Over the past decade, 53 United Nations countries have introduced some restrictions on the work of messengers – that is more than a quarter of the world's countries. Typically, these measures concern global platforms – in 48 countries WhatsApp, in 27 – Telegram, in 20 – other platforms such as Viber, Skype, Signal and others. At the same time, different countries use different strategies: from temporary and targeted lockdowns to complete bans and parallel development of national alternatives. As a rule, the reasons for blocking instant messages in most countries are restrictions on voice communications over the Internet, national security reasons, and the desire of authorities to control the dissemination of information, often while promoting national services. “The trend of a sovereign Internet has long gone beyond the narrow range of states and is becoming a new norm in digital policy. When more than 50 countries limit the work of instant messaging applications and the largest social networks face systemic regulations, this is no longer an exception but a general vector. The logic is similar everywhere: states seek to control communication infrastructure, traffic and data, therefore, slowdown and development of national messaging platforms and applications become part of a unified strategy of digital sovereignty,” commented a member of the committee supporting the IT and IT industry Committee for the Protection of Traditional Values of the Public Council of the Ministry of Digital Development of Russia Armen Gasparyan. Restrictions are usually mainly related to voice calls in instant messages. Therefore, in the United Arab Emirates, Internet calls are allowed only through officially licensed operators. As a result, voice communications on WhatsApp* and Telegram are blocked on the local network, while text messages are still available. At the same time, during the pandemic, certain corporate platforms received temporary relief. In Qatar, since 2017, there has been a ban on commercial use of voice Internet services without a license. As a result, voice calls in WhatsApp and Telegram are not possible from local providers, although chat functions are also retained. In Iran, voice calls via Telegram have been banned by court decision – they are considered a threat to national security and the economy. Then the entire platform was banned. However, for WhatsApp*, there are no similar long-term restrictions on recorded calls. In China, blocking of WhatsApp and Telegram has been tightened amid increased censorship ahead of the CPC congress. As a result, both services were almost completely unavailable in mainland China, and in 2024, at the request of the Cyberspace Administration, they were removed from the App Store. Protection of Minors Another area of regulation concerns the protection of minors in the digital environment. Different countries are actively discussing or implementing special legal regimes for certain products: SIM cards and “children's” profiles, tightening requirements on user identification, restricting access to inappropriate content, banning algorithmic recommendations and collecting data on adolescents. Concerns about children's safety thus become another argument in favor of increased national control over infrastructure, platforms, and algorithms. Late last year, on December 10, a law came into effect in Australia that essentially banned children under 16 from using most popular social platforms. Ten social networks do not conform to its standards: Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, Snapchat, Kick, Reddit, Threads, Twitch and YouTube. They are now required to identify and block accounts of Australians under 16 years of age. Companies could face fines of up to $33 million if they fail to take “reasonable steps” to delete those records. Similar initiatives to limit social media access by age are currently being considered in other countries – among them France, Spain, Denmark, the UK and several others. “If you look at international practice, it is clear that the sovereign Internet is formed not only by “hard” blocking, but also by the accumulation of legal decisions that gradually bind digital services to national jurisdiction. Restrictions on instant messaging, requirements for user identification and compliance with national laws are all elements of the same picture. Global platforms are forced to adapt deeply or give way to local players “, president of the movement “Civilian Committee of Russia”, member of the Presidential Council of the Russian Federation for the development of civil society and human rights, summarizes Artur Shlykov.
