The balance of security and freedom - will Telegram be banned in Ukraine
Kyiv • UNN
Ukraine is discussing the regulation of Telegram instead of a complete ban on the service. Platforms will be obliged to have a representative office and disclose their ownership structure.
During the war, Telegram in Ukraine became one of the main sources of news, a channel for state communication with citizens, and at the same time an environment for disinformation, anonymous influence, and recruitment attempts. Therefore, politicians, specialists from relevant departments, and public activists are currently looking for a model that will reduce threats without direct interference in freedom of speech and expression.
These and other challenges were discussed on April 2 at the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center during the discussion "Telegram in Ukraine: prohibit or regulate," UNN reports.
The discussion about regulating Telegram in Ukraine came to the forefront again after the relevant Verkhovna Rada committee on March 25 supported bill №11115, which concerns Telegram and similar platforms.
Why a complete ban is not a working solution
The participants of the discussion unanimously rejected the scenario of a quick total ban on Telegram. One of the main arguments is that it is technically difficult, expensive, and politically risky.
People's Deputy Mykola Kniazhytskyi – the initiator of bill №11115 – said during the discussion:
"We do not believe that this is possible. I personally do not believe that we can technically ban it quickly enough."
Another argument "against" is closely related to the possible reaction of society. After all, Telegram is currently too deeply embedded in everyday communication. It is used not only by the media but also by law enforcement agencies, local authorities, banks, and other institutions. Therefore, according to Kniazhytskyi, a ban on Telegram or any such popular network would cause outrage in Ukrainian society. In wartime conditions, such a step could give the enemy an additional tool to destabilize the situation.
Telegram in Ukraine: what exactly is proposed to be regulated
The key idea that emerged during the discussion is not direct content blocking, but rather to force the platform to interact with the state according to clear rules.
"We do not regulate content. It's about something else: about the platform's obligation to have contact with the Ukrainian side, to respond to legitimate requests, to remove materials that violate the law, and to disclose the ownership structure and financing," Mykola Kniazhytskyi emphasized.
The formula promoted by the authors of the legislative changes is as follows:
"The state's position should be that certain information transmission networks must contact the Ukrainian state."
If this does not happen, fines and other restrictions should apply. Among the possible steps, even a ban on the use of such platforms for government bodies, local self-government, and structures that work with personal data was discussed.
Where is the line between security and freedom of speech?
In modern conditions in Ukraine, the most realistic model may be a phased pressure, not a one-time ban. It allows reducing risks without creating a new crisis around freedom of speech. This primarily concerns transparency, accountability, and the presence of a representative with whom one can work in the legal field.
This opinion was supported by almost all participants during the discussion.
One of the speakers emphasized:
"We want, in fact, social platforms to contact Ukraine, and we want the requirements that national legislation sets for content to be observed on social platforms as well."
It is important to understand here that this is not about punishment for the mere existence of the platform and not about manual interference in any inconvenient opinion. It is about the fact that the rules that already exist for other segments of the media environment should also work for large digital platforms.
Telegram during the war: what approach may be appropriate for Ukraine
At the end of the discussion, the participants concluded that in modern realities, the appropriate course would not be an immediate ban on Telegram, but a model of stricter regulation without directly eliminating the platform from the market.
This approach includes several elements:
- a requirement for the platform to have official contact with the state;
- the obligation to respond to violations of the law;
- disclosure of ownership and sources of funding;
- financial sanctions for refusing to cooperate;
- gradual reduction of state institutions' dependence on this service.
This does not eliminate all risks. But it is precisely this model that gives Ukraine the opportunity to act within the law, preserve space for freedom of expression, and at the same time not leave unanswered the threats that Telegram creates during the war.