At least until the Arab Spring, a decade ago, the view of the internet as a free space that would contribute to spreading democracy across the planet predominated. It didn’t take long, however, for autocracies to appropriate the same tools that fueled the protests against their leaders, using armies of bots and trolls to spread disinformation and discredit and harass opponents.
In Ukraine – where what is perhaps the first major world armed conflict is taking place, also widely fought in this virtual space –, in parallel with the real combats, there is an information war going on. In this one, so far, what is losing is an authoritarian government, commanded precisely by a disinformation czar, Putin, feared for its ability to use the Russian propaganda machine to destabilize other countries.
This rescues the idea that digital tools have the potential to equalize the strengths of unequal actors. However, in addition to the bravery and creativity of the Ukrainian people and their president and the supporters of a large part of the world’s population who enjoy and share their videos and memes, there is something else that justifies this victory in the narrative of David against Goliath: the change of posture of an actor whose influence surpasses that of many nation-states, the big techs, which hold monopolies that frustrated the initial libertarian ideal of a decentralized and ownerless internet.
Exempt of responsibility for what people post on social media they control, these companies have long washed their hands and continued to profit from every click, no matter whether it led to hate speech or fake news. But recently, they began to notice that they had no choice but to take on the task of moderating content, if only to prevent an increasingly toxic environment from driving away users and advertisers, harming their businesses.
Now, in one of those episodes that leave no room for neutrality, they decided to get off the fence for good. In discussion at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center, representatives of Facebook and Twitter described how their algorithms have stopped recommending posts from Russian profiles, labeling publications from the country’s state media and creating friction for those who want to pass them on, adding a confirmation step. –measures that have reduced shares by more than 80%.
The geopolitical weight of big tech is no secret and was used by Mark Zuckerberg to dodge the threats of antitrust actions, opening up that it would be better in the US national interest to rely on dominant companies in the technology sector rather than ceding that position to competitors. chinese.
If Coca-Cola, McDonald’s and other multinationals took a stand against Russia in this war, why couldn’t big tech do the same? Like the others, they are private entities, and their good intentions seem evident in this conflict in which the insane aggression on one side makes it indefensible. However, one cannot fail to reflect on the unparalleled role of these companies in today’s world. Big techs command social networks that are, for most people, the main sources of information and the public squares where political discussions take place.
Other disputes –international and internal– will come, and in these perhaps right and wrong will not be easy to arbitrate, nor the motivations to support one side or the other so clear. Hence the need to increasingly develop mechanisms that provide transparency and legitimacy to the decisions they make, preventing hidden interests from prevailing.
The fact that today we applaud the action of big techs does not mean that we should not remain alert to the risks of a system that gives them immense economic power and decisive influence over democracy, which can also lead them to become warlords of digital information.
