The West slam HK for the slightest attempts to regulate Telegram during riots, and now crack down the platform without a blink

Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram—the world's largest social media and communication platform—was recently arrested in France. The arrest was reportedly about the lack of moderation of the messaging app, its failure to cooperate with law enforcement and take steps to curb criminal uses of the platform. However, a deeper reason appears to be the platform's "unregulated" political influence, which could potentially be exploited for interference. A legal expert has noted that the arrest has torn down the façade of the hypocritic notion of "freedom of information and speech" championed by the governments in the West all the time. They fire harsh criticism on Hong Kong no matter what the situation, but are quick to turn around and impose severe restrictions when faced with an uncontrollable internet reality that threatens public order and security.

He highlighted that during the riots sparked off by anti-extradition protests in Hong Kong five years ago, Telegram had become a command centre, organizing and coordinating violent activities. Tens of thousands of radicals joined groups on the platform, leading to widespread horrible violence and chaos. Despite the time, authorities hesitated to impose strict controls, fearing accusations of suppressing internet freedom. Now we can see that the French and British governments have taken decisive action against Telegram. The Hong Kong government should take note and not be overly concerned about criticisms from these countries.

Originally a Russian citizen, Durov later obtained citizenship in France and the United Arab Emirates. Since its launch in 2013, Telegram has gained popularity in various countries due to its strong encryption, high level of anonymity, and the ability to join without registering a personal phone number. These features, combined with the platform's capacity to host groups of up to 100,000 users—far exceeding that of WhatsApp—have made it a widely used communication tool. As of July this year, Telegram's global user base had reached an astonishing 950 million.

Unlike platforms such as Google, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter), which generally comply with government requests for user data when legally compelled, Telegram has gained a reputation for defiance, often refusing to cooperate with authorities and remaining beyond control.

Despite their frequent assertions of "defending freedom," the governments of France, the UK, and the US are highly vigilant against "external forces" using social media to interfere in politics and do not tolerate online activities that disrupt public order. Legal experts argue that while the French authorities claim that Telegram "facilitates crime," their real concern is that the platform could be used as a tool for political interference.

The British government has also accused Telegram of being the driving force behind recent anti-immigration riots, with far-right groups exploiting this "lawless space" to incite the public. The new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, has made it clear that online offenders will not be spared, including platform management and owners, suggesting that the British government may also have played a role in the crackdown on Durov.

Hong Kong experienced the challenges posed by Telegram even earlier than the French and British governments. Legal experts recalled a shocking court case from two years ago, in which the defendant managed a Telegram group with 100,000 members. From October 2019 to June 2020, this group disseminated over 20,000 messages, some of which incited attacks on police stations, police quarters, MTR stations, the airport, and pro-establishment businesses. Many participants in the violent protests followed instructions relayed through Telegram.

One particularly egregious case involved Telegram channels not only inciting arson but also instructing users on how to release chlorine gas at police stations and MTR stations, leading to mass casualties. Additionally,  doxing channels were built on the platform, targeting members of the disciplined services and pro-establishment figures.  Thousands of messages were posted on those channels that had attracted over 30,000 members.

At the peak of the violence, Telegram hosted various groups, the largest of which had up to 40,000 members, creating a powerful mobilization force and exacerbating the riots. While the authorities issued temporary injunctions to prohibit the spread of violent messages on Telegram and even deleted a channel spreading hate speech in March 2020, they stopped short of blocking the platform entirely, to avoid accusations of stifling freedom of information.

As legal experts have pointed out, Durov's recent arrest demonstrates that Western governments, despite their rhetoric on freedom, will act decisively when their security interests are at stake. The Hong Kong authorities should learn from this incident: whether dealing with Telegram or other social media platforms, they should not hesitate to take firm action when necessary.

Lai Ting Yiu

What Say You?

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

In the eyes of certain international media, whatever the Hong Kong government does is always wrong. They usually choose to ignore the fact that their own governments are doing similar things if not more severe. A recent example is Bloomberg's report on Hong Kong government's proposed legislation to "enhance the security of computer systems for the protection of critical infrastructure." Bloomberg described it as "unprecedented," citing concerns from major tech companies that the government wields "excessive power," potentially undermining confidence in Hong Kong’s digital economy. Legal experts, however, have voiced strong disapproval of this perspective. One expert pointed out that in May this year, the UK passed the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act, which expands the powers of intelligence services, regulatory agencies, and the police to monitor online communications, including private conversations. This legislation subjects companies to potential criminal liability and international prosecution—a measure far more aggressive than what is proposed in Hong Kong. Similarly, the FBI in the United States has recently conducted raids on citizens who posted "anti-American" content online. Their overwhelming powers have received little query from western media.

Elon Musk

The UK’s Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act, passed in May 2024, strengthens existing legislation by expanding the authority of intelligence services and regulators over internet surveillance. Platforms like Elon Musk's X are primary targets, and even private communications are subject to interception. In comparison, Hong Kong's measures appear rather minimal.

Legal experts note that while discussions often focus on the UK’s Cyber Security Act, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 receives little attention. This legislation grants significant authority to intelligence agencies (such as MI5 and MI6), regulatory bodies (like OFCOM), and the police to intercept internet communications whenever deemed necessary for national security and the protection of British interests.

The recent amendments, approved by the UK monarch, are soon to be enacted into law. These changes aim to bolster "digital surveillance powers," enabling the collection of data from citizens' mobile communications and other digital platforms in response to evolving national security threats.

The UK’s Minister of State for Security, who spearheaded these legislative changes, spoke loudly about the need to keep pace with rapid technological advancements to counter new national security threats. Ironically, he was the same person who strongly criticized Hong Kong's Article 23 legislation, dismissing the Hong Kong government's argument that the law would safeguard prosperity and public interest as "utterly absurd." His contradictory stance—"It's right when we do it, wrong when you do it"—is difficult to overlook.

The British government’s increasing control over the internet is further highlighted by a recent media report describing how incitement on social platforms triggered significant anti-immigration riots. In response, the Communications Authority, responsible for internet regulation, is actively expanding its team from 466 to 557 members to strengthen its monitoring of illegal online content and ensure rapid responses to any violations.

A friend mentioned that the authorities are aware of the saying 'the higher the mountain, the taller the demon' and recognize the need to counter experts with experts. Therefore, they are recruiting specialists from tech giants like Meta, Google, and Amazon to join their efforts, effectively countering challenges as they arise. Additionally, the regulators have established a 'technology laboratory' in Manchester, utilizing AI to tackle illegal online content, aiming to eliminate it as early as possible.

Moreover, the British authorities are extending their reach internationally to combat online criminals in the name of national security. Recently, the Pakistani government arrested an "online media" operator for spreading hate messages in the UK, reportedly at the request of the British government, according to the New York Times.

When it comes to cracking down on online speech, the U.S. government, which frequently criticizes Hong Kong for its perceived loss of freedom, is no less aggressive. Legal experts reveal that the FBI recently raided the homes of two U.S. citizens for posting comments "detrimental to the United States" online, allegedly violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

These individuals had written for the Russian media outlet RT or appeared on Russia-linked TV stations, where they criticized U.S. policies on Ukraine. FBI agents seized their phones, computers, and hard drives, with charges expected soon.

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice recently collaborated with Canadian authorities to delete 968 fake accounts on the social platform X, claiming they were operated by Russia using AI. The true motives behind this move remain unclear, but insiders suspect it may be related to the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

As the British and American governments intensify their control over the internet, Hong Kong's efforts seem modest by comparison. Yet, Bloomberg's reporting singles out Hong Kong, raising questions about its objectivity and fairness.