n July 29, the Russian Embassy in London tweeted that Ukraine’s Azov Battalion “deserve execution, but death not by firing squad but by hanging, because they’re not real soldiers. They deserve a humiliating death.” Twitter demoted the post instead of taking it down, saying that the tweet violated rules “about hateful conduct” and determined that the Tweet could remain accessible as it may be in the public’s interest. This is just the latest example of how the Russian government continues to spread war propaganda via U.S.-based social media in spite of international law as well as the trust and safety guidelines used by Twitter and other social media players.
Making matters worse, this is far from the first official Russian account to call for such actions. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson and state-sponsored propaganda media chief Margarita Simonyan have continued to exploit American-based technology platforms against the trust and safety guidelines and community standards. These individuals are also sanctioned by the United States and others.
According to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), war propaganda is prohibited by law. The United Nations General Assembly defines and condemns war propaganda stating that “all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act aggression.”
With its official, controlled, and affiliated social media channels, Russia clearly “meets the standard” for the war propaganda enshrined in the ICCPR’s Article 20. Earlier in March, the Russian government designated Meta as an extremist organization and prohibited its services in Russia while banning regular Russians from accessing Twitter and Google News. At the same time, however, the Kremlin has exploited these platforms abroad to justify its invasion of Ukraine and spread propaganda.
In recent years, the Euro-Atlantic community has struggled to identify and remove Russian-originating troll and bot networks for inauthentic behavior, malign influence, and election interference. The most significant and most recent of such an advanced operation was what Graphika has dubbed Secondary Infektion—a multiyear campaign originating from Russia and targeting Kremlin critics using around 300 sites and platforms. While these kinds of complex operations conducted by advanced and persistent threat actors with robust operational security are difficult to attribute, actions against Ukraine conducted through official Russian channels are easy to identify—a breach of international law and leading to real-life harm—something that should qualify them for suspension.
In June, the Digital Diplomacy Task Force—a pro-bono international initiative that I founded as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—submitted a memorandum to the leaders of Meta, Twitter, and Google. Our multinational team of international experts argued that Russian individuals and institutions who promote war propaganda and who are sanctioned by the United States or its allies should be suspended from these platforms. Currently, the Task Force is in direct discussions with Google and Meta leaders and expert teams to find solutions to address the spread of war propaganda.
One way that this has begun to be done is that after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, Meta, Google, and Twitter restricted Russia’s state-sponsored media outlets like RT and Sputnik and labeled them as Russian government accounts. These three companies have acknowledged the threat of such actors. However, unlike Google, which banned most Kremlin-controlled media globally, Twitter and Meta only restricted them within the European Union. Restriction or abolishment in a single geographic area, such as Ukraine or the European Union, is ineffective. The Kremlin’s disinformation machinery has developed a global network of social media assets to undertake and amplify international manipulation and propaganda campaign using a sophisticated web of channels. Given these challenges, social media companies must ban Russian-sponsored actors on their sites.
However, independent technology and media experts legitimately inquire about the potential global impact of such a Russia-related suspension. Suspending Kremlin accounts is a legally justified way of restricting censors, oppressors, and dictators while allowing freedom-loving and oppressed people across the world—starting in Russia— the means to express themselves and practice their fundamental human rights online. The suspension would only affect those entities involved in illegal propaganda and coordinated behavior that causes real-life harm to individuals and organizations. Media entities, such as public broadcasters, which practice independent journalism—unlike RT and Sputnik—should not be harmed by any Russia-related suspensions or restrictions.
Additionally, a global ban of Russian state actors from the three platforms would signal to other authoritarian actors that weaponizing social media against democracy will not be tolerated in the future. It is fair, legal, and urgently imperative to recognize such actors as unfit and suspend them until they change their malign behavior. Senior Meta, Twitter, and Google representatives acknowledge the need for broader action to limit coordinated unauthentic behavior and malign influence on their platforms, but more needs to be done. At this point, a holistic approach and a global ban are necessary to combat Russian state-sponsored disinformation.
a global affairs media network
Disarming Russia’s Disinformation Arsenal
Photo by Jeremy Bezanger via Unsplash.
