If after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the russian federation you are still subscribed to some russian "stars" on Instagram, then you must have noticed that it is not so easy to view photos and stories of Ksenia Sobchak or Nikolai Baskov. 

Now, when you try to check the account of these influencers, you will most likely see this notification: "Restricted Account. This account is not available in your area. "

The disappointment (or joy) will be faced by virtually every Ukrainian user who tries to enter the accounts of famous russians, such as the influencer Ida Galich, a singer Oleg Gazmanov or a TV presenter, Tina Kandelaki.

Although such blocking is certainly an important step to clear the Ukrainian information space of russian media products, it is not always transparent and apparent. 

In this coverage, OPORA will tell about the accounts that Instagram stopped "showing" to Ukrainians; you will learn who has not been blocked yet, and why Meta's action in the Ukrainian information space should be more transparent.

Meta Warfare

From the first days of the full-scale russian-Ukrainian war, Meta has joined  the information front on the side of Ukraine.

In particular, it involved Ukrainian-speaking and russian-speaking experts in monitoring content on the platform, disabled the ads from the russian federation, blocked the profiles of russian so-called media Russia Today and Sputnik, lowered the rating of russian state media pages and posts linked to them – now they appear less often in news feeds, and it became much more difficult to find them on Facebook and Instagram.  

However, such societal tectonic changes and crisis situations are always a challenge for the huge companies that Meta is, as they require a fast and flexible policy-making. 

Events such as war require a prompt response to protect the attacked country, including on the information front. 

For information, before the full-scale invasion of the russian federation on the territory of Ukraine, 43% of Ukrainians had received news from Facebook, which is why this social network is so attractive for sharing propaganda and misinformation.

During the full-scale war, 76.6% of citizens consult social networks for news, 57% of them use Facebook, and 29.1% rely on Instagram, which are products of the Meta company.

However, according to New York Times journalists, continuous changes in the company's content policy confuse the company's employees responsible for compliance with these policies, so the approach to moderation is not always consistent and unified.

Shortly after the start of a full-scale russian invasion, at the request of the Ukrainian government, Meta restricted access to some russian media for users from Ukraine (the list of media is not specified by the company).

However, at the end of the first month of the full-scale invasion, OPORA noticed that Ukrainian users were restricted not only to the state media of the russian federation, but also to the profiles of many russian athletes, journalists, performers, actors, and influencers. 

Thus, for example, you can not get to the page of an influencer Nastya Ivleeva, a singer Nikolai Baskov, a comic artist, Garik Kharlamov, and a journalist, Ksenia Sobchak.

OPORA could not find any official statements about such content moderation policy on Facebok and Instagram. Since the company did not explain the rationale behind the decision, we decided to find it out ourselves. And… we failed. 

To search for potentially restricted accounts, OPORA first used the theylovewar database compiled by Ukrainian activists. It lists Ukrainian and russian public figures approving of the russian war in Ukraine or expressing their tacit support for the putin regime.

Then, we supplemented the list with a  database  of "war instigators" created by the team of Alexei Navalny, as well as various lists like "Top 500 russian bloggers on Instagram".

As a result, OPORA has found at least 136 accounts inaccessible to Ukrainian users. Among them, there are accounts of individual media, journalists, and public authorities of the russian federation (19 accounts), as well as profiles of russian and Ukrainian cultural figures (47), entrepreneurs (3), politicians (8), influencers (45), and athletes (14). 

There are also Ukrainian media persons, in particular, the accounts of Anatolii Sharii and his  wife Olha were restricted. Taking into consideration that OPORA has been waiting for a comment from the company for more than a month, there may be more of these profiles now.

One of the most interesting questions we asked ourselves when collecting the data is why Instagram restricts these profiles for Ukrainians. 

Perhaps the owners of such accounts actively support the so-called "special operation" by publishing the appropriate symbols and by expressing support to the president of the russian federation, putin (these profiles should have been subject to full blocking due to violation of the Instagram community policy due to hostility incitement)? 

From this point of view, it is quite logical to restrict the accounts of Oleg Gazmanov, Dmitrii Medvedev, or Margarita Simonian. However, this list also includes russian public officials, whose restrictions are more difficult to explain. For example, the blocking affected the pages of a russian rapper, Morgenstern, who in his publications hinted at condemnation of the war, and a blogger, Nastya Ivleeva, who in the first days of the full-scale invasion published  on Instagram a “no war” post.

In addition, the pages of some Ukrainian Instagram celebrities turned out to be restricted, although they did not speak about the war at all or were content with some general statements such as "peace to Ukraine". 

For example, a blogger Sofia Stuzhuk came under the restrictions; she reported about the blocking on her Telegram channel. In addition, the blogger posted a message that is received by everyone whose Instagram activity is restricted in Ukraine.

The restriction of access to Instagram profiles (as well as to some Facebook posts) might still occur at the official request of either the Ukrainian authorities or other official entities.

At the same time, OPORA identified at least 16 profiles of russian influencers who have a significant audience and do not express support for Ukraine but are still available to Ukrainian users. However, it should be noted that during the preparation of this piece, at least 29 similar profiles were blocked for users from Ukraine, and therefore some of them may not be available for viewing:

Necessity vs Transparency

Here you can ask: will blocking dozens of russian bloggers really help Ukrainians in their fight against russian invaders?

The short answer is: Yes, it will. 

Today, Instagram is an effective way to influence the audience in Ukraine. Therefore, blocking the access of Ukrainian youth to accounts that can spread russian propaganda or claim that "it's complicated" is, of course, a powerful support to Ukraine in the fight for the "hearts and minds" of our citizens. 

However, next to the necessity, one should not forget about transparency. During the war in Ukraine, Meta mainly acted in a transparent manner: it regularly reported on changes in its policies, adapting to the needs of Ukrainian society and the international community. Thus, access to a number of russian propaganda resources was blocked, security for Ukrainian users was guaranteed, etc. 

All these measures were introduced by the company both independently and in consultation with the Ukrainian authorities. However, in the case of blocking access to the profiles of Ukrainian and russian bloggers, we see a completely different picture: the company does not comment on its activities at all and is limited only to post-facto user messages. 

But there are many questions about this: why do some bloggers restrict their activities, while others continue to share their (sometimes blatantly pro-russian) position? 

Why are only some profiles restricted, rather than profiles of all users from the russian federation? 

What are the criteria for blocking these profiles and how can the user be sure that their activities will not be restricted on the territory of Ukraine, russia, or any other country? 

Therefore, the lack of transparency in making such moderation decisions can also serve as an indicator of the lack of strategic policy of Meta in response to the specifics of the local context, such as armed conflict. Such an opaque and sometimes inconsistent restriction of profiles for the Ukrainian audience can be an improvisation of the company in a complex and dynamic context. It seems that in the 8 years since the beginning of the war between russia and Ukraine, the issue of developing a response plan in the event of an escalation of the war has not been on the agenda of the company. 

Victory in the information warfare involves not only closing the sources of russian propaganda and spreading the pro-Ukrainian view of the war in Ukraine. 

Today, the information warfare also depends on the extent to which social networks are ready to openly declare the policies they are introducing to confront russian propaganda. 

Perhaps, today it will make more sense not to block Ukrainians' access to the pages of russian bloggers, but instead to remove small but extensive networks of pages with Z or V avatars. 

In our opinion, large information companies like Meta should demonstrate a more transparent approach and cooperate more closely with local organizations that monitor the information space of Ukraine.