Shadowing-Übung: “I’ve seen how governments suppress freedom” | Telegram founder Pavel Durov at Oslo Freedom Forum - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video

Thank you.

Passengers of the Titanic actually didn't want to leave the ship for almost two hours after it hit the iceberg.

People thought the Titanic was unsinkable.

Lifeboats left half empty.

Only in the last half an hour people started to panic, but by that time it was already too late.

Not enough lifeboats, nowhere to hide, nowhere to run.

I came here today to tell you that we find ourselves in a similar predicament, in a similar situation.

Our ship has already hit the iceberg.

we have already started to sink without even realizing it.

And I'm talking about the ship of our personal freedoms.

Personal freedoms have been eroded everywhere in the world, almost without exception.

I know this from personal experience.

I've been running large social media platforms for almost 20 years.

Actually, exactly 20 years.

And I witnessed first-hand which methods governments use to suppress our freedoms and to take away our basic rights.

I've seen all the tricks, the PR tricks, the legal tricks,

the political tricks, the manipulations, the official excuses.

I've become an expert at this.

And the thing that bothers me most today is that some of the same tricks that have been employed

by authoritarian regimes in places like Russia or China and Iran are now being also used in some Western countries.

But maybe I'm exaggerating things, right?

Let's look at the facts.

Thousands of people are getting arrested every year in the United Kingdom for social media posts.

You say something politically incorrect online, you may end up being fined or spend some time in prison.

In Germany, the largest country in the European Union,

people get arrested and persecuted for insulting politicians online.

thousands of people every year.

You call a politician a pig or a thief online, and you can serve up to three years in prison.

So now people are afraid to use their real identities.

People stop using their real names when they make comments online.

And the European Commission is pushing for a new measure,

a measure to require that all social media users present their IDs before they can access social media sites.

Their official justification is child protection.

They want to ban social media services for everybody under 16,

and for that, they need people to verify their age by presenting their ID.

But what will happen if social media sites are banned for teenagers?

Will it bring harm or good?

Actually, we know the answer to this question.

Why?

Because it has already been tried.

This experiment has already been conducted, it has been carried on.

In Russia, so Russia banned Telegram, the largest social media platform at the time,

for all of its citizens, because we refused to comply with their demands for mass surveillance and censorship.

However, 95% of Russian teenagers still use Telegram every month.

How?

They use VPNs.

They bypass the entire thing.

And there's very little you can do with VPNs.

Russia is trying very hard.

They have invested billions in trying to fight VPNs.

They're banning hundreds of VPNs every month, using IP addresses and traffic patterns.

They even installed surveillance hardware into every data center of every Internet provider in the country,

trying to monitor all the traffic and trying to prevent people from using VPNs.

And they failed.

Despite all this effort, they failed.

The majority of the population of Russia still uses Telegram.

The majority of the population of Iran still uses Telegram as well.

Despite the fact that Iran has been blocking Telegram for all of its citizens since 2018.

So we know exactly what happens when you ban social media for part of your population.

they just switch to VPN.

The problem is, once we force teenagers and children to use VPNs, all kind of nasty, illegal,

fringe content gets unlocked for them.

Certain websites that have been banned years ago all of a sudden become available again.

will the children end up being in a larger danger than they're in now?

And you can ask yourself, so if this policy is destined to fail, and obviously we see how it played out in other countries,

why is the European Commission and the United Kingdom and Australia and Canada and some other countries are pushing with this measure? Is it incompetence?

Maybe.

But the British government seems to have given an answer to this question.

Publicly, they promoted the Online Safety Act as a set of laws to protect children,

to force people to verify their age in order to access social media.

They needed to protect children.

Privately, though, they offered a different explanation.

In their submission to the High Court of England published last year,

the British government said that the principal part of the Online Safety Act had nothing to do with protecting children.

Instead, they said, and I quote,

the main part of the Online Safety Act was aimed at capturing large platforms with significant influence over public discourse.

Now, let's think about it.

They used protection of children as a pretext, where in fact, in fact,

they wanted more control over political speech online.

