A video news agency Viory that launched in Abu Dhabi claiming to represent the “Global South” is actually a rebranded version of Ruptly, the Berlin-based footage supplier that was part of Russia’s state media network RT, according to a new investigation by the Organization for Ukrainian Freedom (OFU).

According to the researchers, the transformation from Ruptly to Viory represents “as Russia’s adaptation to sanctions and isolation, using rebranding techniques to continue propaganda operations under the guise of independent Global South media representation.”

Viory made its debut at the Abu Dhabi Global Media Conference in 2023, presenting itself as an independent company. However, the investigation, conducted by multiple outlets including RND and Tagesspiegel, using facial recognition software and LinkedIn analysis, has identified dozens of former Ruptly employees now working for the new agency.

Ruptly operated as a news agency dealing primarily in footage from its Berlin headquarters, running a global network of freelance video journalists who filmed events worldwide. The footage was sold to major outlets including the BBC, Daily Mail, and Al Jazeera, according to the investigation.

The transformation began after Germany’s Bild investigative team exposed Katerina Mavrenkova, Ruptly’s chief content officer, for requesting a Berlin-based journalist to “penetrate into Charité” hospital where Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was being treated following his poisoning.

“Mavrenkova, an employee of the Russian state, was asking the journalist to do espionage on the prominent critic of the Russian state,” said in the report.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Ruptly faced a flood of staff resignations and intensified scrutiny from German authorities, necessitating relocation. The agency initially operated under Lensum, which Tagesspiegel identified as “a shell company for Ruptly’s continued operations,” citing an insider source.

According to OFU research, Lensum was initially known as Tocha and was founded by ELA Verwaltungs GMBH, a firm offering “ready-to-go” shelf companies for clients wanting to bypass bureaucratic procedures. The company was owned by Marina Sevciuc, who “has virtually zero online presence” and appears to be a placeholder owner, according to the investigation.

Despite denying connections to Ruptly or the Russian state, Lensum hired a head of human resources whose LinkedIn profile showed work experience at RT Germany.

The investigation identifies several key figures linking Ruptly to Viory. Mavrenkova, despite maintaining “a very low online presence,” signed an agreement on behalf of Viory in Riyadh with the Union of News Agencies of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. She was later listed as “Director of Content of the international media agency Viory” at the 2024 Kazan Forum, a significant conference between the Russian government and the OIC.

Dinara Toktosunova, identified by German publications as the former CEO of Ruptly, also appeared as a panelist at the Kazan Forum in 2023, where she was described as “director of Ruptly.” A Google search anomaly shows her described as “director of international media agency Viory” in relation to the 2024 Kazan Forum, though she did not appear to participate in that year’s panels.

Content analysis reveals Russian fingerprints all over “independent” agency

The investigation found that Viory’s content reveals its Russian state affiliation through several indicators. Videos about Ukraine refuse to use the term “war,” instead labeling content as “Donbas conflict” or “Russia-Ukraine conflict.” Ukrainian cities are spelled using “old, Russified spellings” rather than official transliterations, and Russian-occupied regions are referred to as “DNR” and “LNR” without the “self-proclaimed” qualifier used in pre-invasion content.

Viory’s exclusive content suggests extraordinary access to Russian officials and military operations. The agency published drone footage titled “Might of Moscow” showing Russian military equipment preparing for the 9 May 2024 Victory Day parade. The investigation said that “given the prevalence of small armed drones in the war in Ukraine, one can imagine it takes a high level of security clearance and trust to film such footage.”

The agency has published at least 352 videos under the “80th Victory Day Anniversary” tag and produced six exclusive videos from Putin’s June 2024 visit to North Korea. The investigation questions how “an apparently six-month-old Viory managed to pull this off” when “few international news agencies even have the capability to film in North Korea.”

Analysis of Viory’s coverage reveals “a significant bias in favour of Russia,” including exclusive footage of residents celebrating Russian control of Avdiivka and multiple exclusives from Wagner mercenary group activities. The agency also hosts “an enormous amount of Ruptly’s old content,” with footage matching exact headlines and scripts from Ruptly’s previous output.

The rebranding reflects Russia’s pivot toward the Global South following diplomatic isolation after the Ukraine invasion. EU-wide bans on Russian state media forced the search for new markets, with Viory’s tagline explicitly targeting “the video news agency of the Global South.”

