In a recent column, John Thornhill of the Financial Times explored the story of Pavel Durov and his messaging platform, Telegram, which has become a crucial tool for free speech in repressive countries.
However, Thornhill argued that Durov has struggled to distinguish between the demands of authoritarian regimes, which can be rightfully resisted, and those of “democratic countries,” which he believes should be followed. Thornhill criticized Telegram for not providing transparency on why it is no longer blocked in Russia and for not enabling end-to-end encryption by default.
The journalist further described the libertarian stance as “infantile,” arguing that a free society involves more than just freedom of speech. According to Thornhill, some human rights may be overlooked if they conflict with the demands of political elites or the majority in elections.
Still, Thornhill didn’t explain us the difference between authoritarian regimes, which should be resisted, and the directives of “democratic countries,” which he believes must be adhered to.
Notwithstanding, let’s remember how Thornhill praised Pavel Durov 9 years ago:
My Lunch with the FT with the fascinating Russian tech entrepreneur Pavel Durov http://t.co/a1C7b8gU23 pic.twitter.com/1R2n1SkwCB
— John Thornhill (@johnthornhillft) July 4, 2015
Remember how they lie to you every day…