‍

Tucker Carlson's car crash interview with Russia's autocratic dictator in February, which has been viewed over 120m times, shows how the west is blind to pro-Kremlin propaganda as Putin was eagerly provided a platform to promote a false depiction of Russia and Ukraine's history.

‍

As Ian Garner points out in his piece for Foreign Policy Magazine, Russia isn't just weaponising social media it's relying on the west to spread the message themselves.

‍

Another good point raised in Garner’s article is how the vociferous debate around free speech is stifling regulators to act in the face of ever-growing concerns around certain types of online discourse. On the flip-side however you have the UK government is updating its definition of extremism, which is now so broad it represents a catch-all for anyone the government deems disagreeable. 1984 much?

‍

My argument here is that legislators haven't got it right, instead of focusing on the platforms that encourage and perpetuate divisiveness they are instead penalising civil society by introducing harsher laws on free-speech.

‍

You wouldn't be remiss for thinking this was all part of a planned campaign by bad state actors to undermine democracy and further erode trust in government institutions.

‍

Platforms like Facebook, TikTok, Telegram, and X (Twitter) are the main vehicles to promote pro-Kremlin propaganda where ordinary users are subjected to a barrage of Russian talking points, often shared unknowingly, stoking societal division around domestic issues and garnering support for wider strategic objectives.

‍

So, what's the answer?

‍

Governments must act in concert to avert deepening societal division, provide education on the threats of mis/disinformation to schools, universities and wider public. And, provide tools to expose instances of mis/disinformation online.

‍