The Gestalt of Tech: What We Can Learn From Telegram’s Troubles

Recent crackdowns on messaging apps highlight the critical importance of considering social, legal, and political factors in tech innovation.

The recent arrest of Telegram’s founder and CEO Pavel Durov in France has sent shockwaves through the internet community. Comments on the evolving situation range from outcries about an assault on freedom of speech to “I told you so”. These are interspersed with analyses of why Telegram could be considered a critical piece of communications infrastructure (e.g., in the ongoing war in Ukraine) and assertions that Telegram is not actually secure (at least in its default settings).

Regardless of where you find yourself on this multifaceted spectrum of opinion, the situation highlights an important point we regularly make when assessing signals and trends: You have to take the Gestalt into account.

Gestalt, a distinctly German concept, means “shape” or “form” and encapsulates the idea that we ought to look at the world as integrated wholes rather than merely the sum of its parts. In other words, we can’t just look at a technology and its application, such as the messaging network Telegram, as an isolated app that runs on some servers and connects its members through the Internet. We must see it in the context of many other dimensions.

To assess these additional dimensions, many acronyms exist – STEEP(S), PESTLE, and others. They all encapsulate similar ideas and concepts. STEEPS, for example, stands for Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, and Sustainability. PESTLE is an acronym for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental. These frameworks are based on the important insight that you have to look at a product, service, or situation through multiple lenses. An important lens in all these frameworks is the political as well as social (and legal) framework.

This is where the Telegram story comes back to us. Durov operated Telegram as if it would function solely in the context of its technological and economic dimensions, with little regard for the legal and political framework in which his company and product existed. This approach might work for a while, but eventually, often when the product or service in question becomes significant, the other factors in the acronym start to exert their influence. In Durov’s case, this led to his arrest on charges related to his company’s non-responsiveness to requests from French authorities to moderate some of the content on the platform. A similar story is currently unfolding at X (formerly Twitter), where Elon Musk’s refusal to comply with orders from the Brazilian government resulted in his platform being banned in the country.

Regardless of one’s stance on whether these actions are right or wrong, these incidents serve as important reminders to consider the gestalt of things. It’s crucial not to operate under the mistaken assumption that only certain aspects of the futurist’s acronym soup matter. For businesses and policymakers alike, understanding and addressing all these dimensions can mean the difference between success and failure, compliance and legal troubles.

@Pascal