The war in Ukraine will soon enter its 15th year. Every day, videos from the frontlines are widely circulated on social media. Moscow and Kyiv both continue to release “war-porn” videos that feature the destruction by the opposing side of tanks, mobile launchers of rockets, and other weapons.

Often, these videos have geotags that pinpoint the exact place where an event occurred. It could give the enemy a better idea of where certain units are operating.

It’s not surprising that this is happening, given the fact that apps like Foursquare City Guide encourage a whole generation to check in whenever they leave the house. Social media users are also known to announce their locations regularly. The videos are being shared by warfighters as propaganda.

Video footage used as propaganda is nothing new. “Videos have been used in warfare as long as basic video technology existed,” said Dr. Timothy Sellnow, Professor and Associate Director of Graduate Studies, Research and Creative Activity, within the Nicholson School of Communication and Media, University of Central Florida.

The availability and quantity of such videos is a novelty in Ukraine.

Everyone with a mobile phone is able to record and upload videos. Sellnow added that such videos could be distributed worldwide in a matter of days, or hours. It is therefore unlikely that the dissemination of these videos for propaganda purposes by both parties to the conflict will cease. Videos recorded under covert circumstances have greater control potential because clandestine missions are more closely monitored and limited in access. It is hoped that videos, which are shared to elicit support for soldiers featured in them as heroes, will not compromise their security.

You’ve Got Too Much Information

In the first ever “Social Media War,” some military units seem to be broadcasting almost every day their exploits, but is this too much information? In the past, both civilians and military personnel have been warned to “Keep your lips shut” in war. Could we be seeing similar warnings regarding social media now?

Charles King, a technology analyst at Pund-It said that it was difficult to determine whether the posting of videos could put their creators in danger.

The drone pilot could be located if the video was live-streamed. “We saw an analogy to the earlier invasion when the Ukrainians targeted Russian troops and officers of high rank using mobile data,” said King. The danger is minimized if the planes record the video and post it later.

Sellnow suggested that videos shared in any context could reveal sensitive information which military leaders would prefer to keep secret.

Sellnow went on to say that “the audience for videos like these is almost always more sophisticated and larger than what most people expect.” The risk of geotagged videos is well-known. “Even with tags removed, it is possible to leak hints about location or individual identity through the visual content.”

Sellnow added that, in the opposite direction, videos of this type can also be strategically shared to confuse enemy forces by providing strategic “disinformation”.

Psychological Warfare Via Social Media

The content that is shared on the internet also becomes part of an exercise in psychological warfare (PSYOP), showing how much death and destruction was caused by a recent assault. According to reports, the invasion was supposed to last three days, but Russian troops arrived in dress uniforms rather than winter clothes. The continued sharing of these videos online by Ukrainian forces can be used to damage enemy morale.

These clips can serve as a warning for other combatants.

King said, “‘Look at how close we are, and you didn’t even notice’.” The Kremlin, on the other hand, could use these videos to send a message to Ukraine’s fighters saying “you cannot win.”

The videos remind us of the “written-up in dispatches”, which used to highlight specific actions taken by soldiers or units. The individual teams in this instance are ensuring that their achievements are recognized.

King suggested that if drones were used for actual attacks they would provide “Gotcha!” bragging rights. bragging rights,” King suggested.

Why Censor the content?

These videos are a great way to showcase the successes of both sides, so it’s unlikely either Russia or Ukraine could completely ban their usage. However, it is possible we could see some efforts to censor some details – perhaps limiting the use of tags that identify a particular unit, as an example.

Sellnow said that censoring videos of glorification is possible. However, sophisticated analysts can determine the location by subtle clues such as topography, or what censors blur or delete. The censorship of videos can lead to unintended results.

Prior to social media, it was difficult to monitor a situation in real-time without actually going to the zone. The fighting in Ukraine can now be shared via social media thanks to every soldier having a smartphone.

There is no denying that some of the footage is raw and brutal, while some of the clips posted to social media are now so polished, curated, and edited – not to mention accompanied by upbeat music – that it increasingly resembles footage from a video game. These clips could be used to propagandize, which is why there is concern from both Kyiv as well as Moscow that they are using them for their war narratives.

There is a growing concern about this “war porn”, as it can depress some viewers and take away the human aspect. With every explosion that results in the destruction of a tank, or every rocket that is launched on an enemy position likely results in the loss of life – a tragedy regardless of who is dying. Wives will lose husbands and wives will lose children. Mothers will lose their sons.

These videos on social media are missing this part of the equation.

Jeffrey S. Debies–Carl, an associate professor of sociology at Yale University’s Department of Psychology and Sociology, warned that there is danger of people mistaking video footage for entertainment.

Debies-Carl suggested that this is likely to be exacerbated by the censoring of videos in order to remove most offensive parts. This sanitizes both the war and the videos. It is different from seeing the actual suffering of people. It is possible to mistake a cleaned-up version of what you see for the true thing, even if it does not contain any horrors.

Debies-Carl also noted that Emmett Till’s uncensored photo of his mutilated body on another continent was such an empowering, powerful force. This is especially because Emmett’s mother was included in the photograph.

Debies Carl said that “not only is it obvious, but so is her suffering.” Many people will sympathize and share her pain. Uncensored footage of war can show the human side of conflict. The horror and pain experienced by survivors of the war who have lost their loved ones is quite shocking and powerful.

It is clear that these videos are entertainment.

Use War Porn as a Propaganda Weapon

Another part of the equation is that these videos aren’t just meant to entertain – if they ever were – but they are actually being used as a propaganda tool. These videos are not intended to present an objective view of the conflict. They show a glimpse of what one side would like the rest of the world see.

Because it’s so simple to make videos editable, it makes sense that we have to ask ourselves what fact is and what propaganda is. Now, war porn is just one more form of misinformation that can be easily shared via social media.

Debies-Carl stated, “I like to think of it as how individuals viewing these videos can decide the trustworthiness”

While intelligence agencies and news organizations have sophisticated investigatory and forensic methods to determine the authenticity of videos, individual viewers must use less reliable methods.

Debies-Carl advised that before you try to determine if the video is true or false, it would be a good idea to remember that we all can be fooled. People like to believe that they are immune to manipulative messages and persuasive speech. These same people can be most vulnerable to manipulative messaging because they aren’t aware of the need to be cautious and don’t believe they should admit when they’re wrong.

To determine what truth we believe, it is important to ask critical questions about where the information came from. Is it the person who recorded the video? It was shared by who? What number of news agencies have picked it up?

Debies-Carl stated that “if not enough information is available, maybe because it’s too new”, then there is enough reason to be suspicious. Next, consider the psychology of how videos are perceived. These are the characteristics of both purposeful propaganda as well folklore and rumors.

Debies-Carl said that “Ghost of Kyiv”, is an example.

What person wouldn’t be enthralled by the heroic flight of an ace who saved the Ukrainian people against tyranny?” It was a bit too dramatic and exaggerated. He noted that the video didn’t hold up to scrutiny. However, it wasn’t difficult to see the truth of what was happening.

The Historic Record

Last, consider how this footage will be saved. According to some, every social media post will be preserved forever. While there will be questions in the future about who has this footage, that is a topic for another day.

Future historians will be able to see the fighting in these short videos, which is something that was not possible with previous conflicts. The American Civil War was also first documented with photos, while the First World War had some footage captured with motion pictures cameras. Now, not only is the conflict in Ukraine the first war on social media, but it’s the first war that has been recorded with smartphones. It will likely be the largest smartphone-based war, with millions of hours worth of content.

This would allow war crimes to have better documentation, as well as historic moments being preserved and not falling into the realm of legend.

Debies-Carl said that historians might have more information from the conflict than others and may be able to tell an objective and more complete story than those who rely on limited recording and interviews. The information available to war crime attorneys will be similar. It will also be crucial to understand the sociology and causes of conflict through propaganda. This all goes back to your original question. To be able distinguish good from bad information, we will need to have the ability to recognize them. It is certain that conspiracy theorists, as well mystery-mongers, will be able to use a lot of this information. There will also be positive opportunities.

Debies-Carl also warned that because so much footage could be out there, it may also present opportunities for it to be manipulated – as we’ve already seen. We will soon have difficulty determining which footage is genuine when the ‘deep fakes are better and more widely distributed. We will use the lessons learned now from dealing with the flood of questionable video clips as a guide for our greater challenges ahead.

Elon Musk is a tech billionaire who may be moving closer to ending his Twitter feud. He renewed Tuesday his $44 million deal to acquire control of the social networking site. However, the same day he began another feud – this time with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, after Musk offered his solution to ending the war, even as Ukraine’s forces were engaged in a successful counter-offensive.

Tesla CEO, Musk, took to Twitter and suggested that in order for Russia to negotiate a peaceful solution, Kyiv’s government should surrender territory Moscow had captured in 2014. Musk argued further that Ukraine should be neutral and drop its bid to become NATO. He also requested that the United Nations oversee the holding of a referendum on the territories Russia had sought to annexe.

Musk posted a tweet on Twitter arguing that Crimea was historically Russian until it was handed to Ukraine in the 1950s by the Soviet Union. A long-running war that ended in a Ukrainian victory would be unsustainable, Musk suggested. Musk launched a Twitter survey asking users to decide whether the territories should be part of Ukraine, or Russian territory.

Zelensky reacted negatively to these remarks, accusing them of being proKremlin. Zelensky, the Ukrainian leader, criticized them for being pro-Kremlin and promised to return all Russian territories including Crimea. His own twitter poll asked him the question “Which Elon Musk would you prefer more?” There were two options: “One that supports Ukraine” or “One which supports Russia.”

Musk swiftly responded that he still supports Ukraine but was convinced by the massive escalation to war, which would cause severe harm to Ukraine and the entire world.

The tech entrepreneur actually has been a significant help to Ukraine.

Musk’s SpaceX business shared their Starlink satellite network that delivers Internet access to remote areas. Zelensky thanked Musk personally for providing equipment which he claimed would allow him to maintain communication in areas under attack. Musk, however, announced in April that Starlink was a “free speech absolutist”. This would allow Russian state media outlets to spread misinformation and propaganda about the war in Ukraine.

Russia Weighed In

Also, Tuesday saw the Kremlin join the social media conversation.

Dmitry Peskov (Kremlin spokesperson) said via Twitter that Elon Musk was trying to find a peaceful solution. People have spoken out about the referendums and we can’t do anything but respect that.

The United States and most Western governments have refused to recognize the results of the recent referendums, arguing that residents were forced to vote – oftentimes at gunpoint.

Realpolitik

Musk’s comments align with the idea of realpolitik, where one acts primarily on factors and circumstances rather than strictly adhering to ideological concepts or moral or ethical premises.

