How has Telegram defended itself against accusations of inaction?

Question

Accepted Answer

Telegram has said it was not inactive and that it uses proactive measures that require more moderation

Telegram has defended itself against accusations of inaction by arguing that it does not allow its services to be used for unlawful activity and by saying it was mischaracterised as being inactive. In court filings and emails, the company said it acts against unlawful content and that the dispute is being shaped by how meeting records were presented. It also argued that its ability to proactively detect certain kinds of exam-related material depends on moderation, rather than being absent.
Telegram told officials it was not inactive on unlawful content
Telegram responded to the government’s claim of “inaction” by stating it was “surprised at the suggestion” that it had been inactive in addressing unlawful content. It also said it does not permit the use of its services for any unlawful activity, framing the allegation as an incorrect portrayal of its conduct.
Telegram said it had proactive measures, but they require more moderation
Telegram’s position in correspondence focused on the nature of the content it was being asked to detect. In a meeting discussion captured in government minutes, Telegram was described as having limitations in proactively detecting “more subjective” content linked to exams, as opposed to “objective issues” such as child sexual material and pornography. Telegram disputed that framing in a June 5 email, saying it was not that it did not have proactive measures for such content, but that those measures require more moderation.
Telegram challenged the government’s account of meeting discussions in court
In its court petition against the ban, Telegram went further by attacking the accuracy of the government’s meeting record. It called the minutes a “one-sided and inaccurate account of the discussions” and said they “deliberately” omitted details of the company’s proactive processes. The government has not yet responded to these allegations in court.
Telegram linked the ban to a broader punishment of users
Telegram’s founder Pavel Durov also criticised the ban as a “mistake” that punishes users while leaked content could move to other apps. This broader argument accompanied Telegram’s technical and procedural rebuttals about its handling of unlawful content and how officials characterised its actions.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How has Telegram defended itself against accusations of inaction?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends