We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
F-16s for Ukraine redefine red line for Putin (again)
Will Biden's reversal to allow F-16s to Ukraine be a game-changer? What is holding up a debt ceiling deal? Will the EU's lawsuit against Meta lead to a data-sharing agreement with the United States? Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Will Biden's reversal to allow F-16s to Ukraine be a game-changer?
Well, Putin says it is. Says that that would absolutely be a line that would be crossed and be irreversible. Of course, he said that about a bunch of things, and his credibility in a response to NATO providing defense to Ukraine has been significantly eroding over the last year. Of course, we also see not just F-16s, but we see Ukrainian armored troop carriers suddenly five miles deep in Russian territory, in Belgorod. The Ukrainians say it wasn't them, but they're very happy to embarrass Putin over that. Look, a lot of things that would've been seen as red lines six months ago now are not. Of course, that's good for the Ukrainians, but it also does mean that the tail risk dangers of this conflict are also going up.
What is holding up a debt ceiling deal?
Political dysfunction in the United States. Massive divisions inside the Democratic and Republican parties. I do think you can get to a deal between Biden and McCarthy, the House Speaker. I don't think that means that McCarthy can get the first deal he gets done through his own caucus. And that not only means there's more negotiation than the time that we presently have allotted, so probably, let's say, a one-month delay looks likely to me, but also, the potential that McCarthy himself has his leadership challenged, which is another problem that you don't need in the middle of this, is rising. So, I'm still quite worried about where this all heads.
Will the EU's lawsuit against Meta lead to a data-sharing agreement with the United States?
I'm not sure that we're there yet. I still see that the Europeans and the Americans are thinking about data from different perspectives. The Europeans are much more willing to support privacy and infringe on what the technology companies have to do, the regulations, in a much less company-friendly way than the Americans, who, of course, have these companies domiciled based in the United States. There is more coordination and talk of data security between the Americans and the Europeans, but I still think we're far from an overall regulatory framework.
- G7 alignment & US political challenges ›
- “Break the neck of the Russian army”: An interview with Ukraine’s UN envoy Sergiy Kyslytsya ›
- Biden returns to join US debt ceiling talks ›
- Ian Explains: The debt ceiling ›
- Hard Numbers: Meta gets fined, Nigeria gets refined, Sudan gets a ceasefire, Nagorno-Karabakh gets a hint of recognition ›
The path to holding social media companies accountable
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen thinks governments need to rethink how they regulate social media companies to hold them accountable for the consequences of their actions.
Instead of laws banning specific stuff, which lawyers are very good at skirting, governments should develop legislation that opens conversations about potential problems.
"That's an ongoing, flexible approach to trying to direct them back towards the common good," she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
Also, Haugen says we must recognize that the gap between fast-changing tech and slow-moving governments will continue to widen. To narrow it, we'll need more whistleblowers — and better laws to protect them.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Why social media is broken & how to fix it
- US in 2022: Smarter social media, more housing & living with COVID ›
- Be more worried about artificial intelligence - GZERO Media ›
- What is Section 230, the 90's law governing the internet? - GZERO ... ›
- Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen says social media ... ›
- Toxic social media & American divisiveness - GZERO Media ›
Whistleblowers & how to activate a new era of digital accountability
Frances Haugen famously blew the whistle against her then-employer, Facebook. She says we must recognize that the gap between fast-changing tech and slow-moving governments will continue to widen, and the best way to narrow it, is to encourage people to speak out against questionable practices. These whistleblowers need better laws to protect them, she tells Ian Bremmer in a GZERO World interview.
Despite all of this, Haugen still has hope that the corporate culture inside tech companies can change for the better. The role of social media companies in politics is still growing, and now the failures of social media companies can have life-or-death consequences.
Haugen suggests that governments need to rethink how they regulate social media companies, and hold them more accountable for the consequences of their actions.
The EU just approved the Digital Services Act, which for the first time will mandate social media companies be more transparent about what they do with personal data.
If if it works in Europe, the DSA could inspire similar laws in other parts of the world too. Haugen also discusses the preponderance of "bot" accounts on social media, and says companies often choose to ignore the large numbers of fake followers.
