Ubiquitous smartphones during a 2022 European war

[kenny]

During war the governments of ALL sides want to control what media broadcasts.
Understandably they prefer it reflects well on their country.
If the masses learn the ugly truth of what's happening 'over there' support for the war effort decreases ... maybe to the point of forcing the government's hand.

During WWII there was no social media or smartphones.
Media in the 40s was was relatively compliant with the government, perhaps even out of a sense of patriotism.
Media coverage of the Viet Nam war was less restricted than that of WWII.
And boy oh boy, did we see the detrimental effect that had on America's war effort! ... riots in the streets, etc.

Well, technology today has blown all to hell the ability of governments to control the message.
Now nearly everyone has a smartphone in their pocket; they can and will record and upload anything.
This anything is going to change everything.
Constant daily graphic and gruesome footage, as in arms and heads being blown off, or emotionally wrenching as in a screaming child being comforted by its mom while bombs boom in the background, will shock the world into action.
Countries like North Korea excel at suppressing info coming in or going out, but Ukraine and even Russia have much better Internet access.

IMO these millions of video cameras and social media is going to have a massive effect, worldwide.
I expect it will generate pressure on leaders to end this insane suffering.

I'll also be curious to watch how governments will pressure or censor FB et al. regarding the content being uploaded by millions of would-be journalists.
There may be only three superpowers, but IMO Mark Zukerberg may now be the new fourth.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

Yes, you are absolutely right. I hope this will help.

I get information from a trusted Ukrainian born friend and her family and the pictures of people one has a connection with are different than even very trustworthy media coverage.

I rarely cry, but the pics if missiles flying over my friend's family's neighborhood and their pics of themselves with their children and special needs son in their basement for days now are very very hard to cope with.

And you're right: I will do what I can (money but also public gatherings) to put more pressure on my government to ACT

 

[AprilBaby]

I see Elon Must is going to activate his starlink satellites for Eastern Europe so people can access free and free speech internet!

 

[kenny]

... as I was saying ...

NYT snip

Ukraine War Tests the Power of Tech Giants​

Google, Meta, Twitter, Telegram and others are levers in the conflict, caught between demands from Ukraine, Russia, the European Union and the U.S.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has become a defining geopolitical moment for some of the world’s biggest tech companies, as their platforms have turned into major battlefields for a parallel information war and their data and services have become vital links in the conflict.

Over the last few days, Google, Meta, Twitter, Telegram and others have been forced to grapple with how to wield that power, caught between escalating demands by Ukrainian, Russian, European Union and U.S. officials.

On Friday, Ukrainian leaders pleaded with Apple, Meta and Google to restrict their services inside Russia. Then Google and Meta, which owns Facebook, barred Russian state-run media from selling ads on their platforms. Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, also spoke with top European Union officials over how to counter Russian disinformation.

At the same time, Telegram, a widely used messaging app in Russia and Ukraine, threatened to shut down channels related to the war because of rampant misinformation. And on Monday, Twitter said it would label all posts containing links to Russian state-affiliated media outlets, and Meta said it would restrict access to some of those outlets across the European Union to ward off war propaganda.

For many of the companies, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, the war is an opportunity to rehabilitate their reputations after facing questions in recent years over privacy, market dominance and how they spread toxic and divisive content. They have a chance to show they can use their technology for good in a way not seen since the Arab Spring in 2011, when social media connected activists and was cheered as an instrument for democracy.

But the tech companies face tricky decisions. Any missteps could be costly, adding more momentum to efforts in Europe and the United States to regulate their businesses or leading Russia to ban them altogether.

Executives inside the companies are making judgment calls about what to do, employees said. If Google, Meta, Twitter and others take some steps and not others, they might be accused of doing too little and looking halfhearted. But curbing too many services and information might also cut off ordinary Russians from the digital conversations that can counteract state-run propaganda.

“These companies want all the benefits of monopolizing the world’s communications with none of the responsibility of getting swept up in geopolitics and having to choose sides,” said Yael Eisenstat, a fellow at the Berggruen Institute, a Los Angeles think tank, who formerly led Facebook’s election integrity operations. In many ways, she said, tech companies are “in a no-win situation in the midst of an international crisis.”

Many of the companies have moved gingerly, said Marietje Schaake, a tech policy expert and former member of the European Parliament. While Google and Meta blocked Russian state media from selling ads on their sites last week, the companies did not bar the outlets, as many Western policymakers had urged.

As the conflict has ratcheted up, the companies have taken additional steps. On Sunday, Google’s Maps division stopped displaying traffic information inside Ukraine out of concerns that it could create safety risks by showing where people were gathering. Facebook announced that it had taken down a pro-Kremlin influence campaign and a separate hacking campaign targeting its users in Ukraine.
On Monday, Twitter began labeling all tweets containing links to Russian state-affiliated media outlets so users would be aware of the information sources. Since the conflict in Ukraine began, users have tweeted links to state-affiliated media about 45,000 times a day, the company said.

Ms. Schaake, now the international policy director at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, said the measures were not enough. She said the companies must block Russian propaganda outlets and establish clearer policies about their beliefs in human rights and democracy that could be applied beyond Russia.

