Russia’s invasion of Ukraine dredged up concerns that the nation’s aggression would extend to social media, and that the Kremlin’s long-running campaign to use the Internet to stir doubt and division in democracies would confuse public opinion on the war.
Instead, social media has become an unexpectedly effective vehicle for galvanizing public opinion across many nations against Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions, while at the same time silencing much of his propaganda.
In the five years since Russia meddled in the 2016 US presidential election, companies including Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc and Twitter Inc have built systems to ensure they would not be blindsided the next time.
Their jobs were made easier by warnings from US intelligence about the planned attack — making it more difficult for Putin to disseminate false pretexts for aggression — as well as directives from the EU about banning Russian state media.
“There has probably been a miscalculation on Putin’s part about what the response of the West would be,” said Joshua Tucker, a professor at New York University who runs the school’s Center for the Advanced Study of Russia.
In the US, opposition to Putin is a rare point of bipartisan agreement, making it an easy decision for Facebook and Twitter to act, Tucker said.
“It might be more dangerous for [social media companies] not to take decisive action,” he said.
For years, Russian operatives have embedded themselves into democracies including the US through social media, running fake accounts that masqueraded as real citizens with polarizing opinions.
Most famously, ahead of the election that former US president Donald Trump won, Russia created accounts that exchanged memes online about hot-button issues such as gun control and immigration, while encouraging black people not to vote.
Social media companies were scolded by regulators worldwide for not catching such political campaigns sooner, causing them to invest in more sophisticated content-moderation systems.
The efforts also raised questions about Putin’s goals and whether he was aiming to cause chaos or was working toward something more specific, like weakening the global response to an invasion.
“A war in Europe, preceded by a years-long propaganda and influence campaign that destabilized, captured and divided European and US populations,” Tow Center for Digital Journalism director Emily Bell wrote in a Feb. 23 post on Twitter. “This does not seem a random path.”
However, this time social media companies were better prepared to crack down on Russian propaganda, moving more quickly at the request of multiple governments and the EU.
Facebook and Instagram have banned ads from Russian state-backed media, while Twitter is not showing ads in Russia at all. Snap is blocking ads from all Russian advertisers.
Facebook and Twitter have also started labeling posts that include links to Russian state-backed media outlets so people know what they are reading. Facebook also removed a pro-Russia disinformation network that was targeting users in Ukraine.
YouTube, Google’s video site, which is hugely popular in Russia, hosts a number of news outlets and online personalities close to the Kremlin.
RT, the state-backed network formerly called Russia Today, bills itself as the “most watched news network on YouTube.” In the past weeks, YouTube removed ads from channels run by RT and other state-backed networks, blocked them in Europe and limited the amount recommended to viewers.
TikTok did the same.
Laura Edelson, a researcher and misinformation expert at New York University, noted her surprise on Twitter.
“TECH PLATFORMS: They’re not totally beefing it!” Edelson wrote.
Companies were assisted by the US government’s unusual approach of sharing intelligence information to combat false narratives coming out of Russia.
“Not leaving an information vacuum for your opponent to fill makes their job much, much, harder,” she wrote.
Also flooding the sites: Ukraine’s messaging.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has become a popular hero for his on-the-ground selfie videos during the war, providing a contrast with the imagery of Putin’s speeches from vast opulent ballrooms. Ukrainian government accounts have been posting videos, photographs and even memes to build support for the nation’s fight.
Experience might be the most important factor guiding the social media companies’ response this time.
When Meta removed a disinformation network targeting Ukrainians, it was the same type of disinformation campaign the company has been taking down with regularity since discovering them in 2017.
The technology and process needed to label user posts was also well-established — Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube have been labeling posts for years for various reasons, including for misinformation.
Not everyone is ready to applaud social networking companies, though, especially given their track record of failing to act on problems until they become full-blown crises. Despite blocking Russian media in the EU, YouTube has kept most of the channels up and some have published videos with millions of views.
The battle is not just against Russia’s content. On TikTok, for example, people have used old audio clips on top of new video to share fake “war footage,” a Media Matters report said.
Such videos can help accounts gain followers, or solicit donations from sympathetic viewers. Even when videos are removed within hours they can garner millions of views.
“We continue to respond to the war in Ukraine with increased safety and security resources to detect emerging threats and remove harmful misinformation,” TikTok said in a statement.
Others have said the social media companies’ blocking of state media is too little, too late.
“The platforms should get no credit for taking temporary steps against some of Vladimir Putin’s disinformation Web sites and popular YouTube channels,” said Gordon Crovitz, joint chief executive of NewsGuard Technologies, a start-up that tracks news credibility. “They have known for years that their users were seeing Putin’s disinformation without warning them.”
In 2014, Russia Today was one of several state-controlled news outlets that amplified government claims that Ukraine shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Only overwhelming evidence showed that the plane was shot down by Russian-backed separatists, likely by accident.
Articles from Russia Today promoting the fake story were liked and shared thousands of times on Facebook, with one post reaching nearly 6,000 likes and 4,800 shares. On Twitter, conspiracy theorists would continue linking to RT and Sputnik’s stories to justify their wild claims.
It was not an isolated incident. Crimea’s 2014 disputed referendum to become a part of Russia was covered as an exercise of democracy by RT.
Three years later, Sputnik claimed a Ukrainian language law was “linguistic genocide,” while in 2018, RT aired an interview with the Skripal poisoning suspects who claimed they were tourists just visiting Salisbury Cathedral.
Edelson said that while it is positive for social networks to block Russia-backed media in Europe, they should also be blocking those outlets worldwide.
“Not blocking long-time spreaders of misinformation globally when the government that controls them is actively trying to lie about their war atrocities is... NUTS,” she wrote on Twitter.
Following the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, English-language media outlets owned by the Russian state, such as RT, have been producing large amounts of content regarding Ukraine. Over the past year, such articles have received more than 500,000 likes, comments and shares from Facebook users, research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate showed.
Now, the companies have political cover to be aggressive against such content. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been almost universally condemned and a lot of the restrictions on Russian state-backed media have been implemented at the request of governments, including the EU, which voted last month to block Russian state media across the bloc.
Opposing an invasion by an authoritarian leader is not the kind of thorny policy or political decision that Meta and Twitter typically face.
Social media platforms are rolling out many of the strategies developed during other challenges, such as the spread of COVID-19 conspiracy theories, or the violent rhetoric that bubbled ahead of last year’s insurrection at the US Capitol.
Meta has “amplified” its cybersecurity team with a special operations center and stopped Ghostwriter, a known threat actor with a history of spreading Kremlin-friendly propaganda, from posting content, including a YouTube video supposedly showing Ukrainian troops waving a white flag and surrendering to Russian troops.
“Each passing incident probably updates their thinking,” Tucker said.
Government officials are still calling for platforms to do more to tackle Russian disinformation. The prime ministers of Poland and the Baltic nations also urged Google, YouTube, Meta and Twitter to take a stand against Russia by taking down the accounts of the Russian and Belarusian governments, their leaders and associates.
There might be risks that Russia would retaliate against Western technology companies’ bans on its state media. Companies and experts are worried that Russia could cut off its citizens’ access to credible information.
After Berlin last month banned RT’s German operation, Russia responded by revoking Deutsche Welle’s accreditation, prompting its Moscow bureau to shut. Russia has also been throttling the performance of social media sites in the nation, where citizens organized protests in the early days of the war.
“If the Russians now kick out all the Western media, I mean, then what’s the net loss or benefit?” said Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive scientist and misinformation expert at the University of Bristol. “There are always flow-on consequences of this.”
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s