Long before “fact-checking” became a Facebook image strategy, Snopes, a site created in the early days of the internet to debunk urban legends, already existed.
Two weeks ago, Snopes decided to question the “Ghost of Kiev”, the story of a Ukrainian aviator that spread on social media via video, with hundreds of millions of views on Facebook itself, YouTube, Twitter and even TikTok.
It showed that the video was taken from a combat simulation game. But the scenes continued to go viral, ending up in a post by the Ukrainian government itself, official, on Twitter, and then the most revealing happened.
Twitter refused to take them down or even add a warning to the government publication.
Alex Stamos, who was a director at Facebook and is now an academic at Stanford, sought after by the New York Times, said that social media companies “took sides”, quite simply. Citing other examples, the newspaper then generally warned:
“This leaves the truth behind some war narratives quite elusive, even if official accounts and the media share it.”
In some cases, like the “dozens of videos” of captured Russian soldiers, they “raise questions about whether Ukraine is violating the Geneva Conventions,” supported by platforms around the world.
The extensive report explains the NYT’s own recent caution with news and statements out of Kiev, such as the fire in a building near the nuclear power plant. But it is the engagement of platforms that draws attention, for what it projects — and not just for wars.
Until it reached the Russian government’s censorship of Facebook on Friday (4), Facebook’s escalation of censorship of Russian vehicles included other moves, such as the release of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, which the platform itself had banned, on its list made public.
Starting with Alphabet and Apple, each of the American giants played its part in the war effort. Now, as reported by the Protocol, Politico’s technology website, they are one step away from overturning a problem they faced with the US government:
“The war changed the political calculus around antitrust actions. Big Tech and its lobbyists were pushing against it, claiming that the United States needs big, powerful tech companies to defend national security.”
Now, they have shown that they are willing to do so, when called upon. And the two bills, plus the expected interventions by the telecommunications agency, are no longer “at the top of the agenda in Washington”. Not that antitrust threats were ever taken seriously.
