The arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov by French authorities is a hot potato. It’s about freedom in the digital age. Durov was detained in Paris over allegations that his platform is enabling criminal activities such as fraud, terrorism, and hate speech. This case raises important questions about privacy and state control. Beyond the hype surrounding his arrest, how do we approach freedom in the fourth industrial revolution?
Isaiah Berlin, a 20th-century philosopher, has an interesting perspective that helps us understand the current debate: negative liberty and positive liberty. Negative liberty is the freedom from interference—the right to be left alone. This concept is at the heart of Web3 technologies, which prioritize decentralization, privacy, and individual control over data.
Telegram, with its strong encryption and commitment to user privacy, exemplifies this idea, allowing people to communicate without fear of state surveillance. It’s a political tool used in information gathering and is frequently mentioned in geopolitical (east vs west) discussions. However, this freedom also creates opportunities for harmful activities, raising the question of how much interference is necessary to protect society—a matter of positive liberty, where the state ensures public safety and the common good.
Berlin’s distinction is crucial because it highlights the tension between individual freedoms and collective security, a balancing act that is at the core of the debate over social media and Web3 technology.
No, Telegram is not a decentralized platform but has clear Web3 facilitating features and an undeniable link to the cryptocurrency Ton coin. Web3 technologies, which include decentralized platforms and cryptocurrencies, are designed to operate beyond the control of any single entity, including governments. They embody the ideal of negative liberty, offering users unprecedented autonomy over their digital lives. However, this autonomy also challenges traditional legal frameworks, raising questions about how to balance individual freedom with collective security. I bet the recent hype surrounding Ton coin, and the 400 percent surge in price the last year, was the last straw for French authorities.
Here’s the problem. Different countries have taken varying approaches to this balance. In Germany, for example, freedom of expression is not an absolute right and can be restricted to prevent hate speech or incitement to crime. In contrast, the United States offers broader protections under the First Amendment, allowing fewer restrictions on speech. Meanwhile, authoritarian states like China, Iran, and Russia maintain strict control over online content, often using security as a pretext to suppress free expression.
Freedom in the world is a beautiful landscape of choices, responsibilities, and the ability to live true to oneself while respecting the world around us. In the end, it’s an individual choice how to live.
France’s decision to detain Durov highlights a critical issue: Are we ready for the radical freedom that Web3 technologies offer? While France has the right to enforce its laws within its borders, applying these standards to global, decentralized platforms or Web3 applications risks imposing one country’s vision of freedom and control on the rest of the world. Freedom is more than one flavor.
International human rights law provides a framework for restricting speech, requiring that limitations be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. However, Web3’s decentralized structure complicates the application of these principles. How do you enforce laws when there is no central authority to hold accountable? How do you balance the need for security with the promise of absolute freedom?
I think freedom holds a philosophical twist that also includes control.
These questions are not just theoretical; they have real-world implications for how we govern the internet and the digital tools we use every day. The global nature of Web3 means that national regulations can have extraterritorial effects, influencing speech and privacy rights far beyond a country’s borders.
Here’s the next step!
The arrest of Pavel Durov is a wake-up call: the world isn’t fully ready for the freedoms—and challenges—that Web3 technologies bring. But this doesn’t mean we should retreat into the safety of the old systems. Instead, it’s time to rethink how we balance freedom and security in the digital age. We must create a global framework that recognizes the decentralized nature of Web3 while ensuring that it serves the common good. The future isn’t about choosing between liberty and control; it’s about finding a new way to achieve both.