Musk’s statements are not wrong, but he violated a rule that the D.C. security establishment has deemed illegitimate: “(admitting) Ukraine might have to give up some things in order to achieve peace,” stated Harry J. Kazianis (senior editor at 19FortyFive, president of Rogue States Project).

Kazianis sent an email saying that while it is possible for that to happen, “Surely that would be terrible,” but Musk is helping to create the conditions for what might end up being a flawed peace. In real life, wars do not end in fairytales. All sides return from the battlefields healthy and there is peace where everyone wins.

The fighting might stop but there won’t be permanent peace.

“What I think Ukraine and many others are reacting to is the reality that at best the conflict will be the biggest frozen one ever – think the Korean War ending but worse – or a peace deal that neither side loves and could see a war start again in a few years,” Kazianis continued. Kazianis said that Musk tapped into this raw nerve and, while he may be attacked, he at least started a discussion about how to end the war. That is definitely better that talking endlessly about nuclear war.

Social Media Is The Wrong Forum

Many argue that Musk’s recommendations for how to end the war were not appropriately presented on social media (especially Twitter).

You can clearly see that Zelensky viewed this as an important information space event to which he had to personally respond as President. Matthew Schmidt, an associate professor of political science and national security at Yale University said that Zelensky is very media-savvy.

Schmidt added, “He is aware that Musk’s tweet can gain momentum and change the narrative towards forcing Ukraine to negociate with someone who wants their country destroyed.”

Musk has a huge following, but he remains a businessman and tech entrepreneur – not an expert in geopolitics, or even international negotiations. He could be a threat to peace efforts by offering his advice.

“This is the risk of social media – it can give anyone with a following, or who has the chance of getting one by going viral, the power to shape the way a global audience understands an event,” suggested Schmidt. They can make decisions on matters they are not able to control. Musk is not an elected official for Ukraine. Musk has no rights to determine their future.

As the war in Ukraine has become the “first social-media war”, nearly every person on the ground is able to act as a correspondent and post their stories from the frontlines. Not only is social media changing modern warfare experience for military personnel but their families, and the entire world.

Col. John Spencer of the U.S. Army (Retired) is the author. Modern Warfare: Connected Soldiers: Leadership, Life and Social ConnectionsHe explained that the impact of social media on military teams is being felt to this reporter.

Spencer, a veteran of combat, was able to lead a platoon with soldiers into battle, and learn firsthand how important unit cohesion is. He said that social media changed this dynamic just five years after. Although social media apps and platforms like FaceTime, Zoom, and Zoom are great for soldiers to stay in touch with loved ones, there are pros and cons.

Col. Spencer stated, “Like in Iraq, 2008, we’re seeing platforms like FaceTime and text as a way to connect soldiers and their families each day, hourly” It is true that it helps with morale to be able to speak to family members. No matter what rank or years of experience, soldiers are socially complex organisms. They want to communicate with their family members, including their wives and children.

But, it is not without its drawbacks.

“Because there is no divide in space or time between the soldier and their families, both the soldier and the family live in two worlds – the war and home,” Spencer continued. Spencer said that the soldier is able to have one foot in both of these worlds. He can fight in war, but also receive the stressors of home every day. The family experiences war, receiving sometimes real-time updates of the horrors of war, or at least updates unlike any other time in history – ‘don’t worry mom, I’m ok’ takes on a new meaning.”

Anger and isolation are more common than connection.

Both the families and soldiers will be worried if they are not contacted promptly or when it is too late. Talking to your family is a great thing. However, it can also be detrimental to your connection with other deployed soldiers.

Spencer pointed out that there is a major downside to the fact that soldiers spend more time updating loved ones off the frontlines than they do with each other, which can result in less time spent bonding with fellow soldiers and cohesion, as well as coping with shared experiences.

Resentment can also arise from those who don’t have the ability to connect with their family. It could even be worse than receiving a mail call or not being able to get a letter. Isolation could be caused by being the person who doesn’t use social media regularly or Zooming with family members.

Lose lips in the 21st century

During the Second World War, the United States military took secrecy very seriously – thus it was common to see propaganda posters that warned, “Loose Lips Sink Ships,” but in the day of social media, it is far too easy to over share. It can be dangerous for warfighters.

Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of having a mobile phone and posting messages on social media sites like Facebook, Telegram and Twitter. Russians and Ukrainians both have witnessed soldiers being killed because they used social media. Sometimes, it happened due to an intercepted signal on the phone that was posted. Spencer warned.

What the War is Like

One way social media has the potential to change military experiences is by making everyone on the ground a battlefield reporter.

Spencer stated that the Ukraine war “has advanced past evolutions in wars people can see on television,” Live feeds from the combat areas are now available to viewers around the globe. You can see photos and videos of combat scenes days before the news networks report it. This impacts all three populations – the military, the politicians, and the populations – involved in a war and impacts local, regional, and global perceptions, support, and non-support to military actions.”

Sometimes it may prove difficult for information to remain contained. Russia quickly discovered that as soon as the reports came in and were trending on social media, it was. While Russia may have tried to pretend that all is well, photos posted by Instagram and Twitter of tank destruction clearly reveal a different side. While it might be able in Russia to keep the message under control, social media provides a nearly real time update from the ground.

One of the most important lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine regarding social media was that information is not under control. Russia attempted it and failed,” Spencer said. “Militaries, governments, and other actors will need to wage wars in view of all the people and places around the globe, not just the TikTok concept.”

