Hidden censorship and refusal to cooperate. The news from the past few weeks has reignited the debate on online freedom of speech. However, the issue is quite different.
---
Who is responsible for the content published on social networks?
What should the role of platforms be in content moderation?
Who should be consulted in cases of disputes involving illegal content?
Should there be a limit to freedom of speech online? Where should the line be drawn?
These are just a few of the numerous questions that have characterized the debate for years, not only regarding social networks but, more broadly, the entire landscape of online interactions.
In recent weeks, tensions have reignited due to three cases that have stirred the pot—depending on the perspective—with slogans of either combating illegal activity or fighting censorship: Telegram, Meta, and X.
These cases are distinct, with the platforms and their executives behaving differently in each instance: Meta cooperated with authorities, while Telegram and X were more reluctant. However, all three stories share a key issue—perhaps the key issue: the ability to intervene in the content they host.
To understand the reason, let’s briefly recap what happened.
- Telegram, Meta, and X: Three Different Cases, One Common Origin.
Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, was arrested in Paris on August 24th as part of an investigation that French authorities have been conducting for months against the messaging platform.
The accusations are numerous: money laundering, drug trafficking, child pornography, and refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. In the press release issued by the Prosecutor’s Office, there is even mention of violations related to the import and export of cryptographic tools—an approach reminiscent of the United States in the 1990s, when the government classified cryptography on par with weaponry. This interpretation only changed due to the outcome of the Crypto Wars.
In fact, reports tell us that Pavel Durov was released after a few days upon paying a €5 million bail, with the condition that he not leave France. Initially, Telegram issued a statement via Twitter, asserting its compliance with European laws. But on September 6th, the founder of Telegram decided to fight back, leaving little room for interpretation.
"Sometimes we can’t reach an agreement with regulators in certain countries on the right balance between privacy and security," Durov said, adding that, if necessary, Telegram will leave markets that are incompatible with these principles.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time Durov has clashed with authorities. In the past, he refused to cooperate with Russia by denying access to Telegram users’ personal data. This refusal led to the platform being temporarily blocked in Russia in 2018.
- Meta: Pressure from the White House and Zuckerberg’s Revelations
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, recently disclosed pressures he received from the White House during the pandemic. In a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg revealed that the Biden administration pushed Meta to remove content related to the virus, including satirical and critical posts.
Zuckerberg explained that in 2021, Meta deleted more than 20 million posts related to COVID-19 but expressed regret over some of the decisions made, admitting that the company had succumbed to excessive political pressure.
Zuckerberg emphasized that these requests were perceived by the company as an obligation rather than a choice, and in hindsight, some of these actions might have been mistakes. Meta’s future commitment, according to Zuckerberg, will be to better resist such pressures, even in emergency situations.
"I believe the government’s pressure was wrong, and I regret not being more transparent about it."
- X and the clash with the Brazilian Government
Elon Musk and X (formerly Twitter) are at the center of a legal dispute in Brazil, where the platform was blocked after Musk refused to appoint a local legal representative, as required by the country’s Supreme Court. The issue arose when Judge Alexandre de Moraes ordered X to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading political disinformation, particularly those associated with former president Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters.
Musk’s reaction was harsh. He accused the Supreme Court of corruption and of violating free speech, criticizing de Moraes and calling him a “criminal.” However, the judge continued his legal actions against Musk and his company, even freezing the bank accounts of Starlink, Musk’s satellite division, to pressure X into complying with Brazilian laws.
Brazilian authorities are even pursuing those who attempt to access the platform using VPNs, sparking further controversy over freedom in Brazil.
Currently, the platform remains suspended, with about 21 million Brazilian users cut off from the service. The legal dispute is ongoing and could have long-term repercussions for X’s presence in Brazil, one of the platform’s largest markets.
- The ownership of content
Telegram and X have found themselves in hot water for refusing to comply with content moderation mandates imposed by various jurisdictions. Meta, on the other hand, has avoided such issues by adhering to directives from the White House, including the removal of content flagged by Washington, such as “satirical and ironic” posts, as noted in the letter.
The decisive factor in all three cases is the same: the ability to intervene in what is published on the platform. The terms and conditions of Meta and X do not formally claim ownership of the content users post, but they clarify that users grant the companies a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, distribute, modify, and display the content in relation to the services offered. Telegram’s terms are slightly stricter: while users also retain formal ownership of their content, Telegram requires a license to distribute and display content only within its ecosystem.
However, the result remains the same. Anything published by users can be modified by the platform, according to the implicit contract every single user agrees to when they begin using the service.
- Nostr is the way
It’s no coincidence that, in recent weeks, many who care about issues such as privacy and censorship resistance have reignited interest in Nostr. The protocol, whose acronym stands for Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays, can be used via various clients, not a single platform—similar to how the Web is accessible from different browsers.
But most importantly, users who create an account do not do so through a username and password saved on the company’s servers—because, in this case, the company doesn’t exist—but rather through a public key and a private key.
This key pair allows users to interact with Nostr across multiple clients and send their “notes”—as posts are called on Nostr—to as many relays (servers) as they wish. In other words, the data is not stored on a single server but on multiple servers chosen by the user—and the user can even set up their own server without much difficulty.
Most importantly, the data is portable. Posts sent are cryptographically signed: in Nostr, content ownership is not just formally with the user, it is mathematically so.
In such a context, blaming the operator of a client or relay for the content signed and published by users' private keys would be bordering on absurdity, besides revealing a clear technical ignorance. Of course, after the accusations from the U.S. Department of Justice against the developers of Samourai Wallet, it’s fair to be ready for anything.
But giving a chance to solutions like Nostr also means considering the possibility of reclaiming one's online identity and no longer being an unconscious victim of manipulative algorithms and invasive governments.
