"Creators Say" is a dialogue column launched by Foresight News. We will ask outstanding creators selected every month about hot market topics and organize the collected results into articles to gather opinions and discover more in-depth thinking.
Written by: Foresight News Outstanding Content Creator and Special Guest of August 2024
Compiled by: Foresight News
Recently, the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov has brought a great impact on the Ton ecosystem and set off an unprecedented public opinion storm around the world. The competition between rights and privacy, and the collision between regulation and technology have caused the discussion of this incident to continue to ferment.
The theme of this issue of "Creators Speak" is "What lessons can the arrest of Telegram's founder give to Web3?" We have invited WolfDAO, BlockSec, and StraitS, who were on the Foresight News list of outstanding creators in August 2024, and specially invited Biteye and Ryze Labs to join the discussion in this issue.
Regarding the topic of "Telegram founder arrested", we raised five questions: "How do you view this incident?", "What is the impact on Ton?", "What enlightenment does it have for decentralized social networking?", "How do you view the pros and cons of regulation?", and "How do you view the phenomenon that most of those who defended Pavel Durov are Westerners?" The following are the answers we collected:
1. Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France a week ago, and discussions about freedom of speech and privacy swept the world. From the same perspective, what do you think of Pavel Durov's arrest?
WolfDAO: Pavel Durov is an iconic figure representing freedom of speech and user privacy. His arrest has undoubtedly made people re-examine the fragility of these basic rights in the digital age. PD's arrest has a certain impact on the tension between freedom of speech and privacy in the current political and legal environment. Governments around the world are often uneasy when faced with encryption technology and privacy protection tools because these tools weaken the government's control over information. Durov's arrest has triggered our thinking on how to strike a balance between ensuring national security and maintaining citizens' rights, which is also a challenge that all digital platforms and service providers must face.
BlockSec: Pavel Durov’s arrest has sparked a global conversation about free speech and privacy, highlighting the challenges technology innovators face in advancing freedom and privacy:
From a free speech perspective, Pavel Durov has long defended user privacy and opposed censorship, and his arrest is seen as a blow to these core values and reflects the complexity of defending digital rights in today's global environment.
From a privacy perspective, Pavel Durov has been working on privacy-preserving platforms like Telegram and Ton, and this incident is a reminder that technology is still not fully resistant to pressure from the state and other powers.
Overall, Pavel Durov’s arrest reminds us that although technology can provide tools and platforms for free speech and privacy, they still face challenges from outside. How to protect these fundamental rights while promoting technological progress will be an issue that needs to be explored in the future.
StraitS: Pavel Durov's arrest has sparked widespread discussion about freedom of speech and privacy. This incident involves not only his personal legal issues, but also a deeper power game between technology companies and the government.
Durov's Telegram platform is popular for its focus on user privacy and uncensored communications, making him a symbol of freedom of expression. However, governments often demand that technology companies take more responsibility for illegal activities on their platforms, citing the need to maintain social order and combat crime. In this context, Durov's arrest can be seen as an attempt by the government to expand its control over social media in order to address the problem of illegal content appearing on the platform.
On the other hand, social media does need to take on certain social responsibilities. Allowing illegal or bad content to spread on the platform may have a serious impact on society. Therefore, how to balance the protection of freedom of speech and the maintenance of public safety becomes a key issue. Durov's arrest shows that technology companies may face more legal and regulatory pressure in the future, especially in how to regulate the content on their platforms.
Overall, this incident reflects the complex relationship between freedom of speech, privacy protection and social responsibility. The government has the right to regulate illegal behavior, but it also needs to avoid excessive interference in free expression.
Biteye: As the founder of Telegram, Pavel Durov has always advocated for users' right to free expression and data privacy. But it cannot be ignored that government regulation of technology companies will have a direct impact on personal freedom, especially in today's increasingly important information dissemination. I believe that protecting freedom of speech and privacy is the key to promoting technological innovation and maintaining social justice, and all sectors of society should remain vigilant and actively speak out.
Ryze Labs: Pavel Durov’s arrest has sparked widespread discussion about the right to free speech and privacy. On the one hand, many see Durov as a defender of free speech and privacy and see his arrest as a blow to these values. On the other hand, the charges brought by the French government involve serious crimes such as child pornography and organized crime. This reflects the complexity of finding a balance between protecting citizens’ fundamental rights and maintaining public safety.
French President Emmanuel Macron stressed that the arrests were not politically motivated but were carried out within the framework of the rule of law. This shows that even in the pursuit of freedom of expression, legal boundaries need to be observed. This incident highlights the challenge of balancing privacy, security and freedom of expression in the digital age.