A Pew Research Center survey in 2020 found that eight out of ten Americans received news via their digital devices. In addition, slightly more than half – 53 percent – said they were getting news from social media.

Social media is a powerful tool for spreading information. This cannot be understated. Particularly when you consider following the news coverage about the Ukraine war.

The Hill was presented earlier this month with data from the National Research Group’s (NRG), showing that only 58 percent of Americans were aware of the conflict in Ukraine from social media. This compares to the 65 percent who read their news via TV. Younger users – those 18- to 24-year-olds – were more likely to learn about what was happening in Ukraine from social media. 78% of the news received by young adults was via social media. Only 46 percent said that they watched live TV.

The social media reaction to Ukraine’s crisis reminds me of the Arab Spring 2010. But the difference is that it isn’t just local, but global. James Bailey from the George Washington University School of Business, which is professor of leadership and management, said that social media has been making us feel uncomfortable about Ukraine, just as television did it a generation back.

Bailey said that social media has been used more often as a source of news in recent years. People don’t believe traditional news sources. They’re considered to be elitists and poorly informed. Crowd-sourcing, like it or otherwise is today’s trend. Wikipedia users would rather have you and I posting entries than scholars who have devoted their lives to the topic at hand.

Two-Way Communication

It isn’t surprising that younger Americans are finding out about Ukraine – as well as other high profile events – via social media. While they tend to spend less time on the television, they also engage with other digitally.

Traditional media are intended for mass consumption, which is why they target mass consumers. Social media allows targeted communication to reach a specific audience. This means that messages can be targeted or targeted users. Highly emotional and provocative content has a better chance of being remembered and retained by our brains,” Marina Alvelais from CETYS University, dean of Psychology.

Alvelais said that effective interventions can help social media users think more accurately and leverage crowdsourced veracity ratings in order to improve their social media ranking algorithms. The preference to read the news via social media requires both attention and interaction.

A shift in perception

American opinion has been influenced by media for a long time, particularly during wartime. It was evident in the Spanish-American War’s yellow journalism. But it was Vietnam’s nightly news reports that turned the tide against war in Southeast Asia.

People are influenced by social media in their opinions about the Ukraine conflict.

Can you see the shift in U.S. perceptions during the Iraq War? If TikTok and Instagram controlled the conversation, as they do for Ukraine now. According to Dr. Dustin York of Maryville University, social media has been the dominant generating narrative in news. Wars have also shown themselves to be so,” he said.

Engagement with social media is also possible that was not possible before.

Bailey noted that it is easy to express disapproval of Russia’s invasion in Ukraine, or send newsfeeds about it from a coffee shop while sipping a cup of espresso.

But, it won’t bring about real change, he cautioned.

Bailey said, “It’s not brave or bold. It isn’t clever or new.” To be certain, it’s progress that the global voice can be heard. But voicing an opinion on Ukraine – or any other world event – hardly makes one an activist.”

Long ago, war’s first casualty has been known to be the truth. Although social media makes it possible for eye witnesses in the field to report on what is happening, many platforms also provide a biased account due the spreading of misinformation, disinformation, or both.

These videos, which were “deepfakes” and featuring both Volodymyr and Vladimir Putin as Ukrainian presidents, have appeared in recent weeks. Many images and videos, however, have been shown out of context.

We can be skeptical about believing anything if one fake post is posted.

“Misinformation generally comes in two broad flavors – intentional and unintentional. Unintentional misinformation, which is less pervasive, refers to the propagation of stories, memes or narratives one finds amusing and interesting. A viral urban legend is misinformation. However, it’s not usually dangerous.” explained William V. Pelfrey Jr. Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs.

The battle against intentional misinformation continues, and is waged both by the state as well as non-state actors. Russian news continues to provide a steady stream of misinformation for the Russian people,” Pelfrey stated. Pelfrey said that the promised de-Nazification (or “de-Nazification”) of Ukraine, which elected a Jewish president is an example.

Ukrainians responded by launching their misinformation campaigns.

Pelfrey stated that Pelfrey gave an example of Russian conscripts captured and imploring not to be returned to Russia. “While there may be some prisoners who don’t want to return, portraying Russian prisoners as cowards serves many purposes – bolstering the confidence of Ukrainian soldiers, demoralizing Russian soldiers, and denigrating Putin’s authority.”

Real Time Watching The War

The social media revolution has made it possible to document this conflict in a way previously impossible. It is truly the first social media war, but in addition to allowing anyone with a camera phone to chronicle their story, it is also allowing misinformation – and even disinformation – to flow faster than ever.

Kent Bausman (Ph.D.), professor of sociology at Maryville University’s Online Sociology Program, stated that “the principal reason some may argue that this war is the most documented to this point is because there is considerable misinformation regarding the war in Ukraine.”

Social media gives the mass the chance to be their own independent reporter and document the conflict. Bausman added that, although we now have more information about the events on the ground this new reality allows us to document them better, but it’s still not possible to set up the proper mechanism for verifying such documentation.”

Media coverage has been influenced by technology in many ways. Since the American Civil War was when photography first became popular, and the way that the Telegraph allowed for news to quickly travel long distances via the telephone lines has proven this to be true.

Where social media is different is that it is allowing opinion to also enter in the picture – and not just from the reporters on the ground.

