Facebook Against Democracy

BRUSSEL INstagram, a Facebook-owned distribution platform, eventually submitted to the Russian government's request to erase opposition leader Alexey Navalny's posts, claiming he had misbehaved to Sergei Prikhodko. In a YouTube video that gathered nearly 6 million [still on the course of the course], Navlanny indicated that Prikhodko was dating Oligarch Oleg Deripaska on a yacht in Norway, where he said there were myths.

After the Navajo post was submitted, Deripaska went to the Russian communications regulator Roskomnadzor to ask that Facebook erase that post, which happened immediately. This episode has already received a lot of attention, but it's already sounded critical of Facebook. And there have been thousands of similar occasions.

At a time when most people receive the news from social media, Mafia states have not had difficulty spotting the content of these media that their leaders viewed as damaging to their interests. But for liberal democracies, regulating social media is not that simple, because it requires governments to attack balance between different principles. After all, social media platforms not only play a key role as conveyors of the free flow of information; they are also put to severe criticism of failure to police illegal or abusive content, mainly hate speech and extremist propaganda.

These failures have prompted the actions of many European governments and the European Union itself. The EU has already issued instructions for Internet companies, and has threatened to follow formal legislation if companies fail to meet it. As Robert Hannigan, former head of the British Intelligence Agency G, said CHQ, the window for technology companies to reform themselves voluntarily is closing soon. In fact, Germany has already made a law that will impose heavy jams on these platforms that do not remove the content of illegal users within a short period of time.

These continued measures are response to the arming of social media platforms by intelligence agencies of nonliberal states and extremist groups seeking to divide Western societies with hate language and deninforms.

In particular, we already know that “Internet Research Agency” which relates to the Kremlin has managed to exert a major impact through a major Facebook and Twitter campaign to increase Donald Trump's chances in the 2016 American presidential election. According to U.S. Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, 13 Russians and three organisations had a profound impact on the rise of tensions between Americans in 2016 before the elections, disculating minority voters, who would go to democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Muller's findings clearly raise important questions about the transparency and protection of democratic institutions in the digital era. Although they allowed themselves to be manipulated by Kremlin Special Operations, most social media platforms were reluctant to provide information to democratic governments and the public.

For example, in the United Kingdom, Damian Collins has made an investigation into Russian intervention in the 2016 Brex referendum, but he had difficulty obtaining Facebook and Twitter co-operation. In December, he described Twitter response to his question as the inappropriate “secretions.” This is for pity. When democracy itself is at risk, social media platforms are responsible for being transparent.

Furthermore, if Russia can intervene in US democratic processes, just imagine what it has done in Europe, where we still don't know who financed some of the campaign ads in the last national elections and referenda. I doubt we've only touched the surface when it comes to exposing an external intervention in our institutions and democratic processes. I must be better prepared, because the European parliamentary elections will be held in May of 2019.

Decnological giants, in turn, will continue to claim that they're just distributing information. In fact, they act as publishers/bots, and they need to be adjusted properly and not only as publishers/botors, but also as ready-monopulating distributors.

To be sure, censorship and manipulation of information are just as old as the news itself. But the type of a hybrid war sponsored by the state that is on display today is something completely new. Hostile powers have turned our Internet into a pool of disinfectants, most of which are distributed by controlled users that most platforms could avoid without undermining open debate.

Social media companies have the power to exert significant influence on our societies, but they have no right to make rules. That authority belongs to our democratic institutions, which are obliged to ensure that social media companies behave more responsible than they are now doing.

Subtitles by: Periscope