Egomaniacal. Trollish. Vindictive. Twitter and Putin Have a Lot in Common, So Why Are They Fighting?

Putin asked Twitter to censor people who dared criticize him.

Dmitry Astakhov/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Twice a year, Twitter voluntarily reveals which governments and law enforcement agencies around the globe ask for users’ personal information or demand that it remove specific tweets. 

The latest of these transparency reports came out Monday, and this time, there was a new name on the list of countries that have asked Twitter for user information: Vladimir Putin’s Russia. “In Russia, we went from having never received a request to receiving more than 100 requests for account information during this reporting period,” Jeremy Kessel, Twitter’s senior manager for global legal policy, wrote in a blog post published Monday.

Russia loosened up its controls on freedom of speech after the Cold War, but recently the government has become more aggressive in cracking down on citizens who say negative things about the government or its military. Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups have criticized the Russian government for censoring its citizens. But before June 30, the Russian government had never asked Twitter for private details about its users living in Russia. Over the past six months, though, Russia leapfrogged to near the top of the list, making 108 requests for account information. All were denied.

Russia also made 91 requests to remove content they deemed critical of the government, or against Russia’s speech laws. Many of those requests attempt to silence critics of the Russian government, including court orders or official requests from the police or government agencies that claim that the language of a particular Tweet violates the country’s speech laws. Russia submitted two court orders and 89 other requests to Twitter, specifically identifying 91 accounts that the government wanted expunged.

“We denied several requests to silence popular critics of the Russian government and other demands to limit speech about non-violent demonstrations in Ukraine,” Kessel wrote in Twitter’s blog post on the report.

One prominent example is Alexei Navalny, a leading Russian opposition figure and anti-corruption blogger who staged an anti-government rally in January. Navalny is widely described by human rights groups as one of Putin’s most powerful critics. Russia’s internet regulators demanded that American social-media companies block postings about the rally. Facebook agreed to block Vavalny’s page within Russia, but Twitter did not.

Twitter only agreed to remove content within Russia on three accounts—two of which Twitter reported to the Chilling Effects internet transparency website. One promoted illegal drug use, and another promoted suicide. If a Russian user tried to read a one of these tweets, a message appeared saying the tweet has been blocked within Russia. Everyone outside Russia could still see all of the content, and users still within Russia could get around the block by changing their location within their account settings.

“These reports shine a light on government requests for customers’ information,” Kessel wrote. “Providing this insight is simply the right thing to do, especially in an age of increasing concerns about government surveillance.”

But this recent attempt to crack down on Twitter is just one piece of Russia’s aggressive data-monitoring programs. In late December, Putin signed a law that would require companies to store all personal information about consumers on hard drives inside Russia, so that the government could get its hands on it quickly. The Roskomnadzor, Russia’s federal watchdog service that oversees the web in Russia, has been slashing access to websites the government doesn’t like since the summer of 2012. “This new crackdown is aimed at silencing voices in Russia that are critical of the government at a time when open, public debate is essential,” said Hugh Williamson of the Human Rights Watch in March, 2014. But if Twitter’s report is any indication, the crackdown may have a harder timing limiting the freedom to tweet.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate