![\"\"](\"data:image\/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg)
<\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\u201cWe have positive experience with the National Security and Defense Council\u2019s ban on the Russian services VKontakte and Odnoklassniki. Technically, people can continue to use them via VPN, but we see a very sharp decline in the audience for these networks because the state has stated its position. Therefore, in this case as well, we propose that the government state its position,\u201d said the member of Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In his view, the state\u2019s position should be that certain information-sharing networks must coordinate with the Ukrainian government. If the Ukrainian government, through an authorized body, notifies that certain information poses a threat to national security, promotes the spread of pornography or violence, or violates Ukrainian law, then such networks must respond and remove it, and for this purpose, there must be authorized representatives of these networks. In addition, these networks must disclose their funding sources and ownership structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Speaking about the need to adopt Bill No. 11115, Mr. Mykola Knyazhytskyi explained this by citing national security requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf we weren\u2019t at war, then implementing European regulatory acts and bringing Ukrainian legislation into line with European standards would, in my view, be entirely sufficient. But we are under a full-scale attack by the Russian Federation, and in this situation, it would be strange not to protect ourselves in the information sphere. Through such networks, Russia exerts influence on Ukrainian society and can also collect information about users of a particular web service. And the very fact that Telegram is on Ukrainians\u2019 phones poses a certain threat. It is a major gateway for Russian propaganda,<\/em>\u201d he explained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
In the event of a violation of the law, the document provides for sanctions. Mr. Mykyta Poturaiev, Chair of the Committee on Humanitarian and Information Policy, believes these measures should be stricter and advocates introducing a system similar to that in the law \u201cOn Media.\u201d That is, first a warning, then a fine in an ascending order. And only at the end, if the requirements of Ukrainian law are not met, can blocking occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cObviously, we will not force our internet service providers to spend large sums of money, as was done in Russia, to purchase so-called deep-packet inspection equipment. In China, there were state investments, which Ukraine cannot afford either. And I don\u2019t really see the need for this in the future either. Let the blocking be partial. Even in that case, it will lead to a decrease in the number of users of a particular platform,<\/em>\u201d the People\u2019s Deputy noted.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
- <\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
He also expressed hope that the passage of the bill in the first reading will already prompt social platforms from various jurisdictions to engage in a normal and systematic dialogue with Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And what does this initiative look like from a media law perspective? Mr. Ihor Rozkladai, who is the chief media law expert at the Center for Democracy and Rule of Law, is convinced that Ukraine needs a law regulating platforms such as Telegram. \u201cThe problem is that, conceptually, media regulation and platform regulation are two different things. By its nature, a platform is not defined as media, and it is not entirely correct to impose powers on a regulator to regulate non-media entities. In other words, the ideal solution would be to create a separate body that would handle direct communication with platforms,\u201d the expert suggested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Assessing the legislative initiative as a whole, he expressed support for the idea behind it but voiced doubt that it could be implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDo I believe that even this legal Telegram will start cooperating? I highly doubt it, because it\u2019s not in their interest to change the position they\u2019ve held for many years. They\u2019ve said they\u2019re against censorship, and for them, this is such an absolutist issue \u2014 meaning they react very weakly to a lot of rules. So, let\u2019s be honest about what we can realistically achieve. Realistically, we can achieve having legally defined grounds for prohibiting the use of Telegram in the public sector. And if we set that as our goal, then, in principle, we can move forward along that path,<\/em>\u201d Mr. Ihor Rozkladai explained his position.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
- <\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Summarizing the discussion, Mr. Volodymyr Solovian, head of the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group at the Ukrainian Crisis Media Center, noted that there is still much room for improvement, but, through cooperation with civil society, it will be possible to create an effective legislative framework to regulate relations with social media platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAs the technological aspect of the war with Russia evolves, I believe this focus will also develop, and in the future, technical tools for more effective countering Russian disinformation \u2014 which is scaling up with the use of artificial intelligence \u2014 must evolve, becoming a promising area of development for Ukraine\u2019s information security system,\u201d stated Mr. Volodymyr Solovian.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/uacrisis.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/55183811019_7b2be24fc2_k-1024x684.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/uacrisis.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/55183551826_0240a6a1fc_k-1024x684.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/uacrisis.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/55182665802_7895ce7350_k-1024x684.jpg\")
<\/figure><\/li><\/ul><\/figure>\n\n\n\n