And this is very sad,

because protecting children is exactly the same justification that has been used in countless other cases by authoritarian regimes

over the course of the last century.

Why?

Because once somebody says, child protection, all of a sudden it triggers very ancient,

very deep parts of our brain.

Who would be against protecting children?

Everybody is scared for the future of their offspring.

Once somebody says, we need to protect the children, they're in danger, it completely bypasses logic,

it bypasses debate, it bypasses rationality.

All of a sudden people are ready to give up everything,

and authoritarian regimes were able to smuggle all kinds of repressive legislation under the guise of protecting children.

Now, the same justification is being used by the European Commission the European Commission to push for a set of surveillance laws,

the so-called chat control, the chat control initiative.

For five years, the European Commission has been trying to force a new set of laws

that would require every messaging app to implement a backdoor to their encryption so that everything that we share online,

every private message, every private photo that we sent using apps like Telegram or WhatsApp or any other,

would be automatically monitored.

And if the system detects that we are trying to do something illegal, it alerts the authorities.

The justification here again is child protection.

100

And this has been tried on the European level and also on the national level.

101

The French government has been trying to pass a similar law that would basically mandate mass surveillance on the national level.

102

The French Senate has approved this law.

103

It got stuck on the level of the National Assembly,

104

but the French Senate thought it was a reasonable and a good idea to enact mass surveillance.

105

So this shows how dangerous it is and how close we are,

106

even here in Europe, to a stage where we end up being monitored.

107

Now, the French used slightly different justification.

108

They said, we need to combat crime.

109

We need to do something about terrorism.

110

We need to do something about drug trafficking.

111

And that's why we need to spy on you.

112

For your own protection, you have to give up your essential right to privacy.

113

And this again has been tried countless times in the history of humanity, where we, or different nations throughout history,

114

have been offered an exchange.

115

Give up some of your essential liberty in exchange for some temporary safety.

116

And this deal, this offer, is always a scam, and it always turned out to be a scam.

117

It was Benjamin Franklin who said,

118

those who are willing to give up their essential liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. And we see that.

119

We see that in countless places.

120

Ask people living in Russia or living in Iran whether they feel safer today than they felt 10-15 years ago.

121

They definitely lost a lot of their freedoms in the last decade or two.

122

Have they gained any safety?

123

I doubt that.

124

Once you allow law enforcement, police, have access to your messages.

125

You will not prevent crime.

126

The criminals will be the first to switch on to other tools, more secure.

127

They will use VPNs, they will use private secret apps.

128

They can even vibe code their own encrypted messaging app now in the age of AI.

129

The criminals will be fine.

130

It will be the law-abiding citizens who will be put in danger.

131

It will be the ordinary people that will have their privacy taken away from them.

132

Not the criminals.

133

Well, how do I know that?

134

Maybe I'm inventing things.

135

Again, from my experience in Russia, 15 years ago, when I was still running VK, the largest social network in Russia at the time,

136

we started to receive weird data requests from the Russian police.

137

Back then, VK actually disclosed, in some cases, contents of private messages.

138

Unlike Telegram today, which doesn't disclose it ever, VK, back in the day, did that, provided there was an official justification.

139

And we started to notice something weird.

140

Something was off about this data request coming from the Russian police.

141

we realized that the people who were included in these investigations had nothing to do with the crimes that were described there.

142

So we started to investigate the investigators.

143

And we came to a conclusion, pretty fast, that the police was corrupt.

144

They were trying to access private messages of innocent people in order to then blackmail them

145

and sell their private data to criminals.

146

They used it for harassment and other things.

147

So you could say, okay, you had this traumatizing experience in Russia,

148

but surely nothing of the kind can happen in the civilized West.

149

Well, I have bad news for you.

150

Last year, a French tax official was caught stealing the financial data

151

of people who held large amounts of crypto assets and other wealth.

152

So, a French tax bureaucrat was selling personal financial data of French citizens to criminals.

153

Now, as a result of this leak and countless other leaks from French government systems,

154

you have a catastrophic rise in the number of kidnappings in France.

