Regulating Telegram and other social networks: what do MPs propose?

A bill has been registered in parliament that could affect the operation of Telegram, Viber, Facebook, and other social networks (11115).

This bill was introduced by Mykola Knyazhytskyi (European Solidarity), and among the co-authors of the bill are the chairman of the committee on legal and information policy, Mykyta Poturayev (Servant of the People), and the chairman of the committee on freedom of speech, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn (Voice). Therefore, this legislative initiative may initially receive support from these two profile committees. However, MPs note that it still needs to undergo expert discussions before it is considered by the main committee on legal and information policy.

The main author of the project, Mykola Knyazhytskyi, says that his initiative has already been dubbed in social networks as the “law on banning Telegram.” He explains that it applies to all social networks that disseminate information as media.

Which social networks does the legislative initiative apply to?

Mykola Knyazhytskyi

Member of Parliament, member of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy (European Solidarity faction)

This does not concern Signal. We're talking about Facebook, Telegram, Viber, and other social networks. Currently, the Media Law regulates the operation of video platforms, but not text platforms. Therefore, we can shut down pro-Russian channels on YouTube. It's not about freedom of speech; it's about protecting national security and citizens' rights. The state can restrict the spread of information when it harms national security or fuels hostility based on ethnicity. All of this is already in the law, it just doesn't apply to social networks as media. Putin says they have normal cooperation with Telegram, but in response to requests from our regulator—the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting—this social network will not respond. Citizens provide access to their data and locations, which could fall into the hands of the aggressor state.

The MP emphasizes that after registering the project, anonymous Telegram channels began a smear campaign against him personally and against the bill. He adds that the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate, Kyrylo Budanov, also points out that we need to regulate Telegram specifically in the context of national security.

“We are not restricting freedom of speech; the project complies with European standards,” Knyazhitsky concludes.

As for national security, in February, the public initiative “Holka” investigated Telegram channels and identified a “Kremlin network” that discredits judicial reform, honest judges, and representatives of the civil sector who monitor the conduct of judicial reform.

Chairman of the Committee on Freedom of Speech Yurchyshyn emphasizes that the lack of media status in social networks like Telegram is a huge “black” advertising market.

What are the current threats?

Yaroslav Yurchyshyn

Member of Parliament, Chairman of the Committee on Freedom of Speech (Voice faction)

Anonymity, not knowing who is behind social networks, poses two key threats: their use by Russian propaganda, including obtaining personal data of Ukrainians, and tax evasion. Advertisers are shifting massively from traditional media to online platforms. And why? Because it's the gray and black market. Neither channels nor parts of networks pay taxes on these profits. Is this farsighted in a country at war? In my opinion - no. Well, it's also unfair to the market. Why do TV channels, internet publications pay taxes, but social networks and channels in them don't? Why does Pornhub pay, but, for example, Telegram doesn't? This is an unequal approach to players in the same market. The key feature of this project is the transparency of the ownership structure of social networks as the basis for civilized communication of the country with them. This is an EU standard, which is being implemented by the Digital Services Act from 2024 and is expected to be fully implemented by 2027.

The bill introduced to the Verkhovna Rada partially reflects the provisions of the Digital Services Act, which is legislation of the European Union that applies equally to all member states.

Yurchyshyn emphasizes that if networks exert significant informational influence, they must open representations and disclose ownership. Otherwise, they are considered non-transparent, and the state restricts their use by government bodies and representatives.

At the legislative level, MPs propose to introduce the following definition: “information sharing platform, through which mass information is disseminated – a platform through which accounts (pages, channels, etc.) of users are created and operate, through which mass information is disseminated.”

They also propose to add providers of information sharing platforms, through which mass information is disseminated, to the subjects in the media sector. And most of the bill is dedicated to requirements for these providers. The Media Institute has already covered this in detail.

If the Verkhovna Rada supports this bill, providers will be obliged to disclose contact information for users, thus eliminating the anonymity currently used by many Telegram channels. They will be required to respond to requests from the responsible regulatory authority and restrict the dissemination of content that harms national security, incites hatred, hostility, or cruelty towards individuals or groups based on ethnic or social origin, etc. These are all the requirements that traditional media currently have to comply with.

The co-author of the bill and the chairman of the relevant committee tasked with considering this initiative, Mykyta Poturayev, notes that there is currently a discussion about which body will be the regulator in Ukraine – the National Council, as proposed by Knyazhitsky, or the National Commission, which regulates state regulation in the electronic communications sphere, as proposed by some other MPs.

Why do we need to change the legislation?

Mykyta Poturayev

Member of Parliament, Chair of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy (Servant of the People faction)

We are currently amending our legislation so that when we become EU members, everything will be ready for us. Everyone understands that the issue is not who will be the coordinator, whether it's the National Commission or the National Council; the committee will decide, and it's a minor issue. But hypothetically, once the law comes into force and the regulator approaches Telegram or another social network and demands something, and they respond, "So what... go away." Then what? Express deep concern? We need to establish working mechanisms. So, we hope that in a few months, during expert public discussions, we can refine the draft. The Council of Europe can help here. Then we can bring it to the committee and vote on the draft in the session hall. We shouldn't rush it now because we need to create a genuinely functional tool.

As for Telegram and the use of other social networks for hostile disinformation, expert discussions in the media community on this issue have been ongoing for a long time.

Konstantin Kvurt, Chairman of the Board of Internews-Ukraine, when it comes to Telegram, founded by Russian Pavel Durov, emphasizes that in conditions of existential warfare, the discussion should not only focus on the preservation of personal data, regulation of the advertising market, and piracy.

What should the nation do for its survival in the conditions of information warfare?

Konstantin Kvurt

Chairman of the Board of Internews Ukraine

The Ukrainian government, following the mistaken thoughts of some partners, believes that truthful narratives can counter hostile narratives. In reality, there is always a question of quantity and quality. What prevails? Quality never prevails over quantity. Unfortunately, quantity always prevails over quality. The enemy has more money to spread their poison. So, we are immediately in a losing situation here. What should the nation do for its survival in the conditions of information warfare? The same thing the Armed Forces of Ukraine are doing. Destroy the enemy. If there is an opportunity to block the enemy platform, it must be blocked. If it is possible to block an enemy blogger, it must be done. By any lawful means. Liberal approaches in conditions of existential war are mistaken.

Especially for “Espresso“