Russian people need tech companies to stay, not withdraw: It's terrifying how dark that place could become.

• If tech platforms want to remain operational in Russia, they must tread carefully amid the Kremlin's ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
• Suspending tech services in Russia could worsen the flow of truthful information among citizens, unlike other sectors where such a move could mainly send a message to the regime.
• While some Ukrainian officials have urged tech companies to sever ties with Russia, internet freedom proponents warn of unintended consequences.

With economic sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and Europe for its invasion of Ukraine, and businesses such as and shutting down operations in the country, tech platforms must consider a more intricate calculation.

Limiting access to tech platforms could significantly impact the Russian people's ability to access accurate information that contradicts the Kremlin's "special military operation" narrative.

Joanna Szostek, a political communication lecturer at the University of Glasgow, believes that tech companies are unique in their interest in remaining in Russia, unlike other companies in other industries that have pulled their goods and services from the country. She commended Western companies for taking a stand against Russia's actions but noted that social media and search engine services are different, and it's not as straightforward to remove them from the market.

The tech industry is once again confronting the age-old conundrum of striking a balance between global connectivity and the dissemination of false information.

To oppose the war in Ukraine, some have urged tech companies to halt their services in Russia. However, internet freedom and Russian censorship experts caution that such action could be counterproductive. Instead, experts suggest that platforms must take calculated risks to maintain their services in Russia in order for truth to prevail within the country.

Szostek believes that it is crucial to keep Russia's information accessible for as long as possible, even if it means continuing to do business in the country. He fears that completely isolating Russia could lead to a terrifyingly dark future.

A delicate balance

Tech platforms operating in Russia are confronting a double-edged sword.

While Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube do not want to be used as tools for Kremlin propaganda, the lack of their services could create an information void that could be exploited by disinformation from the Russian government and state-owned media.

The challenge these companies face is a recurrence of the dilemma they have grappled with in recent years: Should the advantage of rapidly spreading and cost-free information be prioritized over the potential risk that their platforms can facilitate the dissemination of false information and incite violence?

Throughout democratic elections, social upheaval, and the pandemic, the same question has persisted.

In Russia, social media and internet access are crucial tools for activism, despite the government's efforts to control the flow of information. Unlike in China, where Western social media companies are largely absent, platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have a presence in Russia.

The Russian government's restriction on those platforms has made it significant since they have served as a way for Russian people to access the truth.

Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's minister of digital transformation, has repeatedly urged tech platforms to cease their business dealings in Russia. He has implored the leaders of companies such as Facebook, Google, and others to suspend their services in the country in order to isolate it from major modern digital services.

Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, stated on Twitter in February that the Ukrainians have proposed removing access to Facebook and Instagram in Russia. However, he acknowledged that people in Russia are utilizing these platforms to protest and organize against the war, as well as to obtain independent information.

He stated that shutting down our services would stifle vital expression during a critical period.

Some Western companies have responded to calls to shut down operations in Russia or cited potential risks as reasons for scaling back. Two U.S. internet carriers, Lumen and Cogent, cut service to Russia following the war, citing security concerns and sanctions. Amazon Web Services announced it would block new sign-ups from Russia, and other companies, such as Microsoft and Google, said they would stop sales in the country.

Some internet shutdowns in Russia could be counterproductive, as they may cut off average Russians from truthful information that could fuel opposition to the Kremlin, according to internet freedom advocates and experts on Russia's digital landscape.

In a letter to President Biden, civil society groups urged against cutting off Russia from the internet. They requested that the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control issue a general license to software and communications providers, stating that they will not violate sanctions by continuing their service in Russia. The groups also suggested that some voluntary decisions to cut internet services to Russia could be driven by an attempt to avoid sanctions.

The restriction of internet access for the Russian people would isolate pro-democracy and anti-war activists, impede the work of NGOs, human rights groups, journalists, and lawyers, and ultimately help the Kremlin achieve its goal of complete control over information inside Russia.

Freedom House's director of technology and democracy, Adrian Shahbaz, emphasized that tech platforms should handle the balance between free expression and content moderation on a case-by-case basis, consulting with experts from civil society. He stressed the importance of understanding the impact of their actions on human rights.

Tech companies should prioritize the least harmful method of complying with government requests if it is necessary to maintain service in the country, according to Shahbaz. For instance, a platform that is requested to remove a specific post could consider doing so only in that specific jurisdiction, allowing it to remain accessible via a virtual private network (VPN).

