Invaded on three sides by Russia in a pitched battle to defend their sovereignty, Ukraine has enlisted an unexpected ally: big tech corporations.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook Inc., recently announced that they would be restricting Russian state-controlled media on their platforms, including Facebook and Instagram. The move comes as public pressure was mounting on the social media giant and others to reign in disinformation related to Ukraine [2].
They aren’t alone. Twitter Inc. announced that it was temporarily suspending all advertisements in Russia and the Ukraine. Reddit responded to the conflict by quarantining r/Russia and r/RussiaPolitics, citing a high degree of disinformation from the subreddits [REF]. Alphabet Inc., the parent company for Google, also joined the fray by suspending Russian state-media channels on YouTube and pausing their access to Google ad-services.
Russian authorities have responded by accusing Facebook of censoring its news outlets. According to NPR, Russian regulators first demanded that Facebook stop the independent fact-checking of their news agencies [2]. When Facebook refused, they proceeded to throttle the company’s operations in Russia, slowing the site considerably. Twitter was also targeted by the restrictions [6].
ARE WE SURE THIS IS A GOOD THING?
On its own merit, corporate participation in a national war effort is hardly new. Volkswagen, the worlds largest automaker by sales, famously got their start in Nazi Germany, eventually producing military vehicles for the Wehrmacht and even going as far as using Jewish slave labour to meet production goals. What’s different in 2022 is that the weapons of choice are no longer limited to hardware. Today’s big tech firms are waging war with something far less tangible: the truth.
At first glance, the intervention is seemingly positive. Much of the world is united in opposition to Moscow’s land grab, and efforts to intervene in the conflict by big tech enjoy broad support in the public. But outside the Ukrainian theatre, the level of influence corporations exercise on the public discourse – especially on topics as serious as open warfare – warrants closer attention from all stakeholders in democracy.
Russia is not the first nation to use social media to spread propaganda. From 2016-2017 Myanmar conducted a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign against the Rohingya Muslim minority living there. Widely condemned as a genocide, it left the Rohingya stateless, and forced most of them to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. Facebook was a key vector for the hateful propaganda that was leveled at the Rohingya, and the company was castigated for their perceived failure in moderating the content on their platform [9]. Disinformation campaigns on social media were also prevalent in lead up to both the UK’s 2016 Brexit vote, and the 2016 presidential election in the United States [10,11]. One might argue that the rapid response from Meta and other big tech firms in this conflict was a direct response to past criticisms of inaction. However, there are real drawbacks to these platforms being shut down in Russia.
Despite rampant propaganda from state media, much of Russia’s population is staunchly opposed to the invasion of Ukraine. Since Russian forces first moved in on Ukraine on February 24th, many Russian citizens have taken to the streets to voice their opposition to Putin’s Soviet revivalism. Dissidents and protesters have been arrested en-masse at these demonstrations, and the unrest has only grown as sanctions have destabilized the Russian monetary system [13]. Social media was a crucial tool in the organization of these demonstrations, and many Russian dissenters were left in the cold without access to the platforms [5].
The corporate response also begs another question: should we leave the task of deciding what is true and what isn’t in the hands of profit-motivated companies? Sure, most agree (myself included) that the response was appropriate in this conflict, but what about other conflicts that are more obscure to the western media ecosystem, or where the fault of the combatants is less readily prescribed? What about when platforms have a conflict of interest in telling the truth – say, for example, when their host nation is the aggressor? Could we rely on them to stop the spread of disinformation if doing so compromised their bottom lines?
One could also conceive of a scenario where a platform founded in a foreign state gained significant popularity within another nation. If a conflict were to then break out between those nations, the platform might have a vested interest in perpetuating the spread of disinformation in the non-host nation. Such influences could potentially wreak havoc on their ability to mount a unified response. While you can argue that such scenarios are far-fetched, concerns of external destabilization such as these were precisely what motivated China to develop its “intranet”, wherein western social media platforms are barred from providing services to the Chinese public [14].
