Human beings are in contact with us and with the environment in which we live, everything we do influences both good and evil. Personal values, culture, relationships and material possibilities are decisive to reduce the negative impact that we can generate.

I have often thought that the lack of technology neutrality, that is, technology generators are looking for a concrete impact, linked to their worldliness, although sometimes it is not very evident. But beyond the creator's goals, users can also make another sense of the tool. My father, for example, makes irrigators for the orchard by making holes in plastic bottles.

When he founded Telegram, Pavel Durov said he was looking for freedom in communication between people. The user may have the possibility to stay free from the effects of sharing the information. In order to achieve this objective, privacy was necessary (at least when sharing data with third parties, as Telegram does not have intrinsic end-to-end protection, so secret chats have to be created). But in Telegram there are also contents that have a negative impact: they incite violence, multiple exploitation, exclusion, hatred... And here's the conflict. the negative impact of some forms of use should be above any other positive use? According to the Digital Services Act adopted by the European Union at the end of 2022, large Internet platforms should work together with the authorities and with Justice "to combat crime and crime". And on that road, the French authorities say that Durov has done nothing, so they have stopped him.

There are many reasons to use telegram. What is clear is that the digital field is very controllable, because all the activity creates trace. And in centralized systems like Telegram, controlling the information that that trail can give is very important.