The investigation said that Russia has been “expanding its presence over the last decade” in Africa, with Wagner mercenaries deployed to Russia-aligned states. Russian-linked disinformation campaigns have already been reported across the continent, including content featuring leaders like Ibrahim Traore, who “appears in dozens of videos on the Viory site.”

The investigation concluded that while Viory “evidently did a pitiful job of covering its tracks,” the operation demonstrates “an increasingly decentralized and diffuse Russian state approach to international messaging.” Unlike traditional Russian state media’s “overly incredulous or inflammatory rhetoric,” Viory presents content with “a veneer of objectivity” while maintaining the same pro-Kremlin narratives.

Recent events in the South Caucasus show how the authoritarian playbook is exported and adapted to suit local contexts. From Armenia’s clergy allegedly plotting coups, to Azerbaijan raiding Russian state-funded media offices as retribution, to Georgia’s mass arrests of opposition leaders, the region revealed how authoritarianism and resistance to it adapts and spreads through digital-age tactics.

The three nations of the South Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, have long occupied a place of strategic and symbolic importance for Russia. The region is a vital transit corridor linking Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, making it a coveted prize for energy routes and geopolitical influence. For Moscow, the South Caucasus has always been more than a neighboring periphery, it is an enduring obsession. And perhaps more so now, as Russia’s position in the Middle East has weakened following setbacks in Syria and its diminished sway in Iran. Today, the Kremlin’s desire to assert control in the South Caucasus is as strong as ever. Yet in each of these three countries, Moscow’s efforts to shape events and narratives are meeting unprecedented resistance. The divergent responses—ranging from defiance to accommodation—highlight how the authoritarian playbook is being adapted, contested, and exported across the region.

So what constitutes this playbook? Legal weaponization through foreign agent laws, criminalization of dissent with disproportionate penalties, systematic impunity for state violence, economic warfare against independent media, and international narrative manipulation. Below are three examples:

Armenia: Hybrid war and the Kremlin’s shadow

Armenia, once Moscow’s closest ally in the South Caucasus, has openly expressed disillusion with years of Russian inaction during regional crises. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan now warns of “hybrid actions and hybrid war” from Russian circles, without directly blaming the Kremlin, while the EU and France step in to support his decision to jail clergymen in defence of Armenian democracy. The clerics were accused of plotting a coup. Fingers were also pointed at Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan, the alleged orchestrator. It was, in one analyst’s words. Moscow’s “Ivanishvili 2.0 operation”, a reference to Bidzina Ivanishvili, the billionaire founder and de facto leader of Georgian Dream, Georgia’s ruling party since 2012. Georgian Dream, under Ivanishvili, has steered Georgia in an increasingly illiberal and pro-Russian direction. But for a couple of years now, the Armenian government has been gradually distancing itself from Russia, hedging its bets rather than relying on Moscow to guarantee security. In the aftermath of the alleged coup attempt, Armenia’s Foreign Minister bluntly told Russian officials that they “must treat Armenia’s sovereignty with great respect and never again allow themselves to interfere in our internal affairs.” Pashinyan has of late made conciliatory gestures towards both of Armenia’s arch-rivals, Azerbaijan and Turkey. The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan — while Russian peacekeepers stood by — largely drove Armenia toward European integration as an existential necessity. Armenia's experience with alleged coup plot, and its possible Russian backing, shows how the playbook adapts to different political contexts, exploiting religious institutions and diaspora networks to destabilize governments that drift from Moscow's orbit.

Azerbaijan: Asserting independence, testing the edges 

The raid on Russian state media offices in Baku last  week sent an unmistakable message about the limits of Moscow’s influence in the region. The targeting of Sputnik journalists came after violent police action in Russia in which two Azerbaijani nationals were killed, an incident Baku condemned as ethnically motivated. For years, Azerbaijan has been systematically moving out of Moscow’s orbit, growing closer to Turkey and unafraid to assert itself in disputes with Russia. The arrests of Russian journalists represent more than bilateral tensions; they signal how even traditionally Moscow-aligned states now calculate that defying Russia carries fewer costs than submission. Russia’s response — summoning the Azerbaijani ambassador and protesting the “dismantling of bilateral relations” — revealed Moscow’s diminished leverage. Azerbaijan’s confidence stems from military victories in Nagorno-Karabakh, increased energy exports to Europe, and strategic ties with Turkey that provide alternatives to a subservient partnership with Russia. Azerbaijan's bold move illustrates another dimension of the regional dynamic: how countries with strong alternative partnerships can successfully resist Russian pressure tactics, even when those tactics include media warfare and diplomatic intimidation.

Georgia: The authoritarian laboratory 

Georgia presents the starkest illustration of both the Kremlin’s enduring shadow and the systematic deployment of authoritarian tactics. The ruling Georgian Dream party has implemented what Transparency International calls a “full-scale authoritarian offensive,” with eight opposition figures jailed in just a single week. The crackdown follows months of mass protests against the foreign agent law — a carbon copy of Russian legislation designed to crush civil society. Among those arrested is Nika Gvaramia, the former head of the country’s leading opposition TV channel, who spent a year in prison, received the Committee to Protect Journalists’ International Press Freedom Award, and emerged to found his own political party. Now Gvaramia faces another eight-month sentence plus a two-year ban from holding office, an example of how the repressive state systematically eliminates viable opposition while maintaining a veneer of legal process. 

The foreign agent law itself has become a remarkably successful Russian export — a tool used from Nicaragua to Egypt to stigmatize independent civil society as “trojan horses” serving foreign interests. In Georgia, the law forces organizations receiving over 20% foreign funding to register as entities “pursuing the interests of a foreign power,” enabling harsh monitoring requirements and the systematic isolation of critics.

Since Russia pioneered the foreign agent model in 2012, it has been adopted by countries including Nicaragua, where it has been used to shut down over 3,000 civil society organizations, and Hungary, where officials explicitly cited the US FARA law as justification when facing international criticism. The model's appeal to authoritarian leaders lies in its appearance of legitimacy — claiming to mirror democratic precedents while systematically dismantling civil society. The chilling effect extends beyond legal restrictions.

Physical attacks on journalists have become routine, with not a single perpetrator facing accountability. Instead, the state's message is unmistakable: challenge us, and you will pay. According to the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, economic pressure has become a critical threat to media freedom globally, with the economic indicator hitting an “unprecedented, critical low” of 44.1 points — Georgia exemplifies this trend through its systematic economic warfare against independent outlets.

Mzia’s story 

The story  of one Georgian journalist Mzia Amaghlobeli, founder of two independent newsrooms Batumelebi and Netgazeti, is a textbook case of how modern authoritarianism operates through seemingly proportional responses to manufactured crises. 

Amaglobeli was taken into custody for placing a solidarity sticker reading “Georgia goes on strike” and subsequently slapping Police Chief Irakli Dgebuadze after hours of degrading treatment, including watching colleagues being beaten by police. 

Amaglobeli was arrested for assaulting a police officer, but many suspect her journalism was the real target. The charges against Amaglobeli — from “distorting a building’s appearance” for the removable sticker to “attacking an officer” — could mean seven years in prison. Evidence has been manipulated, timelines don’t match, and the authorities’ narrative shifts with each wave of international criticism. During detention, she was subjected to degrading treatment — insulted, spat upon, and denied access to water and toilets.

“It’s not only her being on trial, it’s independent media being on trial in Georgia,” said Irma Dimitradze, Amaghlobeli’s colleague who is now leading the global campaign to free her. She was speaking at Coda’s annual ZEG Fest along with Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists; human rights barrister Caoilfhionn Gallagher, and Nobel laureate and co-founder of Rappler Maria Ressa. All three argued that the systematic nature of the persecution of Amaglobeli reveals the broader strategy that’s similar the world over. Her case demonstrates how authoritarian systems create conditions where any human response to injustice becomes criminal evidence. 

As Caoilfhionn Gallagher put it: “You are not dealing here with a rule of law compliant system... there’s a whole series of absolutely farcical things which have happened in this case so far. The criminal investigation was headed by the officer who was the alleged victim. I mean these are…you couldn’t make this stuff up, really... it is clear that in Georgia you are not going to get a fair trial. She hasn’t had due process yet and really what's going to make the difference here is ensuring that the world is watching and that there's a proper international strategy.”

After a 38-day hunger strike, Amaglobeli remains defiant, standing for hours in court, refusing to sit, determined to show she cannot be broken. Her symbolic gesture of holding up Ressa’s book, “How to Stand Up to a Dictator”, during court appearances has become an icon of resistance. 

