I

n today’s age of ubiquitous social media influence, The Social Dilemma remains a chilling reminder of the strong impact of big social media companies on society. It paints a simultaneous picture of dystopia and utopia. The documentary adeptly highlights the addictive nature of social media and the profit-driven motives of giants like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, even at the expense of promoting questionable content. This raises significant ethical concerns, especially for vulnerable young users.

Through interviews with tech industry insiders, engineers, ethicists, and psychologists, the documentary exposes the algorithms and design choices responsible for turning social media into an addictive and polarizing force. These insiders provide firsthand accounts of how tech giants prioritize engagement and profit over user well-being and societal harmony.

The Social Dilemma raises vital ethical questions about tech companies’ power and responsibility. It underscores how the race for user attention and ad revenue has fueled the spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and divisive content on these platforms. Now, the burden falls on individuals, companies, and governments to chart a path forward.

Greatest Risk of Social Media: Imperceptible Change

There is an ironic transition from the information age to the disinformation age, even though we have greater access now to information than ever before, we still find it difficult to reach the truth. “Imperceptible change” is planted within us, obstructing our intellectual defense as to whether an information that we get is true or not.

In The Social Dilemma, “imperceptible change” refers to the gradual and often subtle ways in which social media platforms and their algorithms manipulate and influence user behavior without the users themselves being fully aware of it. This concept highlights how these platforms are designed to keep users engaged and addicted by making subtle, unnoticeable adjustments to what content is shown and when it’s shown to maximize user interaction and time spent on the platform.

For example, the algorithms might show you certain posts or ads at specific times when they predict you are most likely to engage with them, or they might prioritize content that aligns with your existing beliefs and interests. Over time, these imperceptible changes can have a significant impact on how users perceive the world, reinforcing their existing beliefs and preferences and keeping them hooked on the platform.

The documentary introduces the concept of “imperceptible change,” illustrating how social media subtly manipulates user behavior through algorithmic adjustments. These alterations, like showing content at specific times or prioritizing like-minded content, shape users’ perceptions over time. It serves as a warning about these platforms’ power and the need for users to be more aware of their online experiences.

Social media companies will soon have to go further 

For a really long time, the users’ only real weapon against the detrimental effects of social media was their willpower and media literacy. Basically, they were on their own.

In 2018, when Mark Zuckerberg testified in the congress over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he stated, “It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.” Has anything changed since then?

Succumbing to pressure, platforms are beginning to pay attention to their users’ experience. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok have introduced various tools that alert users of their extended usage and even put parental controls. YouTube and Instagram remind teens to take breaks since 2021. Meanwhile, TikTok announced a passcode entry regulation for minors after an hour on the app.

The documentary’s interviews with experts and industry insiders emphasize the urgent need for more substantial regulation and responsible use of technology. The exploration of the addictive pull of social media, akin to the stimulating effects of slot machines on our brains, mirrors the concerns that various countries are now addressing.

China’s has taken measures to limit screen time for children under eight and Utah’s imposition of a digital curfew for minors are just two examples of this growing trend. France’s requirement for manufacturers to install parental control systems also underscores the global recognition that action is needed. In June, France passed a law that prohibits the promotion of certain practices – such as cosmetic surgery and smoking. The penalties for non-compliance can go up to two years in prison and a fine of €300,000.

However, the most recent and thorough move yet comes from the European Union. The EU is leading the charge with its Digital Services Act —overseen by the European Commission. The EU’s Digital Services Act, which became effective on August 25, imposes new rules on platforms, including assessments of societal impact and measures to prevent addictive behavior and targeting of vulnerable groups. The Act aims to make platforms more responsible and protect minors.

The new EU rules will allow researchers to access data inside company servers. The platforms will undergo a yearly assessment of the impact of their design, algorithms, advertising and terms of services on a range of societal issues. Then, according to the findings of the assessment, propose and implement measures inspected by the European Commission, researchers and an audit company.