August 5, 2022
Russia has used social media platforms to spread disinformation through trolls and bots. Zviad Adzinbaia asks are there legal avenues for official Kremlin and affiliated accounts to be suspended from Western social media?
O
n July 29, the Russian Embassy in London tweeted that Ukraine’s Azov Battalion “deserve execution, but death not by firing squad but by hanging, because they’re not real soldiers. They deserve a humiliating death.” Twitter demoted the post instead of taking it down, saying that the tweet violated rules “about hateful conduct” and determined that the Tweet could remain accessible as it may be in the public’s interest. This is just the latest example of how the Russian government continues to spread war propaganda via U.S.-based social media in spite of international law as well as the trust and safety guidelines used by Twitter and other social media players.
Making matters worse, this is far from the first official Russian account to call for such actions. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson and state-sponsored propaganda media chief Margarita Simonyan have continued to exploit American-based technology platforms against the trust and safety guidelines and community standards. These individuals are also sanctioned by the United States and others.
According to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), war propaganda is prohibited by law. The United Nations General Assembly defines and condemns war propaganda stating that “all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act aggression.”
With its official, controlled, and affiliated social media channels, Russia clearly “meets the standard” for the war propaganda enshrined in the ICCPR’s Article 20. Earlier in March, the Russian government designated Meta as an extremist organization and prohibited its services in Russia while banning regular Russians from accessing Twitter and Google News. At the same time, however, the Kremlin has exploited these platforms abroad to justify its invasion of Ukraine and spread propaganda.
In recent years, the Euro-Atlantic community has struggled to identify and remove Russian-originating troll and bot networks for inauthentic behavior, malign influence, and election interference. The most significant and most recent of such an advanced operation was what Graphika has dubbed Secondary Infektion—a multiyear campaign originating from Russia and targeting Kremlin critics using around 300 sites and platforms. While these kinds of complex operations conducted by advanced and persistent threat actors with robust operational security are difficult to attribute, actions against Ukraine conducted through official Russian channels are easy to identify—a breach of international law and leading to real-life harm—something that should qualify them for suspension.
In June, the Digital Diplomacy Task Force—a pro-bono international initiative that I founded as a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—submitted a memorandum to the leaders of Meta, Twitter, and Google. Our multinational team of international experts argued that Russian individuals and institutions who promote war propaganda and who are sanctioned by the United States or its allies should be suspended from these platforms. Currently, the Task Force is in direct discussions with Google and Meta leaders and expert teams to find solutions to address the spread of war propaganda.
One way that this has begun to be done is that after Russia invaded Ukraine in February, Meta, Google, and Twitter restricted Russia’s state-sponsored media outlets like RT and Sputnik and labeled them as Russian government accounts. These three companies have acknowledged the threat of such actors. However, unlike Google, which banned most Kremlin-controlled media globally, Twitter and Meta only restricted them within the European Union. Restriction or abolishment in a single geographic area, such as Ukraine or the European Union, is ineffective. The Kremlin’s disinformation machinery has developed a global network of social media assets to undertake and amplify international manipulation and propaganda campaign using a sophisticated web of channels. Given these challenges, social media companies must ban Russian-sponsored actors on their sites.
However, independent technology and media experts legitimately inquire about the potential global impact of such a Russia-related suspension. Suspending Kremlin accounts is a legally justified way of restricting censors, oppressors, and dictators while allowing freedom-loving and oppressed people across the world—starting in Russia— the means to express themselves and practice their fundamental human rights online. The suspension would only affect those entities involved in illegal propaganda and coordinated behavior that causes real-life harm to individuals and organizations. Media entities, such as public broadcasters, which practice independent journalism—unlike RT and Sputnik—should not be harmed by any Russia-related suspensions or restrictions.
Additionally, a global ban of Russian state actors from the three platforms would signal to other authoritarian actors that weaponizing social media against democracy will not be tolerated in the future. It is fair, legal, and urgently imperative to recognize such actors as unfit and suspend them until they change their malign behavior. Senior Meta, Twitter, and Google representatives acknowledge the need for broader action to limit coordinated unauthentic behavior and malign influence on their platforms, but more needs to be done. At this point, a holistic approach and a global ban are necessary to combat Russian state-sponsored disinformation.