“We know,” said Ressa, “that journalism around the world is under attack.” With 72% of the world’s population living under authoritarian rule, added Ressa, “the time to protect our rights is now.” Gallagher spoke about the “power of international solidarity,” how what authoritarians fear is “journalism with a purpose, with an editorial line which is designed to undermine the false narratives and the gaslighting on a grand scale.”

A version of this story was published in this week’s Coda Currents newsletter. Sign up here.

The post Resisting the Authoritarian Playbook in the South Caucasus appeared first on Coda Story.

Armenian authorities should "seriously" consider banning the broadcast of Russian television channels in Armenia, Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan said on July 1, citing concerns over interference and deteriorating ties.

"We must very seriously discuss the suspension of the Russian television channel broadcast in the territory of Armenia," Simonyan told reporters, according to Armenpress. He criticized recent content aired by Russian state broadcasters, which the Armenian government has denounced as harmful to bilateral ties.

The remarks come as Armenia continues to pivot away from Moscow's sphere of influence and seeks to bolster ties with the West.

Simonyan suggested that individuals connected to Armenian-Russian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan may be financing efforts to meddle in Armenia's internal matters.

"If there are channels that allow themselves to interfere in Armenia’s domestic affairs, perhaps we ought to respond likewise, by at least banning their entry into the homes of our society," he said.

Tensions between Armenia and Russia have mounted since Moscow's failure to intervene during Azerbaijan's military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, which resulted in the mass displacement of ethnic Armenians.

In April, Armenian President Vahagn Khachaturyan signed a law initiating the country's formal accession process to the European Union.

Though symbolic, the legislation marks a significant political shift, embedding European integration into Armenian law. The bill, passed by parliament in March, was backed by 64 lawmakers and opposed by seven.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has said that EU membership would require a referendum, while the Kremlin warned that joining both the EU and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is "simply impossible." The EAEU, established in 2015, includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan.

Why Norway is investing billions in Ukraine’s victory

The Kyiv Independent’s Oleksiy Sorokin sat down with Eivind Vad Petersson, state secretary to the Norwegian foreign minister and co-chair of the joint Norwegian-Ukrainian Working Group on Nuclear Safety and Security.

The Kyiv IndependentOleksiy Sorokin

Editor's note: The story was updated after the Sputnik news agency disclosed the names of those detained in Baku.

Azerbaijani police detained two alleged agents of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) on June 30 following searches at the Baku office of the Russian state-controlled news agency Sputnik, the Azerbaijani news outlet Apa.az reported.

Sputnik later elaborated that Igor Kartavykh, chief editor of Sputnik Azerbaijan, and Yevgeniy Belousov, managing editor, had been detained in Baku. The agency called the allegations that the detainees were FSB agents "absurd."

The move comes amid a major deterioration in Russian-Azerbaijani relations that followed the detention of over 50 Azerbaijanis as part of a murder investigation in Yekaterinburg on June 27. Two people died during the detentions, and three others were seriously injured.

The searches in the office of the Russian propaganda media outlet, which operates as a local branch of Russian state news agency Russia Today (RT), began on June 30.

The Russian propagandist Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of Russia Today, said that representatives of the Russian embassy in Baku were on their way to Sputnik's office. Sputnik employees were offline and probably did not have access to phones, she added.

According to Simonyan, some of Sputnik's employees were Russian citizens.

The Azerbaijani government ordered in February that the activities of Sputnik's Azerbaijani office be suspended.

The authorities said that the move was intended to ensure parity in the activities of Azerbaijan's state media abroad and foreign journalists in the country. This meant that the number of Sputnik Azerbaijan journalists working in Baku was to be equal to the number of journalists of the Azerbaijani news agency Azertadzh in Russia.

As a result, Sputnik Azerbaijan had to reduce its staff from 40 people to one but refused to do so and continued to operate despite the Azerbaijani government's decision, according to Apa.az.

As the Russian-Azerbaijani relations deteriorate, Azerbaijan has cancelled all planned cultural events hosted alongside Russian state and private organizations, the country's Culture Ministry announced on June 29.

The announcement followed the deaths of two Azerbaijani citizens during police raids in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry said on June 28 that Ziyaddin and Huseyn Safarov had died during a raid carried out by Russian authorities. Azerbaijan called the killings "ethnically motivated" and "unlawful" actions.

Baku called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice and said it expected Moscow to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the incident.

In the meantime, the Russian Foreign Ministry said that the detentions were carried out as part of an investigation into serious crimes. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova claimed that these were cases related to murders committed in 2001, 2010, and 2011.

Russia pulls its scientists out of Iranian nuclear plant, as Israeli strikes threaten decades of collaboration

Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities have alarmed none more than Russia, the country that first brought nuclear power to Iran in defiance of Western objections. We’re “millimeters from catastrophe,” said Kremlin spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on June 18 in response to a bombing campaign that Israel launched against Iran on June 13. Decades of conflict with the West have united Iran and Russia, despite a cultural gulf between the two nations that dwarfs the Caspian Sea that physically di

The Kyiv IndependentKollen Post

On one side of the world, a very online guy edits a photo of then-Vice President Nominee JD Vance with comically-huge and perfectly round chipmunk cheeks: a butterfly flaps its wings. A year later, elsewhere on the planet, a Norwegian tourist returns home, rejected from entry to the U.S. because—he claims—border patrol agents found that image on his phone and considered the round Vance meme “extremist propaganda.”

“My initial reaction was ‘dear god,’” the creator of the original iteration of the meme, Dave McNamee, told me in an email, “because I think it's very bad and stupid that anyone could purportedly be stopped by ICE or any other government security agency because they have a meme on their phone. I know for a fact that JD has these memes on his phone.”

On Monday, Norwegian news outlets reported that Mads Mikkelsen, a 21-year-old tourist from Norway, claimed he was denied entry to the United States when he arrived at Newark International Airport because Customs and Border Patrol agents found "narcotic paraphernalia" and "extremist propaganda" on his phone. Mikkelsen told Nordlys that the images in question were a photo of himself with a homemade wooden pipe, and the babyface Vance meme. (The meme he shows on his phone is a version where Vance is bald, from the vice presidential debate.)

McNamee posted his original edit of Vance as a round-faced freak in October 2024. "For every 100 likes I will turn JD Vance into a progressively apple cheeked baby,” he wrote in the original X post. In the following months, Vance became vice president, the meme morphed into a thousand different versions of the original, and this week is at the center of an immigration scandal.

It’s still unclear whether Mikkelsen was actually forbidden entry because of the meme. Mikkelsen, who told local outlets he’d been detained and threatened by border agents, showed the documentation he received at the airport to Snopes. The document, signed by a CBP officer, says Mikkelsen “is not in possession of a valid, un-expired immigrant visa,” and “cannot overcome the presumption of being an intending immigrant at this time because it appears you are attempting to engage in unauthorized employment without authorization and proper documentation.” 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote in social media posts (and confirmed to 404 Media), "Claims that Mads Mikkelsen was denied entry because of a JD Vance meme are FALSE. Mikkelsen was refused entry into the U.S. for his admitted drug use." Hilariously, DHS and Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin reposted the Vance meme on their social media accounts to make the point that it was NOT babyface Vance to blame.

Earlier this week, the State Department announced that visa applicants to the U.S. are now required to make their social media profiles public so the government can search them. 

“We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the United States, including those who pose a threat to U.S. national security. Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M, and J nonimmigrant classifications,” the State Department said in an announcement. “To facilitate this vetting, all applicants for F, M, and J nonimmigrant visas will be instructed to adjust the privacy settings on all of their social media profiles to ‘public.’”

The meme is now everywhere—arguably more widespread than it ever was, even at its peak virality. Irish Labour leader Ivana Bacik held it up during an address concerning the U.S.’s new visa rules for social media. Every major news outlet is covering the issue, and slapping Babyface Vance on TV and on their websites. It’s jumped a news cycle shark: Even if the Meme Tourist rumor is overblown, it reflects a serious anxiety people around the world feel about the state of immigration and tourism in the U.S. Earlier this month, an Australian man who was detained upon arrival at Los Angeles airport and deported back to Melbourne claimed that U.S. border officials “clearly targeted for politically motivated reasons” and told the Guardian agents spent more than 30 minutes questioning him about his views on Israel and Palestine and his “thoughts on Hamas.”  

Seeing the Vance edit everywhere again, a year after it first exploded on social media, has to be kind of weird if you’re the person who made the Fat Cheek Baby Vance meme, right? I contacted McNamee over email to find out. 

When did you first see the news about the guy who was stopped (allegedly) because of the meme? Did you see it on Twitter, did someone text it to you...

MCNAMEE: I first saw it when I got a barrage of DMs sending me the news story. It's very funny that any news that happens with an edit of him comes back to me. 

What was your initial reaction to that?

MCNAMEE: My initial reaction was "dear god," because I think it's very bad and stupid that anyone could purportedly be stopped by ICE or any other government security agency because they have a meme on their phone. I know for a fact that JD has these memes on his phone.  

What do you think it says about the US government, society, ICE, what-have-you, that this story went so viral? A ton of people believed (and honestly, it might still be the case, despite what the cops say) that he was barred because of a meme. What does that mean to you in the bigger picture?

MCNAMEE: Well I think that people want to believe it's true, that it was about the meme. I think it says that we are in a scary world where it is hard to tell if this is true or not. Like 10 years ago this wouldn’t even be a possibility but now it is very plausible. I think it shows a growing crack down on free speech and our rights. Bigger picture to me is that we are going to be unjustly held accountable for things that are much within our right to do/possess. 

What would you say to the Norwegian guy if you could?

MCNAMEE: I would probably say "my bad" and ask what it's like being named Mads Mikkelsen. 

Do you have a favorite Vance edit?

MCNAMEE: My favorite Vance Edit is probably the one someone did of him as the little boy from Shrek 2 with the giant lollipop...I didn't make that one but it uses the face of one of the edits I did and it is solid gold. 

I would like to add that this meme seems to have become the biggest meme of the 2nd Trump administration and one of the biggest political memes of all time and if it does enter a history book down the line I would like them to use a flattering photo of me.

Ukrainian journalist Vladyslav Yesypenko was released on June 20 after more than four years of detention in Russian-occupied Crimea, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported.

Yesypenko, a freelance contributor to Crimea.Realities, a regional project of RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service, reported on various issues in Crimea before being detained by Russia’s FSB in March 2021.

He was accused of espionage and possession of explosives, charges he denied, and later sentenced to five years in prison by a Russian-controlled court.

Yesypenko said he was tortured, including with electric shocks, to force a confession, and was denied access to independent lawyers for nearly a month after his arrest.

RFE/RL welcomed his release, thanking the U.S. and Ukrainian governments for their efforts. Yesypenko has since left Russian-occupied Crimea.

“Vlad was arbitrarily punished for a crime he didn’t commit… he paid too high a price for telling the truth about occupied Crimea,” said RFE/RL President Steven Kapus.

During his imprisonment, Yesypenko became a symbol of press freedom, receiving several prestigious awards, including the Free Media Award and PEN America’s Freedom to Write Award.

His case drew support from human rights groups, the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine, and international advocates for media freedom.

Russia invaded and unlawfully annexed Crimea in 2014, cracking down violently on any opposition to its regime.

Following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin toughened its grip on dissent, passing laws in March 2022 that prohibit what authorities label as "false" criticism of Russia's war.

Crimean Tatar freed from Russian captivity: ‘Recognizing Russia’s control of Crimea would legitimize crime’

For nearly two years in Russian captivity, Leniie Umerova clung to a single hope: that one day, she would return home — to Crimea. “I thought about Crimea all the time,” Umerova told the Kyiv Independent. “I dreamed of going there without the permission of the occupying forces, without going through

The Kyiv IndependentDaria Shulzhenko

Since the “social media is bad for teens” myth will not die, I keep having intense conversations with colleagues, journalists, and friends over what the research says and what it doesn’t. (Alice Marwick et. al put together a great little primer in light of the legislative moves.) Along the way, I’ve also started to recognize how slipperiness between two terms creates confusion — and political openings — and so I wanted to call them out in case this is helpful for others thinking about these issues.

In short, “Does social media harm teenagers?” is not the same question as “Can social media be risky for teenagers?”

The language of “harm” in this question is causal in nature. It is also legalistic. Lawyers look for “harms” to place blame on or otherwise regulate actants. By and large, in legal contexts, we talk about PersonA harming PersonB. As such, PersonA is to be held accountable. But when we get into product safety discussions, we also talk about how faulty design creates the conditions for people to be harmed due to intentional, malfeasant actions by the product designer. Making a product liability claim is much harder because it requires proving the link of harm and the intentionality to harm.

Risk is a different matter. Getting out of bed introduces risks into your life. Risk is something to identify and manage. Some environments introduce more potential risks and some actions reduce the risks. Risk management is a skill to develop. And while regulation can be used to reduce certain risks, it cannot eliminate them. And it can also backfire and create more risks. (This is the problem that María Angel and I have with techno-legal solutionism.)

Let’s unpack this a bit by shifting contexts and thinking about how we approach risks more generally.

Skiing is Risky.

Skiing is understood to be a risky sport. As we approach skiing season out here in the Rockies, I’m bracing myself for the uptick in crutches, knee wheelies, and people under 40 using the wheelchair services at the Denver airport. There is also a great deal of effort being put into trying to reduce the risk that someone will leave the slopes in this state. I’m fascinated by the care ski instructors take in trying to ensure that people who come to the mountains learn how to take care. There’s a whole program here for youngins designed to teach them a safety-first approach to skiing.

And there’s a whole host of messaging that will go out each day letting potential skiers know about the conditions. We will also get fear-mongering messages out here, with local news reporting on skiers doing stupid things and warnings of avalanches that too many folks will ignore. And there will be posters at the resorts telling people to not speed on the mountains because they might kill a kid. (I think these posters are more effective as scaring kids than convincing skiers to slow down.)

No matter what messaging goes out, people will still get hurt this season like they do every season. And so there are patrollers whose job it is to look for people in high-risk situations and medics who will be on hand to help people who have been injured. And there’s a whole apparatus structured to get them of the mountain and into long-term care.

Unless you’re off your rocker, you don’t just watch a few YouTube videos and throw yourself down a mountain on skis. People take care to learn how to manage the risks of skiing. Or they’re like me and take one look at that insanity and dream of a warm place by a fire or sitting in a hot tub instead of spending stupid amounts of money to introduce that kind of risk into their lives.

Crossing the Street is Risky.

The stark reality is that every social environment has risks. And one of the key parts of being socialized through childhood into adulthood is learning to assess and respond to risks.

Consider walking down the street in a busy city. As any NYC parent knows, there are countless near-heart attacks that occur when trying to teach a 2-year-old to stop at the corner of the sidewalk. But eventually they learn to stop. And eventually they learn to not bowl people over while riding their scooter down that sidewalk. And then the next stage begins — helping young people learn to look both ways before crossing the street, regardless of what is happening with the light, and convincing them to maintain constant awareness about their environment. And eventually that becomes so normal that you start to teach your child how to J-walk without getting a ticket. And eventually, the child turns into a teenager who wanders the city alone, J-walking with ease while blocking out all audio signals with their headphones. But then take that child — or an American adult — to a city like Hanoi and they’ll have to relearn how to cross a street because nothing one learns in NYC about crossing streets applies to Hanoi.

Is crossing the street risky? Of course. But there’s a lot we can do to make it less risky. Good urban design and functioning streetlights can really help, but they don’t make the risk disappear. And people can actually cross a street in Hanoi, even though I doubt anyone would praise the urban design of streets and there are no streetlights. While design can help, what really matters for navigating risk is rooted in socialization, education, and agency. Mixed into this is, of course, experience. The more that we experience crossing the street, the easier it gets, regardless of what you know about the rules. And still, the risk does not entirely disappear. People are still hit by cars while crossing the street every year.

The Risk of Social Media Can Be Reduced.

Can social media be risky for youth? Of course. So can school. So can friendship. So can the kitchen. So can navigating parents. Can social media be designed better? Absolutely. So can school. So can the kitchen. (So can parents?) Do we always know the best design interventions? No. Might those design interventions backfire? Yes.

Does that mean that we should give up trying to improve social media or other digital environments? Absolutely not. But we must also recognize that trying to cement design into law might backfire. And that, more generally, technologies’ risks cannot be managed by design alone.

Fixating on better urban design is pointless if we’re not doing the work to socialize and educate people into crossing digital streets responsibly. And when we age-gate and think that people can magically wake up on their 13th or 18th birthday and be suddenly able to navigate digital streets just because of how many cycles they took around the sun, we’re fools. Socialization and education are still essential, regardless of how old you are. (Psst to the old people: the September that never ended…)

In the United States, we have a bad habit of thinking that risks can be designed out of every system. I will never forget when I lived in Amsterdam in the 90s, and I remarked to a local about how odd I found it that there were no guardrails to prevent cars from falling into the canals when they were parking. His response was “you’re so American” which of course prompted me to say, “what does THAT mean?” He explained that, in the Netherlands, locals just learned not to drive their cars into the canals, but Americans expected there to be guardrails for everything so that they didn’t have to learn not to be stupid. He then noted out that every time he hears about a car ending up in the canal, it is always an American who put it there. Stupid Americans. (I took umbrage at this until, a few weeks later, I read a news story about a drunk American driving a rental into the canal.)

Better design is warranted, but it is not enough if the goal is risk reduction. Risk reduction requires socialization, education, and enough agency to build experience. Moreover, if we think that people will still get hurt, we should be creating digital patrols who are there to pick people up when they are hurt. (This is why I’ve always argued that “digital street outreach” would be very valuable.)

But What About Harms?

People certainly face risks when encountering any social environment, including social media. This then triggers the next question: Do some people experience harms through social media? Absolutely. But it’s important to acknowledge that most of these harms involve people using social media to harm others. It’s reasonable that they should be held accountable. It’s not reasonable to presume that you can design a system that allows people to interact in a manner where harms will never happen. As every school principal knows, you can’t solve bullying through the design of the physical building.

Returning to our earlier note on product liability, it is reasonable to ask if specific design choices of social media create the conditions for certain kinds of harms to be more likely — and for certain risks to be increased. Researchers have consistently found that bullying is more frequent and more egregious at school than on social media, even if it is more visible on the latter. This makes me wary of a product liability claim regarding social media and bullying. Moreover, it’s important to notice what schools have done in response to this problem. They’ve invested in social-emotional learning programs to strengthen resilience, improve bystander approaches, and build empathy. These interventions are making a huge difference, far more than building design. (If someone wants to tax social media companies to scale these interventions, have a field day.)

Of course, there are harms that I do think are product liability issues vis-a-vis social media. For example, I think that many privacy harms can be mitigated with a design approach that is privacy-by-default. I also think that regulations that mandate universal privacy protections would go a long way in helping people out. But the funny thing is that I don’t think that these harms are unique to children. These are harms that are experienced broadly. And I would argue that older folks tend to experience harms associated with privacy much more acutely.

But even if you think that children are especially vulnerable, I’d like to point out that while children might need a booster seat for the seatbelt to work, everyone would be better off if we put privacy seatbelts in place rather than just saying that kids can’t be in cars.

I have more complex feelings about the situations where we blame technology for societal harms. As I’ve argued for over a decade, the internet mirrors and magnifies the good, bad, and ugly. This includes bullying and harassment, but it also includes racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, and anti-trans attitudes. I wish that these societal harms could be “fixed” by technology; that would be nice. But that is naive.

I get why parents don’t want to expose children to the uglier parts of the world. But if we want to raise children to be functioning adults, we also have to ensure that they are resilient. Besides, protecting children from the ills of society is a luxury that only a small segment of the population is able to enjoy. For example, in the US, Black parents rarely have the option of preventing their children from being exposed to racism. This is why white kids need to be educated to see and resist racism. Letting white kids live in “colorblind” la-la-land doesn’t enable racial justice. It lets racism fester and increases inequality.

As adults, we need to face the ugliness of society head on, with eyes wide open. And we need to intentionally help our children see that ugliness so that they can be agents of change. Social media does make this ugly side more visible, but avoiding social media doesn’t make it go away. Actively engaging young people as they are exposed to the world through dialogue allows them to be prepared to act. Turning on the spicket at a specific age does not.

I will admit that one thing that intrigues me is that many of those who propagate hate are especially interested in blocking children from technology for fear that allowing their children to be exposed to difference might make them more tolerant. (No, gender is not contagious, but developing a recognition that gender is socially and politically constructed — and fighting for a more just world — sure is.) There’s a long history of religious communities trying to isolate youth from kids of other faiths to maintain control.

There’s no doubt that media — including social media — exposes children to a much broader and more diverse world. Anyone who sees themselves as empowering their children to create a more just and equitable world should want to conscientiously help their children see and understand the complexity of the world we live in.

In the early days of social media, I was naive in thinking that just exposing people to people around the world to each other would fundamentally increase our collective tolerance. I had too much faith in people’s openness. I know now that this deterministic thinking was foolish. But I have also come to appreciate the importance of combining exposure with education and empathy.

Isolating people from difference doesn’t increase tolerance or appreciation. And it won’t help us solve the hardest problems in our world — starting with both inequity and ensuring our planet is livable for future generations. Instead, we need to help our children build the skills to live and work together.

Put another way, to raise children who can function in our complex world, we need to teach them how to cross the digital street safely. Skiing is optional.