The EU is actively teaming up with tech firms, industry groups, and organizations focused on children to figure out how to create platforms that better protect minors. They’re working towards a set of guidelines by 2024 called the Code of Conduct on Age-Appropriate Design. This code would lay out a list of steps that the European Commission wants big social media companies to take in line with the new laws.

However, as The Social Dilemma suggests, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the complex problems posed by social media. A nuanced approach is crucial, focusing on specific people, platforms, and features that are most risky. Additionally, the call for more data and a precautionary principle when it comes to minors is both reasonable and responsible.

Only time will reveal the effectiveness of these measures and potential loopholes, but the Act open a chapter of thorough examination of social media companies’ practices.

Reviewed by Batuhan Aça, Şeymanur Melayim, Muhammet Ali Oruç, Shahd Qaid, and Ezgi Yaramanoğlu.

Written by Dilara Özer

T

hroughout history, misinformation was a powerful weapon in the hands of people who fought to maximize their interests. Atrocity fabrication—the invention and reporting of atrocities committed by an adversary without knowledge that they ever occurred—has a centuries-long history at the heart of propaganda and power politics as an effective means of moving public and international opinion.

Now more than ever, the role and scope of misinformation has been able to expand and become an entrenched practice, almost a default extension to any given conflict. Understanding atrocity fabrication and its effects has become crucial to understanding contemporary geopolitics.

Geopolitics expert A.B. Abrams compiles the most significant cases of atrocity fabrication in eleven major conflicts shaping the world order from the Cold War to the present. These include Vietnam and Cuba, the Korean War, Tiananmen Square, the Yugoslav wars, the Gulf War, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and the emerging U.S.-China rivalry. The information sphere currently dominated by Western powers has roots tracing back to early colonial days, which the author initially touches upon to pinpoint a starting point for the evolution of its current-day form.

Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences: How Fake News Shapes World Order demonstrates atrocity fabrication in its many forms and varieties, the keys to its success, with the roles played by media and both government and non-governmental organizations in misleading the public, often engrained into larger self-reinforcing metanarratives that form a backdrop to new bits of information.

Abrams highlights how atrocity fabrication is used, and the consequences it has for the populations of the targeted countries, often paving the way for real atrocities such as military interventions committed against them on even larger scales of depravity than those described in the fabricated narratives. Furthermore, atrocity fabrication enforces an interventionist “World Order 2.0” by furthering Western geopolitical interests, an order of conditional sovereignty held by Western opinion of affairs elsewhere in the world, which, conceptually and in practice, has disastrous consequences.

Case by case, Abrams shows how its use can provide pretext for a range of hostile measures against its targets by triggering public moral outrage, transforming wars of unprovoked aggression into those of liberation, turning blockades to starve enemy civilians into humane efforts to pressure abusive governments under the moralistic label of sanctions, and delegitimizing and silencing criticism of one’s actions under accusations of siding with injustice.

Not only is understanding atrocity fabrication important to debunk misinformation about a set of events, but it is also reading how challengers of Western power will continue to be assailed. Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences provides an important selection of atrocity fabrication history which is crucial to understanding this mode of action on a broader context of international affairs. The book is a revealing account of how perception is reality by providing history, context, and analysis for a trend that is here to stay.

A.B. Abrams, Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences: How Fake News Shapes World Order (Clarity Press, 2023) ISBN: 978-1-949762-70-9, 424 pages

As our lives migrate further online and the public sphere becomes increasingly digitized, cybersecurity and issues with internet governance come more often to the fore.

Acting as a double-edged sword, the internet proved its power repeatedly with social movements such as the Arab Spring or on the eve of elections in any given country.

Governments, which have provided or facilitated access to the internet with no or minimal interference, are beginning to consider the implications of open internet due to its impact on public, national, and economic matters.

Trolls, cybersecurity threats, censorship, and echo chambers all threaten our personal use and state of democracy. Yet, there is another layer where the internet reveals itself as an effective tool: power politics.

In 2021, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) published a report advising the United States to adopt a new strategy grounded in digital realpolitik with a more pragmatic focus on protecting and advancing key U.S. interests – and the government seems to be listening.