Bausman said, “If you think back to Vietnam War and the first Gulf War. Freelance reporters, regardless their view on these wars were dependent upon traditional media outlets to vet the documentation and provide opinions about their veracity.” Bausman said that social media with all its various platforms have yet to create an equivalent filter set. Bad actors can now use social media to distribute misinformation, and create the narrative about events.

With the advent of social media bots, misinformation has become more widespread and can be shared in an almost uncontrollable manner.

Bausman stated that “Overall we shouldn’t surprise by the levels of misinformation about the war in Ukraine up to this point.” “The Russians began using and testing social media in hybrid warfare when they invaded Crimea in 2014. It is fascinating to see how these same tools are used against them now in order to influence the narrative for Ukraine.

Extended Disinformation Campaign

Social media information campaigns such as the current one are not new. Even before Russia launched its unprovoked and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine, a misinformation/disinformation campaign was underway.

The eight-year conflict in Donbas, east Ukraine was escalated by this invasion. Russia used disinformation campaigns to obscure truthful and fact-driven information regarding the conflict in Ukraine. Naim Kapucu, a Pegasus professor of Public Administration and Policy and joint faculty of the School of Politics, Security and International Affairs at The University of Central Florida, warned that Russia had continued using continuous disinformation campaigns.

Russia’s massive scale of misinformation campaigns featuring headlines such “Putin to Save Ukrainians From Nazis”, is staggering. Kapucu stated that the disinformation narratives were effective and spread widely through social media. They spent time shaping public discourse and capitalizing upon misrepresentations about history, language, politics.

Although some of these disinformation campaigns may not be obvious to many people, they were crucial for accurate depiction. Kapucu explained.

Kapucu said that Kapucu used terms like “crisis”, “conflict”, or “military operation” to try and lessen the invasion of Ukraine. Many of its followers and social media users abroad spread this information warfare and disinformation from the Russian government. This is done to question the facts and create doubt about information regarding Ukraine’s war.

Social Media Becomes More Important Than Mainstream Media

Social media is becoming more popular as the primary source for information. This is a danger because what’s posted on Twitter, TikTok and Telegram could become fact even if traditional media reports say otherwise.

Pelfrey stated that misinformation can be attributed to the speed at which news stories about important issues are spread. A powerful story or image is picked up quickly, shared, reposted and tweeted. It quickly becomes news. Before circulating a story, reliable news agencies require independent confirmation. Because social media doesn’t require confirmation, misinformation can spread quickly. First time ever in major conflicts, militaries dedicate themselves to spreading misinformation through social media.

It could be as simple as posting that a Ukrainian farmer had offered to sell a captured tank. However, disinformation could also refer to reports about atrocities that were used in order justify an invasion. These stories can be believed by those who share them on social media.

Pelfrey said that the proliferation and evolution of social networking into an information delivery vehicle has made misinformation exponentially more prevalent and dangerous than just a few decades ago. We will need to all be skeptical about what we read.

There’s someone running across a field. The eerie silence can be interpreted as a sign that there is something wrong. At the same time, you hear the sound of a missile. The explosion is visible in the distance. Panic strikes for just a second.

You feel like you are watching a movie about war, except that it isn’t.

It’s a real clip from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and these videos are not hard to find at all. The videos show what’s happening to the real war victims, including children and other civilians. It’s a testament once again to the real power and value of social media. It’s a platform that is not afraid to shy away from the reality of war and the atrocities of the invasion.

In the short history of Twitter (which debuted about 15 years ago), there’s never been such a proliferation of video clips from a specific group of people in this short of a time period, and that has impacted the world so dramatically.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in recent times, clips have started appearing one after another. It’s now at the point where the images and videos are impossible to overlook, if you spend any time online at all. Here’s just one example that shows the devastation in UkraineWarning: Some images may be distressing. Scrolling through this feed reveals exactly how powerful social media has become, because we can’t shield our eyes from it.

Here is an example of how Vladimir Putin, Russian President, might have misunderstood social media’s power over the past few weeks. Everyone around the globe (except Russia where they are banned) has seen these videos and images.

You could make the case that all of the propaganda and misinformation being disseminated about the “real” purpose of the war, or the “true intentions” of the Russian military, are completely obliterated with a few Twitter posts showing what is actually happening.

That’s a rarity in the short history of social media, which has become known for political hate-speech and influencer marketing more than anything. What we’re really talking about here is a shift where social media has played an actual, legitimate role in helping people understand what has been happening and what life is like on the ground in this war-torn area.

One example: Feed My Starving Children, an organization that sends meals to homeless children in Ukraine has sent 1.5 million meals. They also plan on sending another 2 million.

The organization doesn’t have to make a case that there is a massive need, since social media has made that abundantly clear. You can see that there is a demand by just looking at Twitter. This makes Instagram seem less valuable. This app, and its many users, seem to be unaware of the global crisis.

It is hard to imagine that other humanitarian organizations would not be able convince the public of the urgency and need for aid. You can find all the information you need on Twitter by searching #ukraine.

That’s something Putin probably could not have predicted. It is now unclear if social media will impact humanitarian aid, resolving the global emergency or whether unfiltered access truly makes a difference.

Moscow threatened to stop the Meta-owned Instagram on Monday. It effectively blocked access for millions of Russians. The platform WasThe second-most popular Meta app in Russia, after messaging service WhatsApp.

Russia’s influential people are finding themselves behind an “Iron Curtain”, unable reach millions of their followers.