IT’S MORE THAN JUST THE TRUTH.
Beyond policing truth, big tech is also influencing the Ukraine conflict in more conventional ways. In compliance with sanctions levied by the U.S. and others in the west, VISA and Mastercard suspended their services in Russia. Chip manufacturers Intel and AMD have announced that they are halting all sales to Russia, and Apple Inc. has also stopped the sale of their products in Russia. Elon Musk announced that Starlink was activating its services in Ukraine, bolstering the embattled nations flagging internet services as Russia targets its telecommunications infrastructure [19]. Together these actions are crippling Russia’s technological capacity and have severely weakened the flow of capital in their country.
A CONCLUSION.
Ultimately, though big tech has made important contributions to the conflict in Ukraine, the jury’s out on whether it will have a deciding influence on its outcome. The digital theatre of war, for all its prominence in the 21st century, remains a distant afterthought for the average Ukrainian, sifting through the rubble of once sturdy buildings by day, and anxiously awaiting the next round of bombs by night. They know a different truth: that wars are decided not by what happens on the internet, but by the resolve of a people undeterred by the imperialistic ambitions of a demagogue intent on upending their peace for a piece of their land. In the end, perhaps that truth will be the only one that matters.
REFERENCES:
- https://www.itsecurityguru.org/2022/02/28/meta-restricts-russian-state-controlled-media/
- https://www.npr.org/2022/02/26/1083291122/russia-ukraine-facebook-google-youtube-twitter
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/reddit-becomes-latest-platform-to-act-against-russias-spread-of-misinformation/ar-AAUtgzx
- https://www.reuters.com/technology/google-blocks-russias-rt-app-downloads-ukrainian-territory-says-rt-2022-02-27/
- https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/world/europe/russia-facebook-access.html
- https://vnexplorer.net/analysis-as-russia-invades-ukraine-moscow-battles-big-tech-to-control-the-narrative-s455986.html
- https://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/13/world/world-news-briefs-volkswagen-faces-suit-over-jewish-slave-labor.html
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/03/01/americans-want-companies-to-take-action-not-just-make-statements-against-russia-for-invading-ukraine-poll-finds/?sh=56a8d6394195
- https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/07/tech/facebook-myanmar-rohingya-muslims-intl-hnk/index.html
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy
- https://knightfoundation.org/articles/seven-ways-misinformation-spread-during-the-2016-election/
- https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-vladimir-putin-europe-arrests-moscow-cf5dda5528937de907f8916820cfab75
- https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-moscow-perm-9789398569c54f5ed3062410845dff06
- https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/chinas-national-intranet/
- https://www.reuters.com/business/mastercard-blocks-multiple-russian-financial-institutions-network-2022-03-01/
- https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/semiconductor-sales-to-russia-banned-but-that-shouldn-e2-80-99t-hurt-intel-amd-and-other-chip-makers/ar-AAUqQmW?pfr=1
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/01/apple-russia-ukraine-facebook
- https://www.itsecurityguru.org/2022/02/28/starlink-activated-to-keep-ukraines-internet-running/
- https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/ukraine-updates-starlink-satellite-dishes.html
Hi Jarin,
Your post on big tech’s role in the current war right now is very informative. While maybe these large tech companies alone aren’t stopping the war, I think they’re definitely playing a role. Every day for the past week or two, I’ve seen news about different, massive (not necessarily tech) companies taking action against Russia in one way or another. Refusing service there, cutting ties with Russian partners, not selling products in Russia, and more, in order to condemn the current war. It’s possible that the more that this happens, the more pressure Russia has to end its current campaign in order to preserve its economic status/ties to corporations. Your post was very interesting to read, thanks for posting it.
Hi Amin,
Glad you enjoyed the post!