With the shifting global balance and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the United States’ digital doctrine appears to be evolving from being a pioneer in pushing internet openness to tracking constraining digital adversaries, such as Russia and China, and projecting U.S. leadership.

COVID and e-commerce volume

Associate Professor Ali Burak Darıcılı of Bursa Technical University told Politics Today that by adding internet economy to the mix, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased e-commerce volume, and that now there is a lot to lose from the fragmentation of the internet.

Countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea challenge the status quo for a variety of reasons and with a variety of tools. The most radical scenario would be setting up national cyberspaces, and thus fragmenting the internet.

However, to avoid losing e-commerce value and curb any other detrimental consequence, the challenging nations call for the multilateral governance of the internet while fighting for a piece of the digital hegemony pie.

Rather than cooperating with Russia and China following their calls for a deal, the U.S. chooses to keep the status quo and to move forward with its own initiative with like-minded partners.

The transatlantic united against Russian cyberattacks

In case of further heated conflicts, Russia’s “hybrid warfare” approach, which utilized confusion and destabilization alongside cyberattacks, needs to be tackled. The invasion of Ukraine has allowed the U.S. to experiment and assert its digital advantages without abandoning its principle of internet openness.

The U.S. was able to harness and revitalize its transatlantic relations with its allies to protect itself against Russian cyberattacks and to engage in information war, launching offensives of its own and countering online repression with the Freedom Online Coalition and the Open Technology Fund.

A U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council meeting in May this year emphasized the role governments have in protecting the digital information space in a crisis, implying a collaborative counteroffensive against Russia’s propaganda efforts and setting a framework for future conflicts.

Meanwhile, U.S. sanctions and intelligence deployment cut off Russia’s military from sensitive U.S. technology exports, and Russia itself from the internet economy, without cutting off its citizens’ access.

Amid the escalating war between Russia and Ukraine, a major brawl is taking shape over the control of content on social media. On March 4, 2022, Moscow blocked access to social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter within its federation. This step was taken in response to what it said were actions of Meta and Twitter to restrict the access of Russian state-owned/affiliated media outlets such as the Zvezda television channel, RIA Novosti news agency, Sputnik, RT (formerly Russia Today), Lenta.ru, and Gazeta.ru.

While initiating the blockade, Roskomnadzor the Russian federal executive agency that acts as the state’s communication watchdog cited “26 [alleged] discrimination cases toward Russian media” by Facebook. It was further stated that platforms like Facebook had been blocked to “prevent violations of the key principles of the free flow of information.”

In addition, the Russian Duma also introduced a “fake news” law imposing imprisonment of up to 15 years for spreading fake news that could lead to severe consequences. As this law came into force, social media platforms such as TikTok suspended options for new video uploads and live streaming services.

In a similar vein, numerous international media outlets such as the BBC, CNN International, ABC News, CBS News, Bloomberg, etc., stopped airing in Russia. The companies stated they are worried about the safety of their employees. Other blocked platforms in Russia include the U.S. government-funded Voice of America, German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, and Latvia-based website Meduza. As the information crackdown intensifies in Russia, concerns are raised about the ongoing censorship, aptly labelled by Bloomberg columnist Parmy Olsen as “Putin’s Iron Firewall.”

Social Media Giants and Russia in the Past

Prior to the complete blockade of Facebook, Russia had limited its access while accusing social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook of censoring Russian media content of censoring Russian media content. Nick Clegg, vice-president of global affairs and communication at Meta, stated that “Russian authorities ordered us to stop the independent fact-checking and labelling of content posted on Facebook by four Russian state-owned media organizations. We refused.” The refusal to stop fact-checking Russian news, irked the Russian authorities.

It is interesting to note that before Moscow’s ban on social media platforms, Meta itself had proposed to pull Facebook out of Russia. The rationale behind it was to punish Moscow for its actions against Ukraine. However, it was later realized that this move would only limit the ability of Russian people to access information that isn’t affiliated with Russian state-backed media.

