The Durov case: The light censorship in Europe | EUROtoday

An incident might throw a protracted shadow on the political self -image of Europe. If the next what Telegram founder Pavel Durov publicly claims, we’re confronted with a course of that questions the integrity of our democratic tradition. According to this, Nicolas Lerner, director of the French overseas intelligence company DGSE, is claimed to have tried to take a direct impression on the content material of Telegram shortly earlier than the Romanian presidential election on May 18, 2025 – with the demand to “silence conservative voices in Romania” and to dam proper channels. The pretext: the combat towards disinformation.

Durov refused to entry, referred to freedom of expression – and uncovered what’s more and more rising as a structural energy construction: a brand new, hybrid type of political management, by which intelligence businesses, supranational establishments and platform operators set up a casual regime of censorship. The French state, flanked by the Foreign Ministry, vigorously denies the allegations. One had solely complained about content material with terrorist reference or baby pornography, not about politics. But the context makes this protection fragile. Because the election in Romania was not an extraordinary: it was a deputy struggle within the area of narrative. Nicușor Dan, pro-European, west, system-compliant. George Simion, proper, EU-skeptical, unpredictable. The alternative was not a mere urn gang – it was a take a look at case of geopolitical loyalty.

And Telegram? The platform was declared the stage of this query of energy. Romania’s authorities, France and the EU check with Russian influencing operations. But right here is the epistemic quick circuit: the mere suspicion of Russian manipulation is all too usually declared the legitimation foundation for preventive interventions, even towards legit voices. The common suspicion replaces the differentiation. And the idea of disinformation turns into a rubber porter, with which political deviation is asserted to the safety coverage threat.

You have to have a look at the chronology. The first election spherical in November 2024 was canceled – as a consequence of Russian disinformation campaigns. That was unprecedented. And it delivered the precedent that every one helps on to mark every digital deviation as a possible menace in May 2025. In truth, a report by the Romanian journalist Marius Tuca helps the presentation of Durov: According to this, the French secret service chief learner Romania solely visited two days of alternative. The election victory of Dan with 53.6 p.c of the votes was celebrated because the victory in Europe. But what if it was additionally a victory for info management?

Democracies usually are not solely outlined by free elections, however through open discourses. However, if the protection of democracy is to suppress algorithmically sure content material or put stress on the platform operators – then democracy turns into simulating itself. The totality not arises from prohibition, however by expectation. If Durov says the reality, he was not compelled – however requested for cooperation. Soft. Indirect. And that’s precisely what makes it so harmful.

It is the light censorship that makes hybrid programs out of democracies. Governments not use the instrument of the regulation, however the implicit menace: cooperation or management. If you do not dash, you may be counted publicly – like Elon Musk, like Durov, like each platform that doesn’t reasonable “voluntarily” in time. This creates a local weather of the preemption, the prevalence. It is deleted earlier than it escalated. It is blocked earlier than it goes viral. And it’s regulated earlier than somebody complains. This is just not freedom – that is your codified shadow.

One should not be naive: Durov is just not a type of mild. Processes in France and Switzerland run towards him. His curiosity in public counter -offensive is clear. But fact is just not ownable. A defendant will also be proper. And the truth that France arrested him in 2024, imposed a deposit imposed on him and solely launched it again to Dubai in March 2025 makes it clear that the relationships have been already damaged up earlier than the election day.

It is no surprise that France now claims to have by no means pushed Durov to affect the election. But a Dementi is just not proof. And the reflex to defame each criticism as a “Russian propaganda” is even a type of disinformation. If the whole lot that’s not in line comes from Moscow, the discourse is already misplaced.

The fact regime

The essential query is that how far can the state go within the title of the mixture of disinformation with out changing into a producer of manipulative fact regime?

The Digital Services Act (DSA) of the EU, which transfers the duty for the containment of so -called “systemic risks” – comparable to disinformation – and threatens sanctions within the thousands and thousands; The million -dollar high-quality notices towards Telegram in Germany as a consequence of alleged violations of the community enforcement regulation; Macron’s public consideration in the summertime of 2023 to have social networks briefly switched off within the occasion of inside unrest; in addition to the concept of ​​making the aware distribution of “false factual claims” anchored within the German coalition settlement – all of this refers to a tacit shift of liberal orders in the direction of a regime of preventive discourse management.

The new authoritarianism of the twenty first century not solely happens with prohibitions, however with regulatory expectations. He delegates on platforms and standardizes fact about procedural infrastructure. What would beforehand been named as state censorship seems in the present day as a technical obligation to carry out. The state doesn’t withdraw – it emits into the structure of digital public.