Dear reader, I don’t know if it has been noticed, but in these 72 hours there has been a great stir in our country regarding the possible blocking of Telegram by an order from Judge Pedraz. Despite my passion for technology, I am aware that this topic only interests a small sector of Spanish society. A look at the media and Twitter reveals conflicting opinions. The public debate has become polarized, unexpectedly uniting opposing ideologies. Many see these actions as typical of authoritarian regimes, not liberal democracies, although in my opinion the main problem lies in Telegram piracy, rather than state surveillance. Furthermore, the lack of technological knowledge among legal professionals in Spain is notable, showing a great disconnection with the digital era.
Straight to the point: in Spain, Telegram has about 8 million users, including me. Judge Pedraz ordered the platform to be blocked on Friday the 22nd, due to the frustration of the Spanish justice system with Telegram for ignoring his orders. As a libertarian, I was initially alarmed by this news, as I do not want my country to follow the path of nations like Cuba, North Korea or China, where Telegram is banned. This led me to reflect on the opinions of renowned libertarian thinkers, with whom I identify.
Friedrich Hayek would have seen the blocking of Telegram as a move towards authoritarianism, by restricting individual freedoms and controlling information, although it is argued that applications must abide by local law like any other business. Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand would have defended the free operation of Telegram based on property rights and freedom of communication, respectively. However, the controversy is that Telegram’s compliance with Spanish laws could avoid restrictions, thus balancing between freedom of expression and legal responsibility.
The only problem is that Hayek, Rothbard and Rand did not live through this era of technological disruption and especially the debate over copyright. In my opinion, before launching into theories about police states, we should look at something more mundane in this case. How much money does the audiovisual industry move in our country? How many jobs does it generate? According to the 24th edition of the ‘Entertainment and Media Outlook 2023-2027 Spain’ report, prepared by PwC, it concludes that the sector’s income in our country will grow by 4.6% until 2027, reaching 35,011 million euros. Consumer spending has decreased on OTT (Movistar+, Netflix or Prime Video for example), and advertising has emerged as a key support for the growth of the OTT sector in Spain, which has tripled in size since 2019 with platforms such as Netflix and Main video. The Coalition of Content Creators and Industries has indicated that the impact of piracy caused damage to the digital cultural sector of 2,271 million. We are talking about approximately 6% of the industry’s income each year, that is a lot of money and a lot of jobs. Although as a Movistar+ subscriber they put advertising on me whenever I want, even though their player is one of the worst on the market, even though their user experience is regrettable, even though the price is abnormally high… that is not an excuse for me to pirate.
Telegram has found its place in a neglected market segment, and not exactly in the field of messaging services. Although there are numerous options for sending messages privately, there was a lack of a platform involved in the distribution of copyrighted content, the sale of illegal drugs and communication between terrorist groups, activities of which both the groups involved and the platform itself. obtain benefits. A critical aspect is the lack of collaboration of this platform with the justice system to identify users involved in illicit activities. Unlike Telegram, if illegal acts are detected on WhatsApp, this company, owned by Meta, cooperates with Spanish justice by providing the required identification of users. This situation was highlighted by Judge Pedraz, who noted that “all platforms except Telegram” comply with requests for information from the Spanish judicial authorities.
With This Decision We Pay Fairly For Sinners, We Have Wanted To Block A Platform For Many Spaniards By The Judge, But Mainly Because Telegram Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses to Refuses BRAR A A Legal Representative In Our Country, And Therefore To Identify USERS Who Allegedly Commit Illegal Laws. Some will see it as a police state, a dictatorship or ideas of the current Government within its political plan. As a libertarian and generally opposed to the policies of this Government, being objective, I do not see in this case a connection with the government’s policies regarding the systematic attack on freedoms in Spain. With this order, the debate is about whether Telegram and other platforms can continue unpunished, and entrepreneurs and businessmen who do not have that volume of users apply the laws to us in an inflexible way as they do not have the capacity to challenge the Rule of Law.