With the exception of Western platforms blocked by Moscow, many technology companies have suspended their operations and services in Russia as a sign of support to Ukraine. These companies include, among others, Apple, Dell, Google, Netflix, and Ikea. Snapchat has announced that it will “not accept revenue from Russian state-owned entities.”

How Social Media Companies Joined the War in Ukraine

As Russia blocked access to social media platforms, the usage of virtual private networks (VPNs) in Russia escalated immediately. However, numerous attempts have been made by Moscow over the last couple of years to ban virtual private networks. Last year, Russia blocked close to six virtual private networks, NordVPN and ExpressVPN being among the most notable ones.

As the war in Ukraine continues, some Russians have managed to use VPNs as they look for ways to access sites that are currently blocked in their country.

Data from Top10VPN shows that on March 9, the demand for a VPN in Russia saw an increase of 956% compared to the day before the invasion. Additionally, social media platforms responded to the Russian government’s decision to block access to social media.

Meta released a statement regarding Facebook mentioning that “we will continue to do everything we can to restore our services so that they remain available to people to safely and securely express themselves and organize for action.”

Meta has also made an unusual change in their hate speech policy. According to a recent email received by Reuters, Facebook and Instagram users in some countries will be allowed to call for violence against Russia and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion. The policy change will apply to countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.

A Meta spokesperson further stated that “as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules like violent speech such as ‘death to the Russian invaders’. We still won’t allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians.” In response, the Russian embassy in the U.S. demanded Meta stop what is regarded as “extremist activities.”

Twitter has also launched a new service called Onion, allowing users to access Twitter by downloading it on Tor Browser. This service will help the Russian people surpass the surveillance and censorship imposed by Moscow. Similarly, media outlets like the BBC are recommending people access its Ukraine page by using Tor Browser. The BBC is providing safe downloading links to people who are unable to access App stores.

Tor Browser and VPN usage can help users remain anonymous while accessing sites that are currently part of what is regarded as the dark web.

The war between Russia and Ukraine has certainly increased the phenomenon of internet fragmentation. The introduction of temporary changes in Meta’s hate speech policy raised numerous ethical and policy implications. As the military conflict intensifies between Russia and Ukraine, the pressure grows on social media platforms to deal in conformity with their government’s national interests while mitigating the financial damages.

Social media came with a lot of promise. Initially, there was a hope that we may be able to reclaim the public space that traditional, collectivist society had to cede to an increasingly individualist, modern one. But the digital bridges that social media platforms built, made each one of us even more distant, leaving us permanently settling on secluded islands.

In some ways, we parted from ourselves in the process. Today, we write odes to nature, we tweet eulogies to photographers, we sing praises to artists, but hardly ever take the time to live through the delightful experiences delineated in these depictions. The gracious warmth of the sun, the hesitant whispers of the caressing winds, the shy glimmer of the defiant moonlight, almost each and every expression of nature has lost its meaning in “our reality,” eclipsed by the virtual.

The rare instances where we do get a chance to be at one with nature are again taken over by an excruciating impatience to share our experience with our “network.” The obsession with taking the right shot of the ethereal glide of a seagull has taken precedence over absorbing the breathtaking beauty of its carefree flight, clipping our own wings.

Nature has become a mere instrument for our own celebration – a thinly-veiled narcissism. We have lost the ability to be where we presently are. We stay in a state of projection, obsessed with illusive ideations of the “shareability” of a sight, at the cost of appreciation of its subtleties in the present.

Unfortunately, the profound appreciation we crave for, artificial intelligence cannot deliver at its finest mirage. Perversely, more or less, every share on social media brings some form of anxiety. Sometimes it’s from eagerness for more shares. Sometimes it’s a concern about possible reactions. Sometimes it springs from envy, when a friend’s post steals the limelight. It’s like being in the spotlight 24/7.

Perversely, more or less, every share on social media brings some form of anxiety.