On Monday, Instagram in Russia will be shut down. The decision will affect 80 million Russians and the rest of the globe as approximately 80% of Russia’s people have an Instagram account from outside Russia. “This is wrong!” Adam Mosseri (@mosseri), the head of Meta’s Instagram posted on Twitter Monday night.

After Meta hadn’t-so-quietly modified its content policies which permitted for violent calls against Russian soldiers, government officials and even those from within Russia, the Kremlin made this move.

Nick Clegg, President of Meta Global Affairs (@nickclegg), took to Twitter to clarify the policies. “Reponding to reports by the Russian government that Meta is being designated an extremist organisation for its support of speech policies,” he said.

Clegg said in an official statement: “The truth is that if our standard content policies were not adjusted, we would be removing content of ordinary Ukrainians protesting the invasion military forces. This would be rightly considered unacceptable.”

Influencers cut off their followers

Many Russian “influencers”, regardless of their motivations, were vocal about how this move would affect them.

Instagram ads accounted for roughly half my total income. My page is being deleted. I’m honest. I ran my profile for over 10 years. My profile was active for over 10 years. Most likely, I’ll need to look into new income sources, or rediscover my self,” Karina IIomia, an Instagram DJ with nearly 400,000 followers, told The Guardian on Monday.

“This [Instagram]It is my life. This is the core of my being. It’s what I wake up to, and fall asleep with, for the past five years.

Lyubov Sobol of Russia (@SobolLubov), however, responded by calling out Nigay and writing “Blogger girl crying because she blocked instagram. It might be time to put aside politics and get serious about learning. The fact that the major stars didn’t voice their opposition in the first week was a sign they decided to wait and watch. This is a shame.

Twitter user @nexta_tv also criticised the move, writing, “One #Russian blogger cries that her Instagram will cease to work in just two days. She doesn’t seem to care much about her fellow compatriots and the thousands of people who have died. Her biggest concern right now is not being able to take pictures from restaurants.

VPN Usage Skyrockets

It seems many Russians don’t just accept the fact that Instagram and other social media platforms have been blocked.

Atlas VPN released a Tuesday report that showed the demand for VPNs had soared by 10,000% after Instagram removed their plug. VPN installation in Russia was at an all time high. It rose by 11.253 percent, which is more than the average.

This report highlighted the fact that VPN usage has been slowly growing since before the spike. Google searches began three weeks ago on February 25, 2022.

Moscow has so far not tried to ban VPN. It is one of few ways that Russians can bypass government restrictions online. The VPN allows activists to hide their IP addresses and access banned websites.

Atlas VPN said that it is hard to know how far Russia will push to suppress anti-war sentiments online, and to further influence the story of war. However, the trend towards censorship will continue, and we can expect the virtual private network demand to grow.

We can only hope that the Russians who use VPNs are not just checking in with their favourite influencers but trying to find out the truth about Ukraine’s war, we must.

After comments posted to social media on Thursday night, Senator Lindsey Graham (Republican-States of California) was under fire Friday morning. Senator Graham called for Vladimir Putin’s assassination in a tweet.

Are there Brutus soldiers in Russia? What about a Russian Colonel Stauffenberg who is more accomplished? Russia must take him out. This is the only way to end it. It would be a great favor to your country, and all of the world,” Graham said via his official Twitter stream (@LindseyGrahamSC).

On Friday morning, it received almost 20,000 likes and had been retweeted nearly 4,600 more times. It was also quoted approximately 12,500 times.

Graham clearly referred to Marcus Junius Brutus (one of the Roman Republic senators that assassinated Roman Dictator Julius Caesar March 44 BC) and Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (a German officer who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944 with a briefcase bomb). Tom Cruise played Stauffenberg in the 2008 film. Valkyrie.

Graham tried to make his point clearer by tweeting that “The Russian people can fix this.” Simple to state, but hard to carry out. You don’t have to go to darkness to survive the rest your life.

Graham was criticized by both the U.S. and British lawmakers for not sharing the sentiment.

“While we are all praying for peace & for the people of Ukraine, this is irresponsible, dangerous & unhinged. We need leaders with calm minds & steady wisdom. We don’t need blood-hungry warmongering politicians who tweet hard and demand assassinations. Americans don’t want to war,” stated Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Republic Congresswoman (@RepMTG), who made several controversial statements on social networking.

Ted Cruz, a Republican Senator from Texas (@tedcruz), also reacted to his fellow Texas senator by saying that “This is an extremely bad idea.” Use massive economic sanctions; BOYCOTT Russian oil & gas; and provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves. However, we shouldn’t call for the assassination heads of state.

Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN), a Democratic Congresswoman from Minnesota, has caused controversy with her tweets.

Omar said, then: “I wish our Congressmen would cool it down and regulate their remarks while the administration works towards avoiding WWlll.” It’s becoming more and more important for the rest of the world to pay attention how America is doing. [sic] leaders are responding, Lindsey’s remarks and remarks made by some House members aren’t helpful.”

Russian Response

Anatoly Ivanovich, Russia’s Ambassador in the United States offered an answer on Facebook Friday:

The statement by the USA regarding American politics is unacceptable and outlandish. It is amazing how much hatred and Russophobia the USA has for Russia. It’s unbelievable that a country’s senator preaching his moral values as a ‘guiding star’ to all mankind could afford a call on terrorism as a way to achieve Washington’s goals on the international arena. The United States has irresponsible, unprofessional politicians at its helm. It is becoming increasingly frightening. We want to see official explanations from the American government and a strong condemnation for their criminal statements.