2. Are you a user of Telegram or Ton? How do you think Pavel Durov’s arrest will affect Ton?
WolfDAO: WolfDAO did a series of special research and serialization on the TON ecosystem in the early days. Interested friends can go to our column to view the full text. Therefore, we have always been paying attention to the construction and development of the TON ecosystem. Regarding the impact of Pavel Durov’s arrest, we think it can be discussed from two aspects:
a. For TON tokens:
It fell 20% on the day of the arrest, and the highest drop was 26.87% on August 26. The impact seemed to be limited to this, and the subsequent rebound and decline were market behaviors, especially the decline, which we believe was most likely caused by the weakening of BTC.
Judging from the price alone, it seems that there is no proof that his arrest will cause a fatal blow to TON tokens for the time being, and the relationship between the founder and the token is not deep. It will take some time to observe in the long run. If the BTC market reverses and TON is unable to rise again due to selling pressure caused by negative news related to PD, then it can be roughly judged that the impact of the arrest is greater.
b. For the TON ecosystem:
TON has experienced several downtime incidents recently, which have had a certain impact on users, but after analysis, it can be found that the block production stagnation was caused by the surge in DOGS transaction volume. This involves and exposes the sharding architecture and performance issues of the TON chain, and has no direct relationship with PD.
BlockSec: Inactive users. Ton relies on Telegram and has a natural traffic advantage. In essence, it is trying to replicate the traffic monetization path of Web2 on Web3. For Ton, the arrest of Pavel Durov may cause some short-term price fluctuations; but in the long run, the key is to see the impact of this incident on Telegram traffic, which will determine the future development direction of Ton.
StraitS: As a user of Telegram and TON, Pavel Durov's arrest may cause unrest in the community, especially have a certain impact on the trust and development of TON. However, as a decentralized blockchain project, TON is designed to reduce the influence of a single person on the project. Telegram has always been known for its focus on privacy and free expression, which is why we use it.
Durov’s arrest raises many questions about the future of the platform, especially whether government and regulatory intervention in social media and crypto will increase.
For Ton, although Durov is no longer directly leading the project, his arrest may cause some regulatory challenges, especially in the context of the government's growing attention to decentralized networks and encryption technology. As a user, I will pay attention to whether the project can maintain technical independence and continued development. After all, the decentralized nature of Ton itself is to reduce dependence on individual leaders, so as long as the community and development team can maintain the project progress, I don't think the long-term impact on Ton will be too great.
Nonetheless, Durov’s leadership and public profile are crucial to the project’s promotion and community confidence, so TON may face some market volatility and uncertainty in the short term.
Biteye: I am a Telegram user and also hold $TON. I am paying close attention to this incident. The arrest of Pavel Durov has undoubtedly brought uncertainty to the TON ecosystem, such as affecting prices in the short term. But in the long run, the impact will gradually decrease. After all, the TON ecosystem has unique advantages in payment, games, social networking and other fields, and has enough resilience to withstand this storm.
Ryze Labs: I personally am not a user of Telegram or TON, but according to the information provided in the article, Pavel Durov’s arrest did have a significant impact on TON:
In the short term, TON token prices fell by 23.6% and total locked value (TVL) fell by 64.3%;
However, the TON community showed strong solidarity and support, reaffirming its confidence in the core operations of the project;
Many community members and crypto industry leaders publicly expressed their support, with the hashtag#FREEDUROVgaining popularity on Twitter;
The number of daily active users in the TON ecosystem reached an all-time high after the incident, demonstrating the resilience of the community.
Despite the short-term volatility, TON’s decentralized structure, global community involvement, and technological independence may help it in the long run. However, the incident does raise concerns and uncertainty about the future of the project.
3. From the perspective of the Web3 industry, what implications and impacts does Pavel Durov’s arrest have on decentralized social networking?
WolfDAO: Pavel Durov’s arrest highlights the strong tracking of centralized social platforms. From an industry perspective, Web3 has always emphasized decentralization, which is also the freedom and fairness expected by users. However, given the current social status and market development, absolutely decentralized social networking can easily become a place where robot activities are rampant and illegal activities are difficult to regulate (I don’t know if there will be a better solution in the future). While promoting the development and use of decentralized technology, if you want sustainable development, you may still need to find a balance between decentralization and regulation.
BlockSec: The arrest of Pavel Durov highlights the necessity and potential of decentralized social platforms, and also brings new challenges and thinking to the Web3 industry:
Importance of decentralization: Demonstrates the political and legal risks of centralized platforms. Decentralized architecture can disperse these risks, improve anti-censorship capabilities, and protect freedom of speech and user privacy.
Incentives for Web3 social platforms: May accelerate the development of decentralized social platforms, promote community self-governance, reduce personal risks, and enhance user participation.
Growth in user demand: This may undermine users’ trust in centralized platforms, prompting them to turn to more secure and private decentralized networks, and promote the acceptance of Web3 technology.
Thoughts on the regulatory environment: Remind Web3 practitioners that decentralized platforms also need to respond to legal challenges and promote industry standardization and regulatory dialogue.