As almost all teenagers with access to a smart device use social media, this becomes all the more concerning. According to research, 3 in 4 persons who develop a psychological issue are diagnosed before their 18th birthday.

On the other side of the coin of this bizarre flaunting epidemic lies obnoxious abuse, which social media tends to reward. Anyone is free to say anything, as thoughtless as it might be, about one’s religion, ethnicity, or even appearance, irrespective of the veracity of the contention. The algorithms are sometimes designed to even pick “dislikes” or “angry” reactions as a form of engagement, amplifying the reach of fake, polarizing content.

On the other side of the coin of this bizarre flaunting epidemic lies obnoxious abuse, which social media tends to reward.

A particular form of abuse, “trolling,” is a deliberate attack on a person for maximum “likes” from a specific cluster of users. Much to one’s dismay, a troll could be a 14-year-old anonymous user or a 64-year-old “thinker” who enjoys maintaining a provocative persona. With a bizarre air of righteousness, they could troll someone to prove the superiority of their favorite cartoon character or to establish the inferiority of an ideology that half the world adheres to.

Disrespect, in this appalling virtual world, is a brand; words are a weapon; images are mere toys; and the ability to enrage others is a prized virtue. No wonder, trolling behavior has been found to be correlated with psychopathic tendencies, sadism, and Machiavellianism.

Predictably, instead of constructive engagement and building bridges,  social media have effectively divided people into clusters and subcultures. A person reveling in being celebrated online and drawing consolation from being connected to people around the world is sometimes just networking with the worst of the animal spirits within. They are sinking deeper and deeper into their own cluster, with the outside, diverse world, starting to feel more alien. This becomes a lifestyle eventually and has lifelong effects on a person’s ability to respect differences of opinion and build empathetic relationships.

Social media have contributed to developing an “information superstructure” which is more powerful than the political and judicial institutions of control.

Of course, social media has a potential for good too. It has sometimes shown promise against entrenched power structures in the world. In fact, it has risen as a significant challenge against oppressive states and obscene occupations the world over, sometimes catching them completely off guard.

Nevertheless, social media have contributed to developing an “information superstructure” which is more powerful than the political and judicial institutions of control – noble in name and carriage, but motivated by little other than profits at the base.

At the micro-level, it’s a quagmire, painstakingly developed by “attention engineers” to monetize the adrenaline of unsuspecting users and capitalize on the digital addiction it creates. That benign-sounding “suggested” content may change the course of one’s life, bit by bit, forever – a theme brilliantly covered in the award-winning documentary “The Social Dilemma” featuring a hair-raising, insider account of the nuts and bolts of the Big Tech.

It would take a miracle to go back from how far we have come. But social media companies – motivated by a model aptly described as “surveillance capitalism” by the Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff – shouldn’t be given a blank check in programming behaviors and reshaping the globe. The world must come together to devise apolitical mechanisms to keep these tech giants in check, focusing foremost on psychological health and well-being at large. On the individual level, relatively active consumption of content, more perceptive interactions, and avoiding being sucked down the rabbit hole of arguing with the ultracrepidarian could be helpful.

In the final analysis, however, it may be said that whether or not we realize it, in this taxing world, every one of us is longing for a break: a deep silence in placid woods somewhere by a river, a moment of heartfelt love and overwhelming appreciation, either from us, or for us – things that social media, at best, can give us only a weak nostalgia for. If Wordsworth were here, he’d perhaps have rather written, “The digital world is too much with us.”

Two events in early January illustrated the growing control of social media and other Internet companies over political discussions and systems. Starting on January 6, hours after supporters of former United States President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., a series of tech giants, beginning with Twitter, moved swiftly to block the president and his supporters from using their services.

Along with social networks like Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat, Reddit, and TikTok, media platforms including Spotify, Twitch, and YouTube, as well as marketing and financial services such as PayPal, Shopify, and Stripe, joined the near-complete embargo. Apple and Google banned Parler, a niche social network favored by the president’s supporters, from their online app stores before Amazon, which had hosted the service on its servers, removed it from the Internet altogether. Within a day, Trump found himself as silenced as effectively as the world’s most powerful man could possibly be.

