In recent discussions on the handling of intimate images online, Kate Ruane, director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s free expression project, highlighted the growing recognition among major technology platforms regarding the need for policies against nonconsensual distribution of intimate content. Yet, she emphasizes ambiguity in Telegram’s terms of service, stating that it remains unclear if such actions are explicitly prohibited. This criticism is part of a broader concern about Telegram’s long-standing reputation for hosting not only intimate imagery abuses but also groups promoting scams and extremist content.
The scrutiny on Telegram has intensified following the arrest of its CEO, Pavel Durov, in France for various offenses. This incident has prompted Telegram to reconsider its policies, resulting in some modifications to its terms of service and cooperation with law enforcement agencies. However, Telegram has not responded to inquiries about whether it prohibits explicit deepfakes specifically, leaving a gap in understanding how the platform manages potentially harmful content.
Researcher Ajder, who has previously uncovered deepfake bots on Telegram, asserts that the platform is particularly vulnerable to misuse in this regard. The functionalities that Telegram offers, such as chat and bot hosting, create an environment conducive to the creation and dissemination of deepfakes. This capability allows users to form communities around harmful content and facilitates a potentially damaging experience for victims.
Recent reports from late September indicate that several channels associated with deepfake bots claimed they had been targeted by Telegram’s content removal efforts. The context for these removals remains unclear, and there are questions about whether this marks a meaningful shift in the platform’s stance on harmful content or simply a temporary reaction to rising scrutiny. One channel with a significant subscriber base reported that Telegram had “banned” its bots, subsequently posting a new link for users, indicating the ongoing agility of users attempting to evade detection.
Elena Michael, cofounder and director of the campaign group #NotYourPorn, expressed concerns regarding the challenge of monitoring content on platforms like Telegram from the survivor’s perspective. She described Telegram as notoriously difficult to engage with concerning safety issues. Despite intermittent progress, Michael argues that the responsibility to enforce safety measures should not fall solely upon individuals. Rather, proactive measures should be implemented by the company to mitigate risks before they escalate.
This narrative raises important questions in the cybersecurity landscape, particularly regarding how platforms like Telegram manage user-generated content and the potential implications for data privacy abuses. The lack of clarity in policies surrounding deepfake content may align with several tactics outlined in the MITRE ATT&CK Framework, including initial access through social engineering, and persistence as offenders leverage community dynamics to maintain harmful content visibility. As concerns about the exploitation of digital imagery continue to grow, addressing these vulnerabilities will be imperative for safeguarding individuals from harms associated with image-based abuse.
In summary, the intersection of technology policy and user safety remains a pressing issue as platforms like Telegram navigate their responsibilities in combatting abusive content effectively. The continuing dialogue emphasizes the need for stringent measures in place to not only respond to incidents but also to prevent potential abuses actively.
