Telegram Would Rather Be Hacked Than Be Honest

The company quickly denied any involvement, shifting the blame to the channel’s administrators. The admins, in turn, denied deleting anything. That left a third-party explanation: “hackers” had allegedly gained access to the account and erased the channel without Telegram's knowledge.

This narrative is, at best, a convenient fallback. Telegram appears to have decided it’s better to look compromised than complicit.

But there’s a glaring problem with this version of events—Telegram is refusing to return the account to its rightful owners.

Escaping Blame by Admitting Weakness

Telegram has long walked a tightrope between its image as a free-speech platform and the pressures of operating in authoritarian environments. This time, the company opted for a clever dodge: rather than admit to facilitating political censorship, it claimed it had simply been outsmarted by hackers.

It’s a textbook PR move—avoid guilt by pleading incompetence.

The Real Problem Isn’t the Hack—It’s the Cover-Up

If Telegram genuinely believes the channel was hijacked and deleted by malicious actors, then why hasn’t it restored access to the legitimate administrators?

That single question undermines the entire official narrative.

This isn’t a customer service issue—it’s a fundamental violation of property rights and digital accountability. And increasingly, it looks like a political decision disguised as technical failure.

A Convenient Hack for an Inconvenient Channel

VChK-OGPU was no ordinary channel. It regularly published leaked and sensitive information about Russia’s security services. Unsurprisingly, its existence was problematic for the Kremlin.

Its disappearance benefits only one actor: the Russian state.

Telegram can insist all it wants that “we had nothing to do with it,” but its refusal to restore the account speaks louder than any press release. This isn’t neutrality. It’s complicity.

The Myth of Platform Neutrality

Telegram built its brand on promises of independence, encryption, and refusal to bend to political pressure. But when it comes to Russia, those promises have repeatedly proven flexible.

This isn’t the first time the company has been accused of silent cooperation with Moscow. From selective content restrictions to alleged metadata sharing, Telegram’s track record is far from spotless. The deletion of VChK-OGPU fits a familiar pattern—only this time, it's wrapped in the comfortable lie of a cyberattack.

Free Speech as Set Decoration

The tragic irony is that Telegram remains a trusted platform for activists, journalists, and dissidents living under repressive regimes. But what is that trust worth if the platform can erase critical voices without explanation—and without even attempting to rectify the mistake?

When a company built on privacy and independence refuses to return a hacked account to its rightful owner, it ceases to be a sanctuary for free expression. It becomes an instrument of silent compliance.

Conclusion

Telegram isn’t just dodging blame—it’s choosing what kind of blame is more acceptable. Would it rather be accused of a security breach or of collaborating with a police state? It has clearly chosen the former.

But the real choice isn’t between being hacked and being exposed. The real choice is between truth and silence. And Telegram has bet—once again—not on the user, but on silence.