On January 9, a number of Palestinian media companies and political organizations stopped posting on Facebook for two hours to protest the social media giant’s suspension of their colleagues’ accounts and deletion of their content. The gesture followed years of complaints about Facebook’s collusion with Israel and bias against Palestinians.

Zoom later blocked a number of events organized at various universities to protest its censorship. While these company’s suppression of Palestinian speech may have been nothing new, their obstruction of academic freedom at a public university in their home country certainly was, raising troubling questions about the role of private corporations in educational institutions that have, during the COVID-19 pandemic, largely become reliant on their services.

United States-based social media have previously waded directly into politics outside the country, often in ways seemingly conducive to U.S. foreign policy goals.

In 2018, after a failed attempt to assassinate Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with a weaponized drone, Facebook suspended the pages of news site Venezuelanalysis and regional broadcaster teleSUR, both broadly supportive of Maduro’s administration, before reinstating them.

In 2019, as the U.S. moved to restrict travel to Cuba, Twitter suspended the accounts of numerous Cuban journalists and government officials. And both Facebook and Twitter have attached labels to content by certain public news agencies, like RT and Press TV, indicating their governmental affiliations, a policy from which Western state media like VOA, PBS, NPR, and BBC seem curiously exempt.

With their embargo against Trump, tech giants intervened more visibly than ever before in the political system of their own country, acting as a cartel to shape not only public debates, but also governmental processes.

Like Facebook, YouTube, and Zoom’s earlier efforts Leila Khaled and her supporters, their actions showed a new willingness to pursue their own collective interests with blunt force, even at the cost of unprecedented, direct confrontations with public institutions.

Critics of social media censorship took several distinct approaches to Trump’s sudden disappearance from cyberspace. Some noted that as private companies, online services are not bound by the United States’ First Amendment or other legal protections of free speech, although as their critics were quick to observe, in an age when nearly all means of communication are controlled by corporate giants, such distinctions offer little comfort.

Others worried that the ban might encourage similar measures against figures and organizations with politics quite different from Trump’s, something that has already happened, but could escalate.

But the significance of corporations, accountable only to their shareholders, acting in concert to effectively control political discussions and outcomes has drawn considerably less attention, despite its obvious importance not only for the quality of contemporary dialogue, but the viability of democracy itself.

In late December 2020, several of Silicon Valley’s most prominent giants, including Microsoft, Google, GitHub, and LinkedIn, asked to join Facebook’s lawsuit at a U.S. federal court against the infamous Israeli spyware firm NSO Group Technologies (“NSO” stands for Niv, Shalev, and Omri, the company’s founders).

The lawsuit, filed in 2019, seeks unspecified damages and demands that NSO be denied access to Facebook’s services after NSO has used highly sophisticated spyware called “Pegasus” to hack into the phones of at least 1,400 individuals at the request of government officials. This includes politicians, diplomats, activists, journalists, and dissidents, some of whom have been arrested, tortured, or murdered as a consequence.

Such a lawsuit by a U.S. tech giant against an Israeli spyware firm with close ties to the Israeli government is unprecedented. Facebook has been notorious in terms of taking Israel’s side and cracking down on Palestinian content. Facebook has been blocking posts and accounts of Palestinian activists critical of Israel or supportive of the resistance to its occupation, while overlooking Israeli incitement against Palestinians – a 2019 study found that Israelis incite hatred of Arabs on social media once every 66 seconds.

Last May, Facebook even hired a former Israeli government official and censorship expert on its Oversight Board, which determines what content to permit or water down.

The reasons why the social media giant along with the world’s biggest tech companies would suddenly sue a prominent Israeli company is clear: NSO is out of control. Its malicious hacking services, which are virtually unconstrained, have become a major security threat in cyberspace.

