Unravelling the Web: Social Media's Impact on Global Conflicts and the Grey Zone War in Our Pockets
In the spring of 2012, a video went viral, capturing the attention of millions and igniting a global conversation about justice and activism. The video quickly amassed more than 100 million views on YouTube within a week, aided by celebrities like Justin Bieber and Kim Kardashian reposting it to hundreds of millions of their followers. The video in question: “Kony 2012.” Kony 2012, a campaign aimed at bringing Ugandan warlord Joseph Kony to justice, marked a turning point in the relationship between social media and international conflicts. As we revisit this pivotal moment, it's abundantly clear that social media is not merely a tool for connection; it's an imposing force reshaping how we perceive global conflicts, for better or for worse.
Social media’s greatest strength, its rapid dissemination of information, is simultaneously its Achilles heel. Take the Iranian Woman, Life, Freedom movement as a prime example. Triggered by Mahsa Amini's death in opposition to Iran's mandatory hijab laws, social media became the battleground for swift mobilization. The movement, which started as an isolated protest at Amini’s funeral, quickly gained traction on social media as videos of the protest were shared across the country. Within weeks, #MahsaAmini amassed more than 50 million tweets and global audiences were engaged as tens of thousands of Iranians staged anti-government protests in support of women’s rights. Ultimately, the protests failed as Iran’s government responded with media blackouts and limiting social media access within the country. But, despite faltering in prompting substantial change within Iran's regime, the movement's wildfire-like spread underscored its success. In other cases, the rapid spread of information on social media amidst the constantly evolving nature of conflict can cause mass uncertainty.
In early reporting of a hospital in the Gaza Strip that was struck by a missile, larger names in journalism like the New York Times scrambled to break the story. Initially, the New York Times reported that the hospital in Gaza had been struck by an Israeli attack, citing the claims of the Hamas-backed Palestinian Health Ministry and videos from social media. However, as more evidence emerged, the Times walked back their reporting and issued a statement saying that they “relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified.” The New York Times was not alone; the Associated Press and Reuters both had similar early reports which were later walked back as more information became available.
Will we ever know who was actually responsible for the hospital explosion? Likely not. However, The New York Times is a sobering example of how notable news outlets sometimes get it wrong amidst the fog of war. In an analysis of more than 1,000 videos of the Israel/Hamas conflict on social media, CBS News found that only 10% were verifiable and usable. News outlets, though, are not the only ones trying to sift through the information and come to conclusions. All social media users are spectators to swaths of posts that spread mis and disinformation. Many of us become participants, knowingly or not, the moment we engage with these posts. Amidst the start of the conflict, Justin Bieber accidentally posted a message of support for Israel alongside a photo of a destroyed Gaza City (which he later removed). Similarly, Jamie Lee Curtis posted an image of Palestinian children with a caption in staunch support of Israel (also removed).
While Bieber and Curtis made seemingly innocent mistakes that were quickly reversed, some nefarious actors intentionally engage in propagating and disseminating mis and disinformation on social media platforms. Days after the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack, researchers found that a network of 67 Twitter/X accounts were working in conjunction to spread misinformation regarding Israel and Hamas. The content of these accounts included videos of Russian government officials, including President Vladimir Putin, speaking in Russian with incorrectly translated English subtitles. According to the false subtitles, Putin said “Russia will help Palestine and America can do nothing,” and in another, a Russian government official signaled Russian military escalation against Israel.
The usage of social media bots and trolls falls within the “grey zone”, which describes a set of activities that occur between peace and war. Russia has a notorious history of utilising social media to mislead the public, including TikTok campaigns to manipulate public opinion about the War on Ukraine and flooding social media in the United States to alter domestic discord around the 2016 presidential election. Seeking a similar goal, China has been observed trying to fuel polarisation and political division through social media prior to the 2022 midterm elections.
China, also, is home to ByteDance, the developer of TikTok. While no definitive evidence has been made public of Chinese control of the privately owned Bytedance, many company whistleblowers have sounded alarms about data collection practices, along with FBI Director Christopher Wray, who warned the app “could be used for influence operations if they so choose.” As if to confirm this point, at the time of writing this article, Osama Bin Laden’s “Letter to America,” in which Bin Laden attempts to justify the 9/11 terrorist attacks, is currently going viral on TikTok in the span of less than a day.
How does this relate to the conflict between Hamas and Israel?
As of 13 November 2023, posts tagged #standwithisrael have a cumulative 439 million views. Posts tagged #standwithpalestine, on the other hand, dwarf its counterpart, with totals of 4 billion views. This content asymmetry risks shaping ill-informed and inconclusive opinions. To make matters worse, TikTok’s primary audience is also its most impressionable: 18 to 24-year-olds, 76% of whom say it's their primary form of entertainment. In a recent poll, it was found that nearly half of this same age cohort, 18 to 24-year-olds, side with Hamas, a terrorist organisation, in the recent outbreak of conflict.
Simultaneously, older generations’ dogmatic support for Israel is a result of similar asymmetric media consumption, which has, historically, disproportionately used negative and violent rhetoric to describe Palestinians compared to the actions of Israel.
While the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, and China aren’t directly involved in the conflict in Gaza, grey zone warfare is still present, with the battleground being in citizens’ pockets. The cyber landscape, chaotic and convoluted, may seem daunting, but amidst this confusion, hope persists. Our discomfort with uncertainty is inherent, and while social media offers answers, it's crucial to approach the information with vigilance and skepticism—from the TikTok "For You" page to Instagram stories and the Twitter/X home timeline.
Image courtesy of the Doctorxgc via Wikimedia, ©2023. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