I agree that the actions taken by corporations in this instance were indeed both justified and prudent. The isolation of the Russian economy is useful on two fronts: first in crippling their ability to finance the conflict, and second, to create enough domestic strife to pressure the Kremlin into abandoning the effort. Some of the actions taken by big tech were voluntary – namely, the actions of Meta and other social media platforms to control the narrative – while others were in compliance with relevant trade sanctions. Of the two, my post was primarily concerned with the former due to its ability to be misapplied in other contexts. It’s a difficult issue to grapple with because the alternatives raise ethical questions of their own. For example, if governmental authorities were to step in with anti-disinformation legislation they could easily impinge on free expression, however well intentioned they might be.
This post brings up alot of very important questions regarding the spreading of information on social media. While Ukraine is getting the attention of multiple social media companies, it could potentially be problematic. In this case, Facebook is strictly regulating the information that is allowed to be consumed. This could lead to bias information and propaganda because it suppresses certain voices and gives importance to others.
I have to commend you on your post, it is amazingly written. You make an interesting point regarding
scenarios, where a platform founded in a foreign nation, could gain popularity within another nation and where a conflict between the two states arises. You mentioned that the platform’s parent company could have a vested interest in spreading disinformation regarding the non-host nation. This is a fascinating and rather scary possibility. I searched up that Facebook has a massive 2.85 billion monthly active users worldwide, the idea that such a vast amount of people could be fed disinformation about a potentially global conflict is frightening. I agree that the western corporate response to Russia’s invasion was appropriate in this conflict (including Facebook’s). However, it would be (at the very least) interesting to see what would happen if Facebook chose to censor information regarding the Ukrainian conflict with a Pro-Russia (in this case Pro-putin) bias, the effects of such a policy would be widespread and no doubt damaging to the Ukranian defense, (I’m glad that this is not the case).
Very well written post that brings up a lot of questions about big techs role in global affairs in the future. One thing that is important to note is that the blocking of all these services in Russia mainly impacts ordinary Russian civilians. Blocking social media companies can make it hard for Russian small businesses to market their products and for Russian people to communicate with each other. The blocking of Visa and Mastercard can make it hard for Russian people to access their money or receive money from jobs. I believe that it’s important to consider that these steps almost exclusively punish ordinary Russian people, and not the oligarchs and people high up in the government. You can argue that by punishing the Russian people, they are more likely to overthrow their tyrannical government, but historically this does not seem to work. It will be interesting to see if it works in this case, because if it doesn’t we may want to reconsider these sanctions in the future.
Hey Jeremy, I’m glad you enjoyed the post!
I agree wholeheartedly that there are major concerns to a platform having free-range to decide what is and isn’t true. Given Facebook’s massive reach (2.85 billion monthly users), its likely to be embroiled in the social media sphere of most conflicts that arise. With regards to Ukraine, bots have already been employed to great effect to spread disinformation in the lead up to the conflict, most of which was pro-Putin rhetoric and denial that there was ever a risk of a war. The attempts were largely unsuccessful but still highlight how damaging disinformation can be, even in the absence of an overtly pro-Russia social media platform. For its part, Russian media is also working hard to suppress news about the war, or re-envision the conflict as a denazification mission (a bald-faced lie). The effects of this are already visible among the Russian populace and its soldiers fighting in the Ukraine – many of whom were fed lies about the purpose of their mission. I think these serve as good examples of how digital platforms can affect public discourse through disinformation as a microcosm in Russia, but I agree with your point that the effects a global platform like Facebook could have would be interesting to see.
Informative post! This really exposes the important debate on the impacts these corporations really have in this dire conflict. And it’s no question that these corporations will create a huge impact, the concern is whether it will be a good or bad outcome. While denying their services to Russia will force a degree of pressure to end this war, it could also sacrifice what the truth really is. Unfortunately, this is another dilemma we have to consider regarding this conflict.
This is an interesting post. It outlines the aspects of how large companies can impact this ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It makes me wonder about the effect it has on the conflict by restricting these services to Russia. Hopefully this has a positive outcome.
“Today’s big tech firms are waging war with something far less tangible: the truth.”
That is an excellent quote. Tech corporations are not our friends and I think we should be exceedingly careful with just how much power they’re granted. When we demand they pick a side, we must recognize that they will never pick ‘our’ side out of any kind of moral obligation, but only their own self-interest.
From reading your article, it is apparent that big tech will play a pivotal role in future wars. Also, the fact that it is capable of participating in a war suggests that it will also be a likely target for countries at war. Additionally, disinformation is a powerful tool for countries because if they can convince the population that they might lose the war, it can impact the morale of the armies and create distrust between the leadership and its people. Sun Tzu warned of this occurrence and this is exactly what the warring states might do first. We also have seen this is Vietnam war where images of the war resulted in a massive anti-war protest which forced the Americans to leave Vietnam for the Soviets. Overall, I think this was a very interesting read and something I will be looking out for
I agree that social media platforms and big tech will play an increasingly relevant role in global conflict. You raise a good point with regards to disinformation being used to destroy/boost morale. I didn’t consider that point when writing this post, but it seems that you are indeed correct. One of the key goals of the Russian disinformation campaign that’s under way right now is to change the narrative of the conflict to drum up support/sympathy for Russian forces. Interestingly, the platform where the efforts are most obvious is TikTok. Multiple Russian influencers on the platform have been parroting Kremlin talking points about the war, likely with financial incentives from the government.
I also like your point about Vietnam. Propoganda and mass media were relevant in that conflict as well. I think the problem is even more pronounced in the age of the internet because of how ubiquitous mass media has become. Information travels quicker than ever now and the public is inundated with media almost all the time. I imagine that will only increase the impact of mass media moving forward in the digital age.
I am immediately critical when I hear a corporation is doing anything, especially if said corporation also claims that it is trying to do the right thing. It seems that most of these corporations have taken steps that have been relatively beneficial to them. A PR move that garners favour with the majority of their users, and doesn’t impact their business too much. Primarily western sites censoring Russian state media has little to no effect, as they are not cutting off access to the intended audience. Stopping sales to Russia may just be a tactical move to comply with sanctions while also getting good PR. Even if these tactics are effective, I see two major issues.
The first issue I can see is that perhaps these actions will harm Russian civilians more than the war effort and government. If this is the case then innocents have been harmed and nothing has been done to help Ukraine. The second issue is that Russia may start to isolate and develop their own alternatives to these technologies. This would render further usage of these tactics useless, disrupt global trade, and cause further opposition between Russia and the west by lessening interdependency.
I personally believe these efforts will help the war in a tangible way. If it doesn’t affect the army directly, it will affect the citizens and the economy, which will inevitably cause some damage to the war effort. Right now it doesn’t seem to be very obvious, but I doubt that Russia can continue the war if their people are upset and their economy is in shambles. Obviously the other consequences of these actions are rather upsetting, I think that the best way to end a war is not to kill the enemy, but to get them to stop fighting.
Best and Informative Post! Internet connectivity in Ukraine has been disrupted by the Russian invasion, and Moscow has taken steps to control information at home by restricting access to social media platforms including Twitter and Facebook.
Just the other day, I was already reading an article about how even platforms on the internet such as twitch has suspended payments to Russian content creators. Actions such as these have definitely and dramatically reduced the money flow to the country. It is definitely bad for Russia since all of its content creators are basically jobless because of the Russian invasion. In the short run, it may not affect the economy of Russia but all of this is bound to affect the society in the long run since the prices of everything are bumping up and people are losing their jobs. In this case, tech companies and especially multinational ones can definitely affect the citizens of Russia and for the worst. I hope all of this eventually stops Russia from letting the war go on and that Russia’s economy does not worsen too much since the innocent citizens would be the ones suffering.
This was a really good and informative post!
A great combination of politics and technology impacts. Thanks for sharing this post! I must agree that it is not new that big techs are involving in politics. They also take advantage of their owned social media platforms to make impacts on the war. On the other hands, people themselves also use social media as propaganda. The thing is Meta or Twitter can boost any information that is favorable for them and make other unfavorable information less popular to public.