Aiding Arab Dictatorships and Brutal Regimes

A few days before other tech giants joined Facebook’s lawsuit last December, the cybersecurity watchdog, Citizen Lab, reported that NSO had hacked into the personal phones of 36 journalists, producers, anchors, and executives at the leading Arab media network Al-Jazeera.

Described as the largest concentration of phone hacks targeting a single organization, this NSO spyware operation was conducted on behalf of the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It was less than a year after NSO falsely claimed that it will respect human rights and take steps to prevent its tools being used to commit abuses in the future.

NSO’s hack of Al-Jazeera’s phones was merely the latest incident on an extensive list of spyware attacks carried out with impunity by the Israeli firm whose operations are heavily surrounded by secrecy and conducted in the dark. For instance, a 2017 report called “Gobierno Espía” found that NSO stood behind at least 80 hacks between 2015 and 2016 that targeted high-profile Mexican journalists, lawyers, and activists who reported on or campaigned against corruption.

Mansoor’s arrest was shortly after his phone was hacked by NSO on behalf of the UAE’s repressive government, using what’s known as a “zero-day exploit.”

In 2017, an eminent human rights activist in the UAE, Ahmed Mansoor, was arrested by Emirati authorities and sentenced in a sham trial to 10 years in prison on the charge of “using social media platforms to threaten public order.” Ever since, Mansoor has been subjected to brutal treatment, such as denial of medical attention and imprisonment in solitary confinement for inhumanely long periods.

Mansoor’s arrest was shortly after his phone was hacked by NSO on behalf of the UAE’s repressive government, using what’s known as a “zero-day exploit,” a vulnerability unknown to the software owners that hackers can exploit to gain a backdoor access to someone’s device without their knowledge or actions, such as clicking on a spam link.

The Saudi government used NSO’s services to spy on and track the senior Saudi journalist and critic Jamal Khashoggi who was then mercilessly murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. In the same year, Amnesty International said that NSO was helping the Saudi regime to spy on a member of the organization’s staff.

Amnesty petitioned an Israeli court to revoke NSO’s export license given the damage it is causing; however, the court dismissed the case and argued that Israel’s Ministry of Defense maintains meticulous oversight procedures over defense exports. In October 2019, Facebook took preventative action and blocked the accounts of 100 NSO staff and their families. However, a Tel-Aviv court was quick to order Facebook to unblock some of those accounts.

Netanyahu’s Sacred Cow

So how does NSO wreak havoc freely, unconstrained, and with full impunity? Generally, Israel’s Ministry of Defense claims to maintain stringent criteria for issuing permits for the export of cyber intelligence technologies that come after a strenuous process of extreme vetting. Israel’s defense establishment claims that it then continues to oversee such projects even after a permit is issued. However, NSO is one of a number of cyber firms that get a free pass on their dangerous and destructive exports to repressive regimes.

Israel’s private spyware firms like NSO are the informal arm of Netanyahu’s government that are employed “off the record” to do the dirtiest work , such as espionage and interference in foreign countries. For instance, according to the 2020 report of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, an Israeli cyber intelligence firm, called Psy-Group, ran a $2 million voter suppression operation in support of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. The operation was paid by George Nader, an advisor to UAE de facto ruler Mohammed bin Zayed.

Similarly, NSO’s criminal and immoral operations have been an Israeli state-sanctioned bridge towards Israeli-Arab normalization with the UAE and Bahrain, two of the firm’s biggest clients. Recently, NSO helped the government of Morocco spy on a prominent Moroccan journalist a few months before official normalization between Israel and Morocco was announced.

Clearly, Israel’s cybersecurity industry is its competitive advantage to maintain relevance and significance in the international arena and gain the favor and support of client governments. However, with Israel unwilling to hold NSO to account, the company has become an unstoppable force of destruction; a tool that bolsters the power and hegemony of some of the world’s most repressive and brutal regimes; and a source of terror to activists who now fear that absolute cyber insecurity will become the region’s new normal.

Facebook’s lawsuit offers a glimmer of hope to stop NSO’s unconstrained assault on the right to privacy and security in cyberspace.