Ensuring the Hidden Remains Seen: The Elusive World of Telegram’s Restricted Channels
Telegram's Efforts to Curb Extremism Fall Short Channels Still Active Despite Bans
Telegram’s so-called bans on extremist channels don’t quite live up to their name.
In the midst of the recent Hamas attacks on Israel, all eyes turned to the encrypted messaging app, Telegram. With over 1.9 million followers, a Hamas-aligned group posted graphic images of their attacks on a channel that went viral on social media. As a result, public pressure forced Telegram to “restrict” these major channels. But here’s the twist: they didn’t actually ban them.
In an exclusive investigation carried out by ENBLE and tech policy think tank, the Integrity Institute, it was revealed that Telegram simply hid these channels from users of Apple and Google’s app stores. But make no mistake, they are still active and thriving. Content from restricted channels continues to be shared on unrestricted channels, defying Telegram’s mechanisms for preventing the spread of such content. What does this mean? It means that even though Telegram makes it harder to find these violative communities, the people within restricted channels are still spreading their messages, and these channels continue to serve as breeding grounds for radicalization.
Over a period of two months, ENBLE and Jeff Allen analyzed more than 100 restricted channels and thousands of posts. Most of these channels were related to right-wing extremism and other forms of radicalized hate. Shockingly, most of these channels remained active despite being restricted. Rather than deleting or banning them, Telegram simply made them less discoverable. As Nicole Stewart, an assistant professor of digital media at Texas State University, puts it, “they’re keeping them on the back end.”
Ever since its inception in 2013, Telegram has been a favored platform for extremists. With no limit on the number of subscribers who can join a channel, it provides a haven for groups that would violate the terms of service on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. ENBLE closely examined 108 restricted channels, including the Hamas-aligned channels restricted in October, and compared them with 365 unrestricted channels. The findings were astonishing. Content views on restricted channels dropped by about 70 percent, but they remained active. The Hamas military-affiliated channel @qassambrigades, for example, continued to share over 20 pieces of content daily. The analysis also revealed that content from restricted channels was copied and posted into unrestricted channels, reaching a wider audience.
So how does Telegram get away with it? It seems that the platform only moderates these extremist groups’ content in response to pressure from governments, law enforcement, and crucially, technology giants like Google and Apple. When these companies demand removal, Telegram complies. The power dynamic here is clear. Aleksandra Urman, a researcher at the University of Zurich, who has studied Telegram and the far right in Europe, notes, “That also speaks about the ‘power of Google and Apple.’’’
But wait, there’s more. Both Google and Apple strictly disallow apps that promote hate speech, terrorism, and violent content. Yet, both app stores offer Telegram for download, suggesting that the app adheres to their terms of service. So how does Telegram manage to stay afloat? Well, in 2021, they released a version of the app that could be downloaded directly onto Android, bypassing Google Play’s terms of service. This “sideloaded” version allows users to access restricted channels that regular users can’t reach.
While Telegram’s terms of service prohibit the promotion of violence on publicly viewable channels, it remains vague about the platform’s response to violations. This lack of clarity raises questions about how Telegram assesses whether a channel should be restricted or banned outright. Unfortunately, Telegram did not respond to ENBLE’s requests for comment on this matter.
In a public post on his Telegram channel, Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder, acknowledged the pressure to remove Hamas channels and content. He claimed that Telegram’s moderators and AI tools remove millions of harmful content every day. He also argued that Telegram does not algorithmically amplify content, implying that its channels cannot significantly amplify propaganda. However, experts studying extremist groups on Telegram disagree. According to Nicole Stewart, these hate groups function as influencers, sharing and promoting each other’s posts and ideas, thereby driving users further into the extremist ecosystem.
So, what happens when a user from a restricted channel forwards content to an unrestricted one? This content becomes invisible to anyone who downloaded the app from Apple’s App Store or Google Play. However, a simple copy and paste easily circumvents this limitation for text-based messages. ENBLE’s analysis discovered over 400 instances where text-based content was copied word for word into both restricted and unrestricted channels, often with users tagging the restricted channels in the unrestricted ones.
The ramifications are far-reaching. Telegram’s channel restrictions can inadvertently contribute to more radicalization. Users who seek out restricted content, even after it has been hidden, are likely to be more radicalized themselves. As Aleksandra Urman explains, these groups, when restricted, become more extreme. Without fearing content moderation, they operate more freely, planning and coordinating attacks within their closed circles.
Channel banning decisions heavily rely on local laws and enforcement. In some cases, channels are restricted based on local hate speech and neo-Nazism laws. However, even these restrictions can be bypassed through the use of VPNs and SIM cards from other countries. While channel restrictions may appear to adhere to local laws, Telegram’s refusal to delete them allows the platform to maintain its claim of protecting freedom of speech.
Rita Katz, the founder of SITE Intelligence Group, a consultancy that monitors terrorist groups online, explains that Telegram’s decision to ban a channel often depends on the strength of laws and enforcement. Compliance is more likely when strong-armed by entities like the European Union. However, even when Telegram restricts channels, the content remains accessible in nonrestricted channels.
In conclusion, Telegram’s approach to restricting channels rather than banning them raises serious concerns. Although they may appear to comply with the policies of Google and Apple, the hidden landscape of restricted channels continues to function, allowing extremist ideologies to proliferate. As technology giants and governments exert pressure on Telegram, it becomes imperative to monitor these platforms closely and hold them accountable.
We want to hear from you! Have you encountered restricted channels on Telegram? Do you think technology platforms should take more stringent measures against hate speech and extremist content? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
