A united appeal from all Duma factions asks the Prosecutor General to unblock Twitter
Deputies from every group in the State Duma have jointly appealed to the Prosecutor General of Russia, Igor Krasnov, urging the unblocking of the Twitter social network. The appeal was reported by the TV channel, which presented the arguments lawmakers cited in favor of lifting restrictions. The central claim is that changes in Twitter’s ownership and policy have led to a different approach on content moderation, and that the platform has become less hostile toward state bodies and journalists.
In their note, the parliamentarians highlighted developments such as shifts in ownership that coincided with a broader reconfiguration of Twitter’s policies. They argued that the site has started to reduce discrimination against official state institutions and journalists, pointing to ongoing issues they say had previously restricted access and neutrality. Part of the argument also references external labeling practices, noting that the BBC’s status as a government-funded media outlet has been applied, and Elon Musk’s decision not to remove a tweet by Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s deputy chairman of the Security Council, as examples of the platform’s evolving posture.
According to the appeal, if Twitter maintains a policy aimed at neutrality in the dissemination of information, it would be reasonable to continue a constructive dialogue with the platform’s leadership. Lawmakers contend that such dialogue could serve Russia’s communications goals with Western audiences and help present Russia’s position more clearly to international readers. The document emphasizes the potential of Twitter as a channel for official messaging, provided the platform adheres to principles of balanced information sharing.
The request was supported by deputies across all factions in the State Duma, with a notable proportion coming from the New People party. This cross‑faction backing signals a unified stance on media access, information exchange, and the role of global networks in state communication. Industry observers note that the move reflects broader debates about content moderation, digital sovereignty, and the responsibilities of major platforms in shaping public discourse.
The report also notes that Roskomnadzor, Russia’s communications regulator, previously found no grounds to block Twitter. The decision cited by officials was framed as a procedural outcome rather than a substantive policy victory, underscoring how regulatory bodies weigh competing interests in the online space. As such, the current appeal seeks not only the restoration of access but a renewed emphasis on transparent, rule‑based moderation that is predictable for state and private actors alike.
Analysts say the situation illustrates a broader trend where lawmakers in many jurisdictions are reassessing the balance between platform freedoms and public interest. The Duma’s appeal frames Twitter as a potential conduit for official communications with international audiences, arguing that continued dialogue could help ensure accurate representation of Russia’s perspectives on global issues. Supporters advocate for a policy landscape where major platforms operate with clear criteria, allowing state information to reach audiences without undue obstruction.
Whether the unblocking occurs will depend on ongoing negotiations and the platform’s willingness to engage in formal discussions about moderation standards, labeling practices, and the handling of content tied to public figures. The outcome could set a precedent for how other social networks approach similar requests, influencing how states interact with global digital platforms in the years ahead.
In summary, the joint appeal from the State Duma emphasizes three pillars: a belief that policy changes on Twitter have improved the platform’s stance toward official entities and journalists, a call for continued dialogue with Twitter leadership to align information exchange with Russia’s communications priorities, and a demonstration of cross‑faction support underscoring the seriousness with which the issue is treated in the legislative body.