Double Standards in Justice: The Selective War on Platforms

Pavel Durov, the enigmatic founder of Telegram, was arrested in France, accused of running a platform that allegedly facilitated illegal activities. The irony is thick:

France, the nation that inspired the Magna Carta, now leading a crackdown on digital privacy.

But here’s the kicker—if enabling criminal activity were truly the concern, then why aren’t Facebook, Instagram, and Bluesky (among others) facing the same scrutiny?

The answer is as clear as it is infuriating: the law isn’t being applied equally.

When a platform prioritizes individual rights—especially privacy—it suddenly becomes a target. Yet, traditional institutions, including Big Tech and major banks, which have facilitated criminal activity at scales far beyond Telegram, continue unscathed.

The Case of Pavel Durov and Telegram

In August 2024, Durov was arrested at Paris–Le Bourget Airport, facing allegations that Telegram was used for drug trafficking and organized crime.

The case against him echoes past government actions against platforms that refuse to become arms of state surveillance.

While Telegram has made efforts to assist law enforcement in combating criminal use, its emphasis on privacy makes it a convenient scapegoat for authorities who seek greater control over communication networks.

Because there’s nothing governments hate more than sovereign individuals exercising their natural rights.

Two-Tiered “Justice”: Big Tech’s Free Pass

If governments were truly concerned about digital platforms being exploited for criminal purposes, Meta (formerly Facebook), Bluesky, and Instagram (along with pretty much every other online platform) would be facing their own high-profile legal battles.

Instagram alone had over 11 million reported cases of one of the most heinous crimes imaginable—yet Meta executives sleep soundly, knowing their status shields them from consequences.

Bluesky, touted as a decentralized alternative to Twitter, became infamous within months of launch for hosting reprehensible content.

Yet, where are the high-profile arrests? Where is the outrage?

The message is clear:

Platforms that cooperate with government censorship and surveillance efforts are given a pass, while those that threaten state overreach are made examples of.

But this is just a continuation of the double standards in the application of justice that we have come to expect.

The Biggest Money Launderers? Banks, Not Crypto

Despite the constant vilification of cryptocurrency, the reality is that the traditional financial system launders orders of magnitude more dirty money than crypto ever has.

Take HSBC, which was caught laundering billions for drug cartels. Their punishment? A $1.9 billion fine—a mere slap on the wrist compared to what crypto platforms face for minor infractions. When banks facilitate crime, they get fined. When crypto platforms even inadvertently touch illicit funds, they get shut down.

Government Overreach: The War on Privacy

The assault on platforms like Telegram is part of a broader strategy of government overreach. Consider the following:

• Operation Choke Point: A U.S. initiative that pressured banks to cut services to businesses deemed “high risk” without due process.
• Australia’s Anti-Encryption Laws: Passed in 2018, forcing tech companies to provide backdoors to encrypted messages, eroding personal privacy in the name of “security.”
• The EU’s Digital Services Act: An attempt to impose draconian content moderation rules, disproportionately affecting privacy-focused platforms.

The goal? To ensure that no digital space exists outside of government oversight.

The Populist Backlash: People Are Fed Up

This blatant double standard isn’t going unnoticed.

Across the world, nationalist-populist movements are surging because people are tired of watching elites get away with blatant crime while governments crack down on ordinary citizens and alternative platforms.

From the Netherlands to Argentina, populist leaders are gaining ground by calling out the corrupt symbiosis between governments and corporate giants.

People are rejecting a system where criminals in high places walk free, while those who challenge the status quo—like Durov—are vilified.

The Real Solution: Target Criminals, Not Platforms

Let’s be clear: crime must be punished. But punishing entire platforms instead of the criminals who exploit them is a lazy, ineffective strategy.

Sick people will use every tool available to commit crimes—that’s a fact of human nature. The solution is to target and punish the individuals responsible, not to selectively apply the law based on whether a platform supports state control.

Justice Must Be Blind, Not Selective

The case against Pavel Durov is not about crime; it’s about control.

Governments are cracking down on platforms that enable privacy and individual autonomy while ignoring—or even partnering with—those that uphold the status quo.

This hypocrisy is fueling global discontent, driving people toward decentralized alternatives and populist leaders who promise to tear down the rigged system.

Justice must be applied equally, or it isn’t justice at all.

If we don’t fight for fairness now, we’ll wake up in a world where the only platforms left standing are the ones that serve the interests of the powerful—not the people.