by Devon Williams
Social media has been a key player in the war in Ukraine since the very beginning of the conflict. I remember seeing posts upon posts on Instagram from friends attempting to bring awareness to the cause, to encourage the people of the US to rise in solidarity with democracy and the protection of those whose rights were being attacked. It gave us a new ‘front row’ to a conflict thousands of miles away– both making us feel more involved in the outcome and somehow more personally responsible for our role or possible role within it. Journalism used to be the sole arbiter of this exchange of experience, responsibility, and involvement, while social media collapses this chain into a single role. Panievsky’s “The Populist War on Our Right to Know” in The New Censorship explains how journalists held the responsibility for “gate-keeping, investigating, and scrutinizing” and are increasingly vilified as corrupt meddlers so much so that the “very act of mediation is disputed” within society (Panievsky, 41). Social media embodies this dispute of mediation, making journalists’ official work mute when one can post or view warfare directly on one’s phone devoid of context or verification.
Within “The Playbook: Choose Your Weapon,” she develops this idea further in describing social media as “liberating technology” for the populous that renders official media “futile and unnecessary” (43). As Ukraine’s war is one of the most visible in history with social media littered with video of drone attacks, front lines, destroyed buildings, and civilian suffering and protest circulating instantaneously, it makes the audience feel as though they know everything about the war or at least are witnessing a true, large part of it. Seeming ‘firsthand’ accounts from battlefields or civilians can appear to be almost more trustworthy than a person on TV or authoring an article published hours later, but the key piece of context, verification, and representing balanced and diverse perspectives is missing from such content. This mediation can appear unnecessary through social media, but until polarization and misinformation reach a breaking point destructive enough to be noticed, it is hard to tell for the common viewer what is missing from their sources.
Technology is consistently collapsing the role of the watcher and soldier within global warfare– it expands who has access to information, but it also allows for continuously advancing forms of weaponry such as AI powered drones and systems (Reuters). These drones put civilians and small teams once reserved for militaries, expanding the sphere of active participants in warfare in a new way that could expand into future warfare standards. Tech not only collapses the time it takes for a viewer to experience a war but also the time and involvement with which war is enacted. Without the human mediator of a drone pilot or soldier, is personal responsibility lost? Is context and the true cost of these actions obscured for those involved?
Verification, context, human judgement, and responsibility are removed from the equation of war without the mediators of journalism or human participant in warfare. Flaws in social media information could misdirect aid efforts or place the blame of the public on the wrong person, further polarize global views of conflict, or even numb the public due to the constant and massive influx of the experience of human suffering. Flaws in weaponry technology could result in unnecessary loss of life and loss of responsibility for that suffering if the one that technically ‘pulls the trigger’ isn’t human. Currently in Ukraine drones and AI assisted targeting are only increasing even as levels of actual autonomy are varied (Reuters). This push for mechanization of both information and mechanics is driven by the desire to ‘know’ everything fully without delay and from the front lines. But as Panievsky highlights, the removing of these intermediaries does not immediately guarantee greater freedom, truth, or responsibility. Social media makes war more visible to the world, but this also makes every video impossible to verify. Without mediators it is impossible to promise truth, even if information feels more immediate to those receiving it.