Graham is standing firm in his statements despite being subject to criticism.

Graham spokeswoman told PEOPLE on Friday that the public is entitled to its opinion. “Senator Graham made his.”

The spokesperson also noted that Sen. Graham had made more comments during a Fox News Friday morning interview, when he suggested that Putin should be detained and held responsible for the unprovoked invasion in Ukraine.

“The best way for this to end is having Eliot Ness or Wyatt Earp in Russia — the Russian spring, so to speak … where people rise up and take him down because if he continues to be their leader, then he’s going to make you complicit with war crimes,” the senator said on Fox News.

Words can have consequences

Graham could have simply said what others in the west thought. But the real question is whether an incumbent U.S. politician should have said it.

Chris Haynes is an associate professor of political science at Yale University. Haynes said that while many people might think it, there are reasons why those in power or responsible have to be cautious about the things they post and say on social media.

Haynes added that “if a member our government requests the assassination or murder of an elected official from another state, it could be escalatory.” This could do even more harm to Ukraine, since Putin is already paranoid about the west and clearly loathes it. Putin may use this as a way to justify the current situation to his people and to other countries.

These words may confuse the moral case against Russia as well as the fact that most of the world denounces Putin’s aggression.

Two wrongs do not make one right. Haynes explained that Graham was wrong, and where what he stated could be used as justification for another mistake on Putin’s part. This could not only put Russian officials in danger, but could also set an example that it’s OK to assassinate elected officials. This statement is not really necessary. The consequences of words are what they speak.”

After Russia’s attack, last week, social media proved an important channel for information dissemination in Ukraine. Individuals on the ground have found that social media platforms are a vital communication channel, which allows them to stay in touch with the rest the world.

However, misinformation has not been lacking from war zones. It has been more difficult than usual to navigate social media during wartime.

Social media is a useful tool in crisis situations, such as the one in Ukraine. Julianna Kirschner from the University of Southern California, lecturer in the Master of Communication Management program said that it can serve as a useful place for activists and political organizing.

But, disinformation and misinformation are rampant and it can prove difficult to discern what is true or false. Kirschner shared his thoughts via email about how communication between Snake Islanders and Russian warships went viral shortly before the outbreak of crisis. According to initial social media reports, Snake Island residents were believed to have been killed. Later, it was revealed that they had been taken prisoner after running out ammunition. They were unable to distribute the confusing reports via social media, leaving many users confused as to what really is happening in Ukraine.

Communication boils down to trust.

This is true for both individual communication as well as organizational communication. Trust is destroyed by misinformation, while truthful and verifiable information builds it. Trust and communication are vital, particularly in situations of crisis and stress,” said John Born (visiting assistant professor) and executive in residence for the Ohio University Master of Public Administration Program.

Social media trust problems are not something to be denied. Born suggested users should focus on the things they can control.

He continued, “Push information in as fast as you can and in as many formats as possible.” This is a contest for trust. The ball will not move if you shout from the stands. Make sure you have a strategy with honest messages, and then get on the field and try to win trust. Prioritize your priorities and allocate the resources and time necessary to ensure that misinformation is corrected and challenged as quickly as possible.

This is crucial to ensure a proactive communication defense. It doesn’t matter if something gets retweeted or shared thousands of times. It is easy to spread misinformation.

Born said, “Find faith in good and truth winning in the end.” It is not possible to win all the time, or for everyone. Communication is an ongoing marathon.

Social Media: The Power of Social Media

Russia has taken great strides in controlling the home narrative. It has taken steps to crack down on media non-state platforms and tried to sell Russians the notion that it invaded Ukraine to “denazify” them. Moscow also indicated to citizens it hadn’t attacked civilians, and has welcomed them as liberators.

The truth is out there, thanks to the many posts of Ukrainians to social media.

According to Dr. Mai-Ly Nguyen Steers assistant professor at the School of Nursing, Duquesne University, “The Ukrainians are able to leverage social media to their advantage and embarrass Russia and strengthen support around the globe.”

She said that sharing posts on social media has been an effective way to spread propaganda and help rally support for Ukraine. The posts are not always censored. This can help in the dissemination of information in real time.

There is a concern that social media platforms are so full of misinformation, and sometimes even disinformation, that they have serious credibility issues.

One of the issues with social media is its inability to see the truth. We often remove information that confirms or supports our beliefs because of confirmation bias. Nguyensteers explained that we are able to find articles supporting a specific position. According to the World Health Organization, social media is an epidemic. The problem is that there is so much information available to analyze and filter, it is easy for people to share material to confirm their biases, which could lead to misinformation being spread.

You Can Trust These Things

Given that there has been a lot of misinformation showing up – such as Ukrainians selling captured tanks on eBay – how can users know what is real and what isn’t? Although social media isn’t able to address this issue, it has proven difficult for people to know the truth about the initial casualty of war.

Born said, “Create resilience and approach all information with an’multi-source” authentication approach.” The messages and purveyors of misinformation can be difficult to detect and they often alter their methods and message. It is important to build trust in information. Diversify your sources of information. This concept is important for personal cyber-security as well as discerning truth and misinformation. Trust and communication are only possible through personal responsibility.

Kirscher added that users have other options to enhance their user experience. They can also monitor their social media accounts to make sure the algorithm only shows quality content. You could encourage them to follow trusted users or content. They can also share such content. You can find social content that will help you process what’s happening in Ukraine.