Lesson for innovators: Pavel Durov’s experience may inspire more innovators to delve deeper into decentralized technologies, focusing on anti-censorship capabilities and user autonomy to cope with the impact of similar incidents.
StraitS: From the perspective of the Web3 industry, Pavel Durov’s arrest has brought some important revelations and potential impacts to decentralized social platforms:
a. The necessity of decentralization
Centralized social platforms, even with staunch privacy advocates like Durov, cannot completely avoid pressure and intervention from governments or other authorities. This shows a key advantage of decentralized social platforms - no single individual or entity can fully control or influence the operation of the platform. For the Web3 industry, this decentralized structure can not only enhance user privacy and freedom, but also better resist pressure from governments or institutions. Decentralized social platforms, although still developing technically, have natural advantages in anti-censorship and data sovereignty. This incident may accelerate the development of decentralized social applications and user migration, further promoting the popularization of Web3 technology.
b. The importance of user sovereignty and data privacy
Durov has always been a defender of data privacy, and his arrest once again reminds people of the importance of data sovereignty. On decentralized social platforms, user data is not stored on centralized servers, but is controlled by the users themselves, which greatly reduces the risk of the government or other third parties obtaining user data. The Web3 platform uses blockchain and encryption technology to make user data transparent, secure, and tamper-proof, avoiding the privacy risks brought by centralized platforms.
c. Legal and regulatory challenges
Durov's arrest reflects the importance that governments attach to platform governance, especially how to ensure that platforms are not abused to spread illegal content. This is a serious challenge for decentralized social platforms, because it is difficult for decentralized systems to implement centralized supervision like traditional platforms. In the Web3 industry, how to strike a balance between decentralization and legal compliance will be the key to future development. Platforms may need to explore new governance mechanisms, such as implementing content review and compliance management through smart contracts or decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).
d. Innovation opportunities in decentralized social networking
Pavel Durov's incident reminds the Web3 industry that decentralized social platforms have huge opportunities for innovation. Currently, users' demand for privacy, transparency, and control is growing, which provides a breakthrough for decentralized social applications. Web3 platforms can meet these needs of users by building user-driven governance models, transparent content management mechanisms, and trustless operations.
e. Demonstration effect on other platforms
Durov’s arrest may push more centralized platform users to migrate to decentralized platforms, especially among those who value privacy and security more. Web3 social platforms have the opportunity to take advantage of this trend and attract users who have lost trust in existing centralized platforms by improving user experience and technical foundation.
In general, the arrest of Pavel Durov has sounded the alarm for decentralized social platforms and highlighted the unique value of Web3 technology. The Web3 industry should seize this opportunity to further promote the innovation and development of decentralized social platforms, while addressing regulatory challenges and ensuring the sustainability and compliance of the platform.
Biteye: Pavel Durov's arrest undoubtedly highlights the importance of decentralized social networking. Centralized social platforms are vulnerable to centralized suppression, while decentralization can better protect the rights of users. This incident may accelerate the development of Web3 social networking and make more people aware of the advantages of decentralization.
Ryze Labs: This incident highlights the potential advantages of decentralized social platforms:
A decentralized structure can reduce reliance on a single person or entity and enhance the stability of the platform;
Global community engagement ensures that projects continue to grow and innovate in the face of challenges;
Open source code allows for continuous improvement without being restricted to a single development team.
However, this incident also reveals the challenges faced by decentralized platforms, especially in terms of content regulation and legal compliance. It may prompt more people to think about how to effectively deal with illegal content and activities while being decentralized.
4. The discussion on the pros and cons of regulation on technological innovation has been going on for a long time. In the case of Pavel Durov, how do you view the pros and cons of regulation?
WolfDAO: On the one hand, Telegram, as an encrypted communication platform, should be protected by freedom of speech; on the other hand, the Internet and technology fields are not lawless places, and the platform has the responsibility to supervise the content on it to prevent illegal activities.
Of course, regulation has both advantages and disadvantages in the process of technological innovation. If regulation is excessive, it will be detrimental to the innovation and progress of science and technology. If regulation is lacking, the development of things will become disorderly and chaotic, and even cause more negative impacts. How to balance the relationship between user privacy and crime, national security, etc. has become an urgent problem to be solved.
BlockSec: This is a complex and controversial topic:
The benefits of regulation: ensuring user safety, maintaining fair competition, and clarifying corporate responsibilities;
Disadvantages of regulation: inhibiting corporate innovation, increasing compliance costs, and bringing uncertainty to technological development.
There needs to be a balance between regulation and technological innovation. Regulation should protect the public interest while giving some space to technological innovation. We need to explore in depth how to conduct effective regulation without hindering innovation. If regulation is too harsh or politically charged, it may inhibit the development of innovators like Pavel Durov who are pushing the technological frontier and hinder scientific and technological progress.