155

Just in the first three months of 2026, you have over 40 victims of kidnappings in France.

156

People getting tortured, harmed, harassed,

157

humiliated, all because the government wanted too much data and failed to protect it.

158

And now they want more of the data.

159

The situation is already catastrophic as it is, but they don't want to stop there.

160

They also want to access your personal messages, they want to access ideas of everybody who's using social media.

161

Imagine the damage it can inflict if they get what they want.

162

Now, this is already completely insane and unbelievable.

163

But there is a third method, a third issue.

164

A trick that has been used by authoritarians for decades.

165

And now it is being increasingly exported from the East to the West.

166

I'm talking about selective enforcement of laws.

167

Now, the way it works is pretty straightforward.

168

First, you need to introduce a large number of laws.

169

You need to overburden a certain industry with excessive, mutually exclusive, contradictory regulation.

170

As a result, you make compliance impossible.

171

Now you can treat every entrepreneur, every CEO, every business owner in this country,

172

in a certain industry, as a criminal.

173

But then the government carefully starts to choose who to persecute.

174

If the business owner is loyal, if it complies with the moral or unlawful demands from the government,

175

gives certain political favors, then the law enforcement system and the judicial system look the other way.

176

They don't do anything.

177

But if the business owner decides to stand up for the constitutional rights of his or her fellow citizens,

178

if they refuse to cave in to political demands from the authoritarian government,

179

then the persecution and the enforcement of laws comes in full.

180

And when somebody starts to criticize the government for doing that, the eternal, perennial response is,

181

we're just enforcing the law.

182

You don't want to live in a country which is lawless.

183

We're just enforcing the laws.

184

I personally experienced that in my days in Russia.

185

I had a criminal investigation against me in 2013.

186

I believe I have a criminal investigation against me in Russia today.

187

But interestingly, this is something that we see increasingly in the West as well.

188

And you can say, there is no way it can happen.

189

It's something from the world of the barbaric East.

190

Well, I have bad news.

191

Elon Musk said that the European Commission offered him a secret deal where they demanded that he conducts censorship

192

of certain political narratives on his platform,

193

and in exchange the European Commission promised him not to enforce certain fines and laws on his company.

194

Elon Musk said that he refused that offer.

195

But most other platforms accepted it.

196

Then Elon's company was hit by a 120 million euro fine from the European Commission for seemingly unrelated issues,

197

something that has to do with transparency.

198

We can doubt the words of Elon Musk, maybe he was inventing things, right?

199

But unfortunately, his words are at least indirectly confirmed by the results of the investigation conducted by the US Congress.

200

The US Congress published emails between the European Commission officials and managers of large social media platforms during the pandemic.

201

These emails included attempts to pressure all these networks to silence political narratives and accounts

202

that were inconvenient for the European Commission at that time.

203

So, you had Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube and others.

204

Ban, censor, downrank, shadow ban,

205

demote, accounts and narratives that spread inconvenient truths or inconvenient narratives.

206

The official justification for that was that the European Commission was trying to combat misinformation and conspiracy theories during the pandemic.

207

Well, now years after, it seems that many of those so-called conspiracy theories turned out to be at least partially true,

208

and in any case, were worthy of a public debate.

209

Now, everything from the artificial origins of COVID

210

to the limited nature of the anti-COVID measures to the immense harm done to the young generation by school closures,

211

all of it once considered conspiracy theories,

212

is now becoming part of the mainstream debate and the mainstream view of what happened during COVID.

213

So those narratives were silenced not because they were untrue.

214

They were silenced because they were inconvenient by those people in power.

215

And if this is not political censorship, I don't know what is.

216

Now, I myself have been personally exposed to selective enforcement of laws,

217

also in Europe, not just in Russia.

218

And I talked about it last year on this stage,

219

after I was arrested in Paris for reasons that are still unclear in 2024,

220

I got offered a secret deal by the head of the French intelligence who asked me to silence certain political voices.

221

Well, I refused that deal, and I'm still under this investigation, and still facing many years in prison.