“The interventions under huge pressure also underline what has not been done for so long,” she said.

Others warned that there would be negative consequences if the platforms were blocked in Russia. “It’s the most important place for public debate about what’s going on,” said Andrei Soldatov, a Russian journalist and censorship expert. “Nobody would take it as a good sign if Facebook blocked access for Russian citizens.”

Google did not immediately have a comment. Twitter said it took its role in the conflict seriously. Facebook declined to comment.

Telegram’s experience illustrates the competing pressures. The app is popular in Russia and Ukraine for sharing images, videos and information about the war. But it has also become a gathering ground for war misinformation, such as unverified images from battlefields.

On Sunday, Pavel Durov, Telegram’s founder, posted to his more than 600,000 followers on the platform that he was considering blocking some war-related channels inside Ukraine and Russia because they could aggravate the conflict and incite ethnic hatred.

Users responded with alarm, saying they relied on Telegram for independent information. Less than an hour later, Mr. Durov reversed course.

“Many users asked us not to consider disabling Telegram channels for the period of the conflict, since we are the only source of information for them,” he wrote. Telegram did not respond to a request for comment.

Inside Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, the situation has been “chaotic” because of the volume of Russian disinformation on its apps, said two employees, who were not authorized to speak publicly. Russian experts on Meta’s security team, which identifies and removes state-sponsored disinformation from Facebook and Instagram, have been working around the clock and communicating regularly with Twitter, YouTube and other companies about their findings, the two employees said.

Meta’s security team has long debated whether to restrict Sputnik and Russia Today, two of Russia’s largest state-run media sites, on its platforms or label their posts so they clearly state their source. Russia Today and Sputnik are “critical elements in Russia’s disinformation and propaganda ecosystem,” according to a January report from the State Department,
Meta executives had resisted the moves, saying they would anger Russia, the employees said. But after war broke out, Nick Clegg, who heads global affairs for Meta, announced on Monday that the company would restrict access to Russia Today and Sputnik across the European Union.

Tech companies now face two main types of war-related demands from governments.
Russia is pressuring them to increasingly censor social media posts and other information flows inside the country. Moscow has already heavily restricted access to Facebook and Twitter, with YouTube potentially next. On Monday, Russia demanded that Google block ads carried on its platform related to the war. That followed an order on Sunday to lift restrictions on pro-Kremlin media outlets related to Ukraine, without saying how it would enforce the order.

At the same time, Western officials are pushing the companies to block Russian state media and propaganda. On Monday, the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland wrote to Meta, Google, YouTube and Twitter to ask them to suspend pro-Kremlin and official government accounts, including Russia Today and Sputnik.

“The online platform providers and tech companies need to take a stand as authoritarian regimes seek to weaponize the openness of our societies to undermine peace and democracy,” the letter said.

In France, Cédric O, the country’s minister for digital policy, met on Monday with Susan Wojcicki, the head of YouTube. On a call a day earlier, Mr. Pichai, Google’s chief executive, and Vera Jourova and Thierry Breton, two top E.U. policymakers, discussed countering Russian state-sponsored disinformation.

Ukraine’s vice prime minister called on Meta, Apple, Netflix and Google on Friday to restrict access to their services inside Russia to isolate the country. “We need your support,” his letter to YouTube said. American policymakers have also made requests to clamp down on Russian propaganda.

“What strikes me is the power of the platforms is just so unequivocally recognized,” Ms. Schaake said. “I don’t ever recall seeing such a high-level political push for the companies to do more.”

 

[MollyMalone]

Tweet from @KyivIndependent (local journalists) reporting that Google disabled GoogleMaps' live traffic overlay & Live Busyness in an effort to safekeep Ukranians:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1498165502090391553

 

[kenny]

The tweet in MollyMalone's post is an excellent example of my point.
Of course in this case I support whatever helps the good side of this clear example of evil vs. good.

But what happens when these social media behemoths are faced with making content decisions in cases that are not so clear cut?
... when both 'sides' ask for opposite censoring, which side will they pick?
Can and should we trust them to play judge and jury for important situations where access to information affects outcome.

And what if side A offers them a million bucks to censor, suppress, or slant content to benefit their side, but side B offers them 2 million?

I think this is a huge and new responsibility, and conundrum, for these media companies and for society.

 

[Ally T]

@kenny Presumably you're referring to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in the title of this thread?

As there isn't a 'European War' & it's wrong to label it as such

 

[kenny]

@kenny Presumably you're referring to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in the title of this thread?

As there isn't a 'European War' & it's wrong to label it as such

The point of this thread is the power social media has now.
That's all.

 

[Calliecake]

CNN had a segment on how Russians citizens feel about this war. The older Russian believe what their government is telling them regarding the war. They feel this war is necessary and Russia is doing the right thing.

Due in large part to social media, younger people are watching this war unfold in real time. They are watching the video’s the people of Ukraine are posting on TikTok. They know the truth and aren’t believing the Russian propaganda. The younger people also know how the rest of the world is viewing this war.

 

[Garnetgirl]

@kenny Presumably you're referring to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in the title of this thread?

As there isn't a 'European War' & it's wrong to label it as such

Maybe not a European war, but it’s a war between the two biggest countries in Europe.