StraitS: The relationship between regulation and technological innovation has always been controversial. In Durov's case, regulation can be seen as both the maintenance of public safety and order and a restriction on innovation and personal freedom. Moderate regulation can prevent the abuse of technology while protecting the rights of users, but excessive regulation may stifle innovation, especially in the areas of privacy protection and freedom of speech. Strict regulatory requirements usually mean that technology companies need to invest a lot of resources to ensure compliance. This can be a huge burden for smaller startups, especially decentralized platforms. Rising compliance costs may cause companies to abandon certain innovations or choose to move to countries with looser regulations, thereby reducing local technological development. Pavel Durov's arrest highlights the importance of this balance, reminding us that while promoting technological development, we must also be wary of the potential impact of regulation on innovation vitality.
Biteye: Regulation has both advantages and disadvantages for technological innovation. On the one hand, appropriate regulation can prevent technology from being abused and protect the interests of users. On the other hand, overly strict regulation may hinder innovation and restrict the development of technology. The key is to find a balance and formulate regulatory policies that can both promote innovation and maintain order.
Ryze Labs: In the Pavel Durov incident, the pros and cons of regulation are very clear:
profit:
Helps fight serious crimes such as child pornography and organized crime;
Provide users with a degree of protection against the platform being used for illegal activities;
It can promote platforms to operate more responsibly and balance innovation and social responsibility.
Disadvantages:
May stifle innovation, particularly in the areas of privacy and encryption technologies;
It could be abused and used as a tool to restrict freedom of expression;
For platforms operating globally, regulatory requirements in different jurisdictions may cause operational difficulties.
This incident highlights the importance and challenges of striking a balance between promoting innovation and protecting the public interest.
5. Vitalik Buterin said that most of the people who defend Pavel Durov are Westerners. What do you think of this phenomenon?
WolfDAO: Vitalik mentioned Bruno Maçães’s point of view, namely the “decoupling of liberalism and westernism”. In the context of globalization, different countries and cultures have different views on issues such as freedom, privacy and national security. The roots of this difference may include historical background, political system, social culture and other factors. For Westerners, Durov’s arrest may be seen as an infringement on privacy and freedom, while for people and governments in some non-Western countries, this may be seen as a necessary regulatory measure to address the security and governance challenges brought about by technology. Putting aside the possibility that both the data and the view are biased, we believe that this is a phenomenon that can be discussed, but it is currently impossible to make a value judgment on this disagreement.
BlockSec: This question description is misleading. In fact, V God refers to the fact that most of those who defended Durov's arrest were Westerners, and believes that this reflects the phenomenon of decoupling of liberalism and westernism mentioned earlier by Bruno Maçães. This reflects the profound impact of the division and political factors in today's world, and the global view on issues such as freedom of speech and privacy is changing. In some cases, traditional Western liberal values may gain more support outside the West.
StraitS: Vitalik Buterin's mention of Westerners' defense of Durov reflects the different understandings of privacy and freedom in different cultural and political contexts. In Western countries, the right to privacy and freedom of speech are regarded as basic rights and are widely supported and defended. Therefore, when Durov was arrested for platform regulation issues on Telegram, many Westerners were more concerned about his position on protecting user privacy and freedom of speech rather than the legitimacy of the government's charges.
In contrast, many countries in the East, especially those with stronger government control, may place greater emphasis on social security and order. Citizens in these places may be more receptive to government regulation of social media and communication tools, believing that this is necessary to combat crime or maintain social stability. Therefore, Durov’s arrest may not trigger the same strong reaction in these regions, and may even be seen as a legitimate regulatory move.
Social media and globalization have made the discussion of the incident no longer limited to one country or region. The strong public opinion environment in the Western world may have allowed these views to be more exposed and spread globally, which also partly explains why the voices defending Durov mainly come from the West. Relatively speaking, public opinion in other regions may be more fragmented or limited, failing to form a strong enough public debate.
This phenomenon highlights the global divide on digital rights issues and the unique challenges that different regions face in promoting decentralization and personal privacy protection.
Biteye: This is related to the importance Westerners place on freedom of speech and privacy. Different countries and cultures have different understandings and attitudes towards these rights. In fact, no matter where it comes from, as long as it is for the purpose of defending justice and protecting human rights, it is worth supporting and approving.
Ryze Labs: Vitalik Buterin observed that in his social media feeds, voices supporting the arrests were mainly from the West, while non-Western voices were mostly silent. This phenomenon may reflect several aspects:
It may indicate an emerging divergence between traditional Western liberal values and Western identity;
In some cases, traditional Western liberal values may find more support outside the West;
This may reflect changing global views on issues such as free speech and privacy.
It is important to note that this observation may be subject to sample bias. However, it does lead us to think about the differences and changes in global perspectives on digital rights and privacy issues.
