The digital landscape is currently being shaped by a sophisticated, phantom influence operation that is hiding in plain sight. Independent researchers at Democracy Reporting International have uncovered a network of Telegram channels that appear to be local news outlets, yet lack any real-world newsroom, editorial staff, or legitimate journalistic oversight. Operating across multiple languages, these “Common Sense” channels share a singular, coordinated signature: they push identical, Kremlin-aligned propaganda translated to hit diverse European audiences simultaneously. This isn’t grassroots reporting; it is a synchronized campaign designed to manufacture the illusion of widespread public consensus.
The true danger of this network lies in its clever manipulation of social proof. By leveraging bot-driven “vertical” growth, these channels can artificially inflate their subscriber counts, sometimes jumping by thousands overnight to appear as credible news sources to unsuspecting readers. Simultaneously, they expand “horizontally” by launching new channels in different languages, creating a vast, decentralized web of influence. Because Telegram’s infrastructure provides little to no oversight for this kind of behavior, this network operates with total impunity, continuously spreading biased, unverified content that preys on the trust of readers who assume these channels are legitimate local information hubs.
The core of the issue is a widening regulatory gap between Telegram and other major social media platforms. Under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), platforms with over 45 million monthly active users are designated as “Very-Large Online Platforms” (VLOPs), which subjects them to strict systemic risk assessments and mitigation strategies. Currently, Telegram claims to fall just below this threshold, allowing it to evade the rigorous transparency and moderation requirements that platforms like WhatsApp or Meta must follow. This “light” regulatory status is increasingly difficult to justify as evidence mounts regarding the platform’s role in hosting everything from disinformation campaigns to harmful illegal content.
Telegram’s moderation record remains remarkably sparse, especially when compared to its direct competitors. While other platforms have integrated robust systems to combat spam, impersonation, and coordinated abuse, Telegram has maintained a largely hands-off stance, sometimes even resisting requests from law enforcement. When you compare the number of moderation decisions made by platforms like WhatsApp—which handles hundreds of thousands of interventions—against Telegram’s relatively meager output, the lack of platform responsibility becomes glaring. This is not merely a technical oversight; it is a structural choice that leaves the European digital space vulnerable to manipulation by state-aligned actors.
There is a growing consensus that the European Commission must re-evaluate how it counts and monitors Telegram’s “active recipients.” The current reliance on self-reported figures is inherently flawed, especially given that Telegram’s global user base has surged while its European numbers seem conveniently stagnant just below the regulatory threshold. If the Commission were to clarify its counting methodology to better reflect the reality of how public content is accessed and indexed on the platform, it is highly likely that Telegram would be reclassified. A move to VLOP status would force the company to finally take accountability for the systemic risks its platform currently enables.
Until full accountability is achieved, authorities and civil society must work in tandem to hold the platform to higher standards. The Belgian regulators and the European Commission have the tools to investigate compliance regarding illegal content and child safety, and these actions must be prioritized. Furthermore, because these disinformation campaigns often bleed into other platforms like Facebook and X, a more cooperative, cross-platform approach to risk management is essential. Ultimately, the survival of a healthy democratic debate depends on our ability to distinguish between genuine local discourse and the artificial, machine-generated noise currently being amplified by a platform that refuses to manage its own house.