the founder of Telegram charges against Pedro Sánchez and sends a massive message
He package of measures of the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, to regulate social networks has not only aroused the ire of Elon Musk, who has launched several disqualifications through X. It has also provoked a reaction from the CEO and co-founder of Telegram. Pável Dúrov is sending a message this afternoon to Spanish users of the platform in which he frontally rejects the proposal and warns of what, in his opinion, would be its consequences. Hey, you have a message from Durov. If you use Telegram and have a Spanish number, it is very likely that this afternoon you received an unusual notification. The official ‘Telegram’ bot, the same one usually used for security communications such as login codes, displays a message forwarded from the channel @durov. “The government of Pedro Sánchez is promoting new dangerous regulations that threaten your freedoms on the internet,” the text begins. From there, Dúrov promises to “explain” why he considers that the package of measures represents an alarm signal for freedom of expression and privacy. Durov Dúrov’s message translated into Spanish in the Telegram bot Against the prohibition of social networks for minors under 16 years of age. One of the central criticisms of the founder of Telegram points to the proposal to restrict the access of minors under 16 years of age to social networks. Dúrov maintains that such a measure, in practice, would imply strict identity verification controls that would go beyond that age group, citing formulas such as DNI or biometrics. “It sets a precedent for tracking the identity of EVERY user, eroding anonymity and opening doors to mass data collection,” he says. “What starts with minors could spread to everyone, stifling open debate,” he adds. Here it is important to clarify something important: for now, the Government has not fully detailed what specific technical measures would be applied for this age verification, nor how they would be implemented in practice. That is to say, Dúrov’s interpretation is based on a harsh scenario, but the actual implementation will depend on how the initiative ends up being drafted and the mechanism chosen to apply it. Risks of “overcensorship”. The message also focuses on another point of the proposal: tightening the responsibility of the platforms, including their managers, if they do not remove content considered illegal or hateful. According to Dúrov, this would push companies to act preventively and aggressively, with a clear collateral effect on public debate: “this will force over-censorship—the platforms will delete anything minimally controversial to avoid risks, silencing political dissidence, journalism and everyday opinions.” And what about the algorithm? The initiative also proposes legally punishing the manipulation of algorithms and the deliberate amplification of illegal content. Dúrov interprets this point as a potential paradigm shift: that the control of the order of what we see on the Internet becomes a regulated matter with room for political intervention. “Governments will dictate what you see, burying opposing opinions and creating state-controlled echo chambers,” he writes. In the same block, he warns that these types of measures would end up affecting the free circulation of ideas. Measures against polarization. Another leg of the package is the creation of a system described as a “footprint of hate and polarization,” which would quantify how platforms amplify social division and serve as a basis for future sanctions. Durov dwells especially on this point, questioning the fit of categories that, in his opinion, are too open and moldable: “vague definitions of ‘hate’ could label criticism of the government as divisive, leading to closures or fines. This can be a tool to suppress the opposition.” A message without gray, waiting for the small print. Overall, Dúrov presents the proposal as an inseparable block of threats against freedom of expression and privacy, hardly distinguishing between measures or opening room for nuances. It is a reading aligned with Telegram’s usual narrative, which tends to frame regulation as a direct risk to digital rights. But it also leaves a decisive factor in the background: several parts of the plan, as we say, are still pending completion, both in its final formulation and in its technical implementation. Telegram does not come to this debate from scratch. Dúrov’s intervention also occurs in a complicated context for the platform. Telegram has been under the spotlight for some time due to the role played by some channels and groups in the dissemination of content that is difficult to moderate, and due to the recurring debates about responsibility and cooperation with authorities. Added to this is that the founder has been noted in France in the framework of investigations linked to the use of Telegram against criminal activities and certain illegal content. This history helps to understand why these types of messages are not just political criticism. Images | Dima Solomin | Moncloa In Xataka | We don’t know if banning social media for those under 16 is going to solve the problem. Yes we know that it will generate others
