violated, and how French vs EU roles interact remain unclear.

EU messaging apps & regulation vs innovation

• Discussion of whether the EU should or does have its own secure messaging: Matrix, Wire, Threema, and government‑specific systems (e.g., Tchap) are mentioned, but none are seen as a universal EU “official” alternative.
• Broader debate on EU regulation:
  • Critics portray the EU as anti‑innovation, overly protective of incumbents, and hostile to startups, comparing unfavorably to the US.
  • Defenders argue EU rules prioritize workers’ and consumers’ rights over business convenience, and that many Europeans prefer this trade‑off even if it slows some forms of innovation.
  • There is extended back‑and‑forth on social mobility, living standards, and cultural attitudes toward work, risk, and wealth in Europe vs North America, with no consensus.

States vs the internet

• One subthread revives the idea that the internet will ultimately erode state power (censorship, surveillance, control over money and trade).
• Most replies are skeptical, pointing out that physical infrastructure, borders, and coercive power remain decisive, and that state involvement in policing the internet has generally increased, not decreased.