How GDPR protects your social media data (even if you accept all cookies)
Why are apps and websites increasingly asking us if we're willing to share our cookies?
The EU's General Data Protection Regulation may be somewhat annoying to the average consumer, but for social media companies it was a wakeup call about the huge amount of private data they'd accumulated, says Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
And that's a slippery slope for the likes of Facebook or Google.
"One of the things that you get as part of GDPR is the right to request any data that a company has on you," Haugen tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
For companies, she says, they were suddenly being asked to disclose just how much stuff they had on you.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Why social media is broken & how to fix it
- Data privacy before and after a pandemic - GZERO Media ›
- Why EU social media regulation matters to you - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Who dominates social media? - GZERO Media ›
- Why social media is broken & how to fix it - GZERO Media ›
- Whistleblowers & how to activate a new era of digital accountability - GZERO Media ›
Podcast: How to get social media companies to protect users (instead of hurting them)
Listen: Frances Haugen blew the whistle against Facebook because she believed her employer wasn't doing enough to stop its outrage-driven algorithm from spreading online misinformation and hate, which led to offline violence. Haugen speaks with Ian Bremmer on the GZERO World podcast about the major role that social media companies play in politics in the US and around the world, and the life-or-death consequences that can come from their actions. She believes governments need to rethink how they regulate social media, as the EU is trying to do with a new law mandating data transparency.
Haugen still believes social media companies can change for the better, but the gap between fast-changing tech and slow-moving governments will continue to widen. To narrow it, we'll need more whistleblowers — and better laws to protect them.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.- Nicholas Thompson on the outsized influence of Big Tech - GZERO ... ›
- Podcast: We have to control AI before it controls us, warns former ... ›
- Nick Thompson: Facebook realized too late it couldn't control its own ... ›
- The ad Facebook will never run - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The past, present and future of political media - GZERO Media ›
China agitating Taiwan to demonstrate power, not start WWIII
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week with a look at Chinese warplanes, the Pandora Papers, and Facebook's major outage.
What is China signaling by sending warplanes into Taiwan's air defense identification zone?
Well, it's not their airspace. They've done this before. They do it a lot. In fact, on some days, a year ago, in the past, they've had over 20 incursions on a day. Over the last few days, it has been record levels, so clearly, they're agitated. They want to show that they're strong and assertive. Having said that, we are not on the brink of World War III. There is a greater chance of accidents happening, and that would be a really bad thing, but on balance, this doesn't cross any red lines between the two countries. I think the headlines are a little breathless on it.
What are the Pandora Papers?
It is yet one more, even larger dump of information about a whole bunch of former and standing world leaders and the wealthy people near them who are trying to obscure their wealth, frequently ill-gotten, through offshore accounts and usually buying a bunch of real estate in other countries. Some leaders that are trying to show themselves as reformers are going to get caught up and really embarrassed by that. In particular, some of the ministers around Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, President Lasso in Ecuador. There are, I would say King Abdullah in Jordan, certainly, but for people like Putin, of course, complete impunity, no shame, because they have thorough control of their system, their media. It's an authoritarian state, full on.
What's happening with Facebook?
Well, it looks like it was an own goal, of big engineering mistake. The fact that you can take half of the planet down in terms of an app that they use, so easily, it's a lot more dangerous than, say, just-in-time supply chain and what we learned about not having redundancy and resilience in our system after the pandemic. This, on the digital side, even more dangerous. Imagine if it had been something where companies use it fundamentally to work, like for example Amazon or Microsoft. I mean, this was a significant inconvenience, most importantly for small enterprises that use Facebook for their businesses. Six hours down. Big embarrassment for Facebook. Question is whether or not it makes any of us think differently about the need for redundancy and resilience on digital sites. They are so, of course, concentrated. We'll see what happens on the regulatory side. So far, there's been very little.
Social media’s responsibility in American politics
Former US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes argues that one of the biggest issues in American political discourse at the moment is the lack of regulation on social media platforms. Americans believe fake news, not because they are all crazy, but because this information is being effectively presented to them as though it is fact. Biden should work with Big Tech to regulate social media, Rhodes tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, because the situation is worsening. "Part of what's different is the way in which social media and technology has literally made it possible for a very large chunk of this country to live in an alternative reality."
Watch the episode: Is American democracy in danger?
A man reads a newspaper at a newsstand in Abuja, Nigeria.
Nigeria bungled the chance to lead a global conversation on social media regulation
Nigeria's federal government earlier this month blocked Twitter from the country's mobile networks, after the social media company deleted a controversial post from President Muhammadu Buhari's account. The move by Africa's largest and most populous economy comes as many governments around the world are putting increased pressure on social media companies, with serious implications for free speech.
So what actually happened in Nigeria, and how does it fit in with broader trends on censorship and social media regulation? Eurasia Group analysts Amaka Anku and Tochi Eni-Kalu explain.
Why did Nigeria restrict access to Twitter?
Buhari's tweet contained a threat to use force against a secessionist group in Nigeria's southeastern region. After a big backlash on social media, Twitter deleted the tweet on the grounds that it was an incitement to violence. The Nigerian government then banned Twitter over concerns that, as Information Minister Lai Mohammed explained, the social media platform is "capable of undermining Nigeria's corporate existence." Nigerian officials were irked at the power of social media influencers to shape Twitter's policy toward official government speech, and they also claim double standards in content moderation on the platform. For instance, they point out that Twitter has done little to silence Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the secessionist Indigenous People of Biafra movement, who has repeatedly tweeted hate speech and incited violence against the state. For these reasons, the Buhari government feels that Twitter has begun to constitute a threat to Nigeria's national security. But in banning the platform, they also stoked concerns about the right of Nigerians to free speech.
Has there been backlash over that?
Opposition to the ban has been swift in the diaspora and the international community, where the move is seen as a sign of the Buhari administration's authoritarian drift. While there has also been backlash domestically — a legal challenge has been mounted while some Nigerians are openly circumventing the ban using VPNs — it is unlikely to grow disruptive. Only a small proportion of Nigerians use Twitter regularly. Simply put, most Nigerians will not be affected by the ban, limiting the scope for political blowback.
How does this compare to efforts by other governments to pressure Twitter?
Nigeria's standoff with Twitter bears some parallels with India's escalating feud with the social media giant. Authorities in both countries view Twitter's content moderation practices as an affront to their sovereignty. Nigerian officials have frequently said that Twitter poses a threat to the security of the state, while their Indian counterparts have labelled companies that resist their restrictions "digital colonizers".
That said, the two governments are upset about different things. The Nigerian authorities are unhappy with what they perceive to be inconsistent, and perhaps even anti-government, content moderation. The Indian government, meanwhile, are actively trying to influence Twitter's moderation practices in order to silence dissenting voices and curb the firm's labeling of tweets from officials, and are unhappy that Twitter is refusing to comply.
Might the Nigerian government start to move toward greater regulation?
Nigerian authorities are now using the Twitter spat as an excuse to impose tighter content moderation guidelines on social media firms. On June 10, authorities directed all social media platforms in the country to apply for a broadcast license pursuant to domestic broadcasting laws. It is not yet clear what such regulation would entail.
What aspect of this story has been lost in the mainstream coverage?
There has been almost no discussion of the broader context of Buhari's tweet, which was an attempt to summarize remarks the president made in response to a series of attacks on the offices of electoral authorities across the country's south. In a video excerpt which was included in one of the deleted tweets, Buhari can be heard lamenting the human toll of the civil war while expressing incredulity over the perceived lack of awareness of the loss associated with the war among the current separatists.
This context, and the fact that Twitter deleted the speech of the commander-in-chief of a country's armed forces threatening force against an armed rebel group, without first consulting that government, raises serious questions about the appropriate duty of care that social media companies owe to sovereigns on issues of national security. The episode also highlights how "working the refs" — or applying pressure to companies that moderate political speech, similar to the way players on a basketball court may try to gain sympathy from referees in calling fouls — is becoming a fixture of 21st century politics.
That reality should ordinarily raise eyebrows around the world — the EU and the UK, for example, are working on legislation for content on social media platforms, also the subject of intense partisan debate in the US after the January 6 Capitol insurrection. The Nigerian government had an opportunity to lead an important global conversation about those issues. Instead, the government's overreach and apparent restriction of Nigerians' right to free self-expression is now the story.