Banning Telegram totally misses the point

EDITORIAL: The Department of Information and Communications Technology is studying a possible ban on Telegram in the Philippines, citing child sexual abuse material, illegal gambling, and deepfake content. Those are serious crimes. They deserve serious action.

But banning an entire platform because criminals use it is the wrong response.

Welcome to Root Access – a WalasTech Editorial section where I share editorial opinions on how tech impacts Filipinos. Here, I tackle pressing issues, trends, and topics that challenge the norm in tech, culture, and society. Root Access unpacks complex topics with an unfiltered approach.

Telegram is a tool – more than a messaging app, it’s used as a file-sharing tool because it’s one of the very few that can freely distribute photos and videos to friends without compromising quality, and is even used as a media vault for those wanting to save phone space. It is used by students, small businesses, online communities, media groups, and even public offices. Removing it not only affects bad actors but also disrupts ordinary users who rely on it for daily communication.

If the standard is that a platform can be banned when it is used for crime, then no major platform is safe. Child exploitation content has appeared on mainstream social networks. Illegal gambling syndicates operate through websites, messaging apps, and payment platforms. Deepfake tools exist outside of any single app. The DICT even banned streaming platform Kick in the Philippines for this very same reason, when most content there are livestreams of content creators.

Crime adapts. Platforms rotate. The problem does not disappear when one app is blocked. Banning Telegram would not erase child abuse networks. It would push them elsewhere. It would not end illegal gambling. It would force it into another channel. It would not stop deepfakes. It would only change where they are shared.

We have seen this before. Kick, a streaming website mainly for content creators similar to Twitch, was banned in the Philippines over concerns that illegal gambling activities were proliferating on the platform. The reasoning sounded familiar. Remove the platform, reduce the problem. But illegal online gambling did not vanish. It continued through other websites, private groups, and alternative apps. Blocking one venue did not eliminate the demand, the operators, or the money flow.

Blocking a platform is not the same as solving a crime. Child sexual abuse is a law enforcement issue. Illegal gambling is a regulatory and financial tracking issue. Deepfake abuse is a form of cybercrime and a digital literacy issue. Each requires targeted investigation, coordination, and prosecution. None are solved by flipping a national switch.

A blanket ban is a broad solution to a specific problem. There is also the matter of proportionality. Messaging apps are a communication infrastructure. Blocking one affects freedom of expression, association, and access to information. Government power to restrict digital communication should be used carefully, not reflexively.

You do not shut down a highway because criminals use it. If there are concerns about cooperation from Telegram’s management, the answer is structured engagement, clearer compliance requirements, and international coordination. Global platforms operate across borders. Enforcement requires cross-border frameworks, not isolation.

Encryption is often blamed in these debates. But encryption protects ordinary citizens from hacking, fraud, and surveillance. Weakening or banning encrypted platforms reduces security for everyone, while determined criminals simply migrate to other tools.

Deepfakes and illegal gambling networks are not platform-specific problems. They are ecosystem problems. They demand smarter enforcement, updated laws, better digital forensics, and stronger partnerships with civil society and international agencies.

Banning Telegram risks creating a precedent where platforms can be blocked whenever misuse becomes politically inconvenient. The legal threshold for such action must be clear and narrow. Otherwise, the power to block can expand beyond its original intent.

Regulation should target perpetrators, not infrastructure. Protect children. Prosecute exploiters. Dismantle gambling syndicates. Update cybercrime tools. Strengthen investigative capacity.

But do not pretend that deleting an app will delete the crime.

A platform ban may look decisive. In reality, it is a shortcut that circumvents the more arduous task of enforcement. The internet does not respond well to blunt instruments.

If the goal is safety, the solution must be precise. Blocking Telegram is not precise. It is a projection.