222

But I don't want to talk about this today.

223

I want to conclude by telling you a related story,

224

Something that happened during these days when I was detained in Paris

225

and I was spending a few days in this police custody, basically a jail cell.

226

I was interrogated for almost three days, and there was this translator that was helping us.

227

He was appointed by the judge.

228

And after three days of translating, during one of these pauses between sessions,

229

the translator was sitting there seemingly shocked.

230

Perhaps she was shocked by the selective and political nature of the charges brought against me.

231

But she looked at me, she looked at the police officers present and she said,

232

I left the Soviet Union in the 80s because I wanted to escape an environment where my freedoms are limited.

233

I wanted to escape an environment where human rights are disrespected.

234

But now, after witnessing what I've witnessed,

235

I feel like the Soviet Union is catching up with me.

236

I feel like I'm back in the Soviet Union.

237

In that room in Paris,

238

that woman who escaped the Soviet Union felt she's back in the Soviet Union.

239

And of course, perhaps she was being overdramatic, perhaps she was exaggerating things.

240

But if we let the current trends continue, we can end up in a place much worse than the Soviet Union of the 80s.

241

You know, when my parents sent each other letters

242

or sent telegrams to their relatives in the Soviet Union of the late 80s,

243

sometimes they expressed hope that the KGB would not open the letters,

244

that the KGB would not have enough resources to read everything that they have to write.

245

After all, there was a human limit to surveillance.

246

There were only so many KGB officers, only so many hours in the workday, only so many letters they could open.

247

Now we don't have this luxury.

248

In the world of AI, if we give up our right to privacy,

249

you can be certain that every message that you send will be monitored, will be analyzed, every draft,

250

every thought, every idea will be scored, every relationship will be mapped.

251

The future can become much darker and more dystopian than the Soviet Union of the 80s.

252

So we don't have this luxury that the passengers of the Titanic had.

253

We cannot afford to have this ship sunk.

254

See, there is nowhere to escape.

255

In the past, dissidents from authoritarian countries could flee to the West.

256

But if the current trajectory continues, in a decade or two from now,

257

they will have a hard time trying to understand whether they have already left their repressive homeland,

258

or they are just entering another open-air prison.

259

Now, I hope it will not come to that.

260

But we need to realize the gravity of the situation.

261

We need to start acting.

262

We don't have a backup plan.

263

We don't have lifeboats.

264

There is no second West.

265

There is no backup civilization.

266

For decades or centuries, the West has been a guiding star for everybody who loved freedom, and we need to preserve that.

267

If the ship of Western freedom sinks, the rest of the world is likely to follow.

268

We will lose freedoms everywhere.

269

So we cannot let this happen.

270

We cannot let this ship sink.

271

The only way forward is to fix this ship.

272

Let's do that.

273

Thank you very much.

Was ist die Shadowing-Technik?

Shadowing ist eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Sprachlerntechnik, die ursprünglich für die professionelle Dolmetscherausbildung entwickelt und durch den Polyglotten Dr. Alexander Arguelles populär gemacht wurde. Die Methode ist einfach aber wirkungsvoll: Du hörst englisches Audio von Muttersprachlern und wiederholst es sofort laut — wie ein Schatten, der dem Sprecher mit nur 1–2 Sekunden Verzögerung folgt. Anders als passives Hören oder Grammatikübungen zwingt Shadowing dein Gehirn und deine Mundmuskulatur, gleichzeitig echte Sprachmuster zu verarbeiten und zu reproduzieren. Studien zeigen, dass es Aussprachegenauigkeit, Intonation, Rhythmus, verbundene Sprache, Hörverständnis und Sprechflüssigkeit signifikant verbessert — was es zu einer der effektivsten Methoden für die IELTS Speaking-Vorbereitung und reale englische Kommunikation macht.

Shadowing-Übung: “I’ve seen how governments suppress freedom” | Telegram founder Pavel Durov at Oslo Freedom Forum - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video

Über diese Lektion

Was ist die Shadowing-Technik?