Telegram Founder Pavel Durov has publicly detailed an alleged attempt by French intelligence to involve him in censoring political content ahead of Moldova’s presidential elections. Writing on X, Durov described the episode as a troubling effort to influence both judicial proceedings and political discourse.
Alleged request to censor channels
According to Durov, approximately a year ago, while he was in Paris, French intelligence approached him through an intermediary. They requested his assistance in helping the Moldovan government suppress certain Telegram channels during the election period.
Durov explained that after reviewing the flagged channels, his team identified a few that genuinely violated Telegram’s rules and were therefore removed. In return, the intermediary claimed that French intelligence would “say good things” about Durov to the judge who had ordered his arrest in August of the previous year.
Concerns over judicial interference
Durov described this offer as unacceptable. He noted that if French intelligence did approach the judge, it would represent an attempt to interfere in an ongoing judicial process.
Conversely, if the claim was false, it could indicate an effort to leverage his legal situation to influence political outcomes in Eastern Europe, a tactic Durov said he has observed previously in Romania.
Second list of channels
Shortly after, Telegram received a second list of Moldovan channels deemed “problematic.” Unlike the first batch, nearly all of these channels were legitimate and fully compliant with Telegram’s policies. The common factor, Durov noted, was that these channels expressed political views disfavored by the French and Moldovan governments.
Telegram’s stance on free speech
Telegram has refused to act on the second set of channels flagged by authorities. Pavel Durov said the platform will not remove content for political reasons and reiterated its commitment to free speech. He also promised to continue exposing any attempts to pressure Telegram into censorship, underlining the company’s independence from government influence.
The disclosure comes amid growing scrutiny of how governments are trying to influence social media platforms ahead of elections, highlighting the tension between security concerns and protecting online freedom.