Igbo Radio

In the wake of Meta’s decision to scrap its third-party fact-checking program in the United States, Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has issued a pointed response, calling into question the sincerity of platforms that claim to support free speech only when it is convenient. In a post on his messaging app, Durov underscored that supporting freedom of expression is a principle that should not shift based on political climates.

“It’s easy to say you support something when you risk nothing,” Durov remarked in his post, which many interpreted as a subtle critique of Mark Zuckerberg’s recent announcements. Although he did not name Meta directly, the timing of his comments appeared deliberate, as they came just a day after Zuckerberg’s declaration that Meta would replace its fact-checking initiative with a new user-driven "Community Notes" system.

Durov argued that platforms announcing reductions in censorship only after political tides shift may find their commitment tested when public sentiment changes again. He emphasized that Telegram’s values are not swayed by electoral outcomes, adding, “We’ve stood by free speech long before it became politically convenient.”

Zuckerberg’s announcement came with an acknowledgment that Meta’s previous policies had eroded trust. He highlighted the role of recent U.S. elections as a cultural turning point for prioritizing open dialogue and promised that Meta would implement fewer restrictions on controversial topics like immigration and gender identity.

However, Durov’s critique was also steeped in broader context. Recently, the Telegram CEO spoke out against regulatory challenges in the European Union, stating that Russians had more access to unrestricted media than EU citizens due to sanctions and digital service restrictions. He described Telegram as a platform where Western outlets remain freely available in Russia, whereas certain Russian news sources are blocked in EU territories.

Durov has faced legal troubles himself, including being detained in France on charges ranging from complicity in online criminal activities to money laundering. In response, he implemented updates to Telegram’s Terms of Service to clarify that user data, such as IP addresses, may be disclosed to authorities in compliance with valid legal requests. Despite this, Durov maintains that Telegram’s moderation philosophy remains far less invasive than that of other platforms.

His response to Meta’s pivot underscores a growing discourse about the role of tech giants in managing information and balancing free speech with accountability. Critics of Meta’s previous policies claim that fact-checking programs disproportionately targeted certain political views, while proponents of Durov’s approach argue that true support for free expression should not depend on political expediency.

As Meta’s Community Notes system begins to roll out, the question remains whether it will foster the transparency and trust Zuckerberg aims for or simply introduce new challenges in the ongoing battle over online discourse. Meanwhile, Durov’s unwavering stance positions Telegram as a staunch defender of speech, even amid regulatory pressures and legal battles.

The coming months will likely test how both companies uphold their commitments to open dialogue as global scrutiny of digital platforms intensifies.