Internet News

Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov has once again spoken out against what he sees as France's unjust and politically motivated prosecution of him and his company. He said in a statement:

Two years ago, I was detained in Paris by police for 3 days -- the longest they can hold someone before charging them.

In an unprecedented move, French authorities accused the head of a major platform of crimes committed by its users.

That investigation is still ongoing, although it makes less sense with each passing year.

Why?

Because we now have extensive evidence that Telegram was neither worse than other popular platforms at moderation, nor the worst at cooperating with authorities.

So why was Telegram singled out?

Over the last two years, we have seen a pattern emerge in multiple countries: Telegram is quietly asked to grant political favors -- such as illegal censorship or surveillance. When we refuse, local media and non-governmental organizations launch orchestrated campaigns portraying Telegram as a cesspool of crime, from child pornography to terrorism.

Our moderation is no worse than that of other major platforms. Yet these campaigns instill the idea that Telegram should be persecuted or restricted.

Suddenly, officials start caring about crime and protecting children -- but only on platforms that reject their secret political demands. Platforms that accept such deals get away with almost anything -- including literally selling ads promoting child pornography.

Is the French investigation against me political? It certainly fits the pattern we see elsewhere, mostly in authoritarian countries. And it definitely raises questions.

In time, this investigation may itself be investigated -- especially now that Macron's war against free speech is facing pushback. This month, France's Constitutional Council struck down his social media ban for children under 15 on freedom-of-expression grounds.

In the end, freedom and truth will prevail

Fapello is an OnlyFans style adult website. It currently self blocks UK users but is available via VPN.

Ofcom provided details of its fine:

From 25 July 2025, section 12 of the Online Safety Act required Fapello to implement age verification and/or age estimation that is highly effective at determining whether a user is a child, in order to prevent children from encountering pornographic content on its service.

Ofcom has determined that Fapello has failed to comply with this requirement. During the period from 25 July 2025 to 26 November 2025 fapello.com did not implement age assurance measures. On 27 November 2025, Fapello implemented age assurance measures on fapello.com. On 13 January 2026, Fapello removed these age assurance methods and implemented a block to prevent UK users accessing the service and informed us of this change.

On 12 December 2025, Ofcom issued a statutory information request to Fapello requiring Fapello to provide information regarding its qualifying worldwide revenue (‘QWR’) and a complete list of all services operated by Fapello. To date, Ofcom has not received a substantive response to the Notice.

As a result of the above breaches, Ofcom is imposing the following:
• A single penalty of £30,000
• A requirement for Fapello to comply by taking immediate steps to provide the full legal name(s) of the entity and/or individual(s) with control.
• In the event of continuing non-compliance, Ofcom will impose a daily penalty at a rate of £200 per day starting from 9 July 2026 for a maximum of 60 days

On 13 January 2026, Fapello responded to Ofcom stating:

i) there is ‘no legal entity, registered company or corporate structure’ behind fapello.com, and that it is operated by the non-UK based author of the email;
ii) the revenue generated from fapello.com is ‘incidental’ as a small-scale operation, and Fapello is therefore unable to provide QWR; and
iii) Fapello had implemented a full geo-block to prevent UK users accessing fapello.com, and therefore Fapello asserted that the site no longer has links to the UK

Google is rolling out a new system that makes sideloading apps on Android more difficult.

This is happening on two fronts: one is the introduction of what Google calls advanced flow for installing apps from unverified developers and the other is a reminder that Google's controversial developer identity verification requirement is coming.

The first advanced flow is now here, and it makes the process of installing an app from outside Google Play and other major stores much more cumbersome, and therefore less appealing to the average user. Instead of just installing the app, the user must now click through multiple warnings, and then wait 24 hours before the first installation can proceed.

Google claims this is to preserve user choice but in reality, it looks like a way to scare users away from sideloading and route them to the Play Store instead.

The other announcement is a reminder that starting September 30, 2026, developers will have to verify their identity with Google if they want to distribute their apps on certified Android devices in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore, and Thailand. This applies not only to those publishing their apps on the Play Store, but also those using third-party stores, such as the HONOR App Market, OPPO App Market, Galaxy Store, Palm Store, V-Appstore, and GetApps.

To verify their identity, developers will have to pay a $25 fee and provide their government-issued ID to Google.

The requirement will expand to more countries in 2027.

In an open letter to Google, a number of organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Free Software Foundation, F-Droid, Article 19, Fastmail, and Vivaldi, condemned this move, saying that Google is overstepping its boundaries by imposing its rules on third-party stores. The letter said:

Developers who choose not to use Google's services should not be forced to register with, and submit to the judgement of, Google.

Ofcom writes in a press release:

Ofcom has opened new investigations into the providers of pimpbunny.com and kemono.cr. Our investigations will examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the providers have failed, or are failing, to comply with these duties under the Online Safety Act.

We have prioritised action against these providers based on the risk of harm posed by the services they operate. We have taken particular account of their user numbers, including where we have seen significant increases in their user traffic since age-check laws came into force last summer.

Separately, we have published our provisional decision into fapello.com, setting out that we have reasonable grounds to believe the provider of the service is in breach of their duties under the Online Safety Act. Fapello now has the opportunity to make representations to Ofcom, which will be carefully considered before we reach a final decision.

And finally, we are announcing an expansion to our ongoing investigation into the provider of xgroovy to determine whether they have also failed to adequately respond to Ofcom's formal requests for information.

Kemono.cr seems more of an archive of adult graphic art than porn but it does carry porn advertising.

pimpbunny.com is a not particularly expensive tube site but maybe it has particularly wound up the censors as it includes a nudify service