Andrew Sullivan, CEO of the Internet Society, expressed skepticism towards restrictions on the internet, stating that those with resources can usually circumvent such limitations.

He stated that the danger is always present, but it's particularly significant with the internet because those in control already have an advantage.

Some internet companies, including Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, have pledged to maintain their services' openness in Russia. However, this also requires making difficult decisions about what concessions are necessary to maintain access. When Meta refused to remove state-owned media labeling and fact-check their content, Russian censors restricted Facebook and later Instagram.

If Facebook had stopped fact-checking Russian state-controlled media, it is likely that they would not have been banned immediately, according to Yevgeniy Golovchenko, a disinformation and censorship researcher at the University of Copenhagen. However, the question arises: what will the Russian government request next now that they have demonstrated their ability to influence Western media?

If Western social media were to disappear from Russia all at once, Golovchenko sees two possible outcomes. The optimistic view is that Russians would view the mass exit as a sign that something is wrong and would investigate further what's happening outside their country. However, the pessimistic take is that it could strengthen Russian state-owned TV networks, where many Russians already get their news.

Lev Gershenzon, a former news director at Russian search engine Yandex, publicly urged the company's current executives to remove or alter its top news feature on the homepage to present a more accurate portrayal of the conflict in Ukraine. He suggested that if executives couldn't modify the content, removing it entirely would be preferable to leaving it up.

No information in this situation is better than some information," he stated in an interview. "If millions of people suddenly notice the absence of a news block on their most visited portal, some of them may start asking questions.

Russia’s censorship history

The Russian government has been preparing for a broader internet platform crackdown, but unlike China, it lacks the closed infrastructure to execute a swift clampdown.

While other parts of the internet are similar, China is not, making it harder for Russia to block web access, according to Sullivan.

While Russia has restricted access to Facebook, it continues to allow access to WhatsApp and YouTube, which do not have Russian alternatives, suggesting that these services are more popular among Russians.

The Russian government faces challenges in banning popular services due to its use of platforms like YouTube for propaganda dissemination and monitoring social media for sensitive topics and potential unrest, as stated by Marielle Wijermars, assistant professor of cybersecurity and politics at Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

The government must believe the benefits of blocking access to a popular service outweigh the risks of generating a backlash, according to Wijermars.

The Russian government's decision to block Telegram in 2018 was reversed in 2020 after users found a way to circumvent the ban. This move angered many users in Russia. Similarly, banning other services could negatively impact businesses that use platforms like Instagram to sell or advertise their products.

The significance of the question of whether the Russian government will ban YouTube, which is one of the most popular social media platforms in Russia, cannot be overstated.

No leader wants to be the one to restrict access to tools used by millions of their supporters, according to Shahbaz.

Censorship circumvention

Despite Russia's censorship rules, there are ways to circumvent them due to its less closed infrastructure compared to China.

Nearly 6 million downloads were recorded for the top 10 VPNs in Apple and Google's mobile app stores in Russia from Feb. 24 to March 8, as per data from SensorTower for CNBC.

Two U.S. lawmakers recently proposed a bill to support efforts to circumvent censorship technology in Russia. The Internet Freedom and Operations Act, introduced by Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bob Menendez, would allocate funds for internet freedom programs through the Department of State and USAID and dedicate $50 million to internet freedom and circumvention technologies through the U.S. Agency for Global Media and affiliates.

The new bill extends the funding provided by the earlier Open Technology Fund Authorization Act, which supported internet freedom under oppressive regimes. This bill was included in the National Defense Authorization Act last year and has been praised for enabling people in Cuba to access the internet and organize online despite government restrictions.

In a phone interview with CNBC, Blackburn stated that people in Cuba primarily discovered VPNs through word-of-mouth. Despite the potential risks of accessing restricted technology and speaking out under a repressive regime, she observed that individuals in Cuba were willing to take chances "for their shot at freedom."

Wijermars cautioned that although individuals in Russia can obtain foreign information via VPNs, it does not necessarily mean that the majority or even most will do so.

The smaller group that was already interested in independent news sources, critical of the government, and consuming such sources will need to use a VPN to continue doing so.

The current conflict has only intensified internet trends in the region, as Putin has been pushing Russia towards isolation for years.

Shahbaz expressed hope that democratic governments and international companies do not unintentionally accelerate the process.