Pavel Durov

Then they said, thank you, and sent us another list of dozens of channels, many, many channels.

We looked at these channels, we realized that there is no solid foundation to justify banning them, and we refused to do that.

They talked to my judge, the investigative judge in this investigation that has been started against me, and told the judge good things about me, which I found very confusing.

and in a way shocking, because these two matters have nothing in common.

Why would anyone talk to an investigative judge that is trying to find out whether Telegram did a good enough job in removing illegal content in France?

What does Moldova have to do with it?

I got very suspicious at that moment.

Remember, it happened after we blocked a few channels that violated our rules, but before we refused to block a long list of other channels that were completely fine, which is people expressing political views, which I may not agree with, but it's their right to express them.

Not extreme views, not views that call to violence.

That was extremely alarming.

That was a moment when I told myself that there may be more going on here than I initially thought.

Initially I thought, yeah, some people are confused about how technology works.

So by the time the head of intelligence services met me to ask about Romania, to help them silencing conservative voices in Romania, I was already wary.

of what can be going on next.

Exactly.

Ironically, we received a request from the French police to take down a channel of far-left protesters on Telegram in France.

We refuse to do that.

We look to the channel, peaceful protesters.

It doesn't matter for us whether we're defending the freedom of speech of people leaning right or leaning left.

And the other side, the protesters against lockdowns, we protect everybody as long as they are not crossing the lines and not starting to call to violence or incite damage to public property.