Reddit and Imgur are also well-known for providing comic relief in the form of memes.

Kirscher said that “many of these memes poke fun on political leaders and take their decisions out of context. But the more serious memes support solidarity with Ukrainian citizens and all those who protest the Russian crisis.” Social media can add to a complex situation, but they do have some merit. Social media users should be careful about what they are reading.

As with all serious news stories, however, it is important to be able to step away from the situation. While social media does not allow people to do any real good or assist those affected in Ukraine, constant attention can have a negative impact on one’s ability to make a difference.

Nguyen-Steers stated that, according to “the mean world syndrome”, people can see posts about Ukraine on their social media accounts frequently, which leads to a perception of the situation as more serious than it really is.

An interesting side-note to Russia’s unexpected invasion of Ukraine is that it may be now the “first Social Media War,” with individuals in the country being besieged able share their real-time updates and videos from the frontlines. This ability to share updates and videos may help make sure that this war doesn’t end with the first casualty.

Reportage on Media and War

Since media intervention was the catalyst for its military actions, Spanish-American War has been called “the first media-driven war”. Many newspapers published sensationalistic articles while reporters were dispatched to Cuba to experience the war.

The conflict in Vietnam was renamed the “first TV war” 60 years later. It became the focus of extensive news coverage because a large number of U.S. troops were deployed to Vietnam in 1965’s spring. At the peak of the war in 1968 there was 600-plus accredited journalists who covered the conflict for U.S. television, radio, and wire services. While the daily briefings of the Joint U.S. Public Affairs Office were soon known as “the five-o’clock follies,” the War was frequently brought to American homes through the evening news.

In February 1968, Walter Cronkite – the anchor of CBS Evening News at the time and known as “The most trusted man in America” – made the bold statement that the conflict was “mired in stalemate.” Lyndon B. Johnson (then President) stated, “If Cronkite is gone, so is Middle America.”

The 1991 Invasion of Iraq – also known as the Gulf War – certainly made CNN a worldwide brand, and highlighted the power of cable news in such times.

First Internet War?

There is still much debate about what can be called the “first Internet War.” According to Wired Magazine, this distinction could be given to the Yugoslavian Civil Wars in the 1990s because it occurred with mass adoption of Internet technology and the birth online news outlets.

It was actually the 21st Century’s global warfare on terror (GWOT), following 9/11, that really showed how war can be covered in real-time. 

War in the Age of Social Media

While social media is just beginning to be fully understood, the power of the medium could have a significant impact on news coverage. Ukrainians can stream live from the front lines and anybody with a smartphone, including Winston Churchill, Edward R. Murrow or Ernie Pyle. Walter Cronkite, Christiane Amanpour, and Ernie Pyle can all play the roles of war correspondents.

William V. Pelfrey Jr. (Ph.D.), professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, said, “Social Media represents a transformational component of armed conflicts, unlike anything that we have ever seen,”

“Historically, media depictions of war were either provided by the military – and therefore not likely to be representative – or derived from sketchy, smuggled materials,” Pelfrey explained in an email. High quality, real-time video can be broadcast from any phone at anytime on a social media network that allows for rapid sharing and re-tweets. This allows anyone to virtually feel the effects of combat.

Arab Spring to World War III

Many could see the Arab Spring events as a practice run for social media in covering fast-moving events.

Kent Bausman Ph.D. is professor of sociology for Maryville University’s Online Sociology Program.

Since the Arab Spring in 2011, social media was able to provide real-time information from the ground.

Pelfrey added that while Facebook has three times as many monthly users than it did ten years ago (and Instagram and Twitter have exponentially greater numbers) This means that the number of content providers (those people who are able to provide content) has increased and so is the reach. The society is used to reading news from other sources. Although journalists once provided all the coverage, today correspondents offer substantial coverage in difficult to reach areas or at times of violence. Our understanding of war will change due to the devastation and victim experience as well as images from live combat. History is written by those who win. When history is streamed live, the perpetrators, as in Russia, cannot rewrite it.

What is also different now is how social media isn’t being silenced by the Ukrainian government – as was the case during Arab Spring. It is actually a matter of trying to keep these platforms open.

Bausman stated that it is understandable why nations would wish to regulate social media in times of conflict. In the past, the narratives of conflict were controlled by the nation-states. All that has changed with social media. Â Furthermore, in the case of warfare, social media use might even be construed as a form of guerrilla tactics. One example is the hacking of Ukraine’s Ministry of Information by Russia. Although this could have paralyzed Ukrainian resistance, it was not reported at the time. Instead, social media provided the necessary communication gap. “President Zelenskyy was capable of taking to Facebook and communicating reassurance to Ukrainians.”

Many people around the globe are also using social media to express their support and sympathies.

Bausman suggested that it is possible to question whether support for this kind of situation would be available in real-time, given the fact that we rely on mainstream media reports. This is especially true in the U.S. where many news organizations have abandoned keeping news divisions abroad. A lot of U.S. media coverage on this conflict seems to have been sourced via social media. Evidently, social media has been a vital tool in obtaining on-the-ground reporting about dangerous events.

Misinformation can still be a danger.

Bausman said that the accuracy of reporting like this will be problematic. Bausman warned that there are many social media posts claiming to report on what’s happening in Ukraine, but these claims have since been disproven. Misinformation may be a catalyst for conflict. But its ability to convey real-time information and rally support could prove to just be Putin’s Achilles heal.