Digital Sovereignty: The Global Algorithm Battle

There are headlines that make you raise an eyebrow. “Dirty Business: Why Millions of Russians Watch Trash Content and How to Control It” is certainly one of them.

On August 12, the Russian news agency National News Service held a press conference about what is described in Russia as “trash content” online. This includes shock, provocation, explicit scenes and deliberately antisocial behaviour that can be turned into both fame and money. Among the participants were State Duma deputies Vitaly Milonov and Andrey Svintsov. The discussion focused on why such content has become popular, how bloggers should be held accountable and whether internet regulations need to be tightened.

At first glance, it is easy to dismiss this as Russian moral panic and yet another attempt to control the internet. But behind the sensational headline lies a question that is not only about Russia:

We do not have to defend “trash content” to recognise the problem. Social media has transformed the entire media landscape. What once might have remained within a small circle of friends can now reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

And it does not have to be good content that gets the greatest reach. Someone who provokes, creates conflict or does something shocking can attract far more attention than someone trying to explain something complicated and nuanced.

This is also connected to how the platforms work. The longer we stay, the more money can be made. There is therefore a strong economic incentive to capture our attention. Content that triggers anger, fear or curiosity can simply be more profitable than content that is factual and balanced.

The problem is therefore not exclusively Russian.

It is an internet problem.

This is where developments in Europe become interesting. Through the Digital Services Act, or DSA, the EU has introduced extensive rules for major digital platforms. Among other things, they are required to address systemic risks that can affect users and society. At the same time, the EU is dealing with issues such as disinformation, foreign interference and the influence of algorithms on public debate.

Sweden is, of course, part of this development. We are covered by the DSA, and the Swedish government has supported measures aimed at protecting children and young people from harmful online content. The discussion includes issues such as age verification and platform responsibility.

The basic idea is easy to understand. Children should be protected and illegal content should be fought. But at the same time, we need to be careful about where the line between protection and control is drawn.

Today, the discussion may concern pornography, violence, extreme influencers or trash content. But what happens if the definition changes? What happens when the fight against disinformation begins to include political opinions that someone considers dangerous?

These are questions we should be able to ask both Moscow and Brussels – and Stockholm as well.

When we hear the word propaganda, many people still think of state television, newspapers and political posters. But information influence works differently today.

An influencer, a troll account, a politician, a company or an algorithm can all contribute to the same information chaos. And sometimes nobody even needs to lie. It is enough that certain things receive enormous exposure while others never reach the public.

We have more information than any generation before us, but that does not automatically mean that we are better informed. Algorithms do not care about what is true. They care about what works – and what works is often what triggers the strongest emotions.

That may be one of the greatest challenges of our time.

I can understand the argument that governments must protect people from exploitation, illegal content and manipulation. But at the same time, we must defend another principle:

The power over information must also be subject to scrutiny.

That applies in Russia. It applies in the EU. It applies in Sweden. And it applies to the major technology companies.

Because whoever controls the flow of information has enormous power over society.

That is why I do not think we should simply laugh off the Russian discussion about trash content. The problem exists. But the solution cannot automatically be more government control. Otherwise, we risk fighting one problem by creating another.

This should also be an issue for BRICS. The flow of information is no longer something that can be viewed solely from a European or Western perspective.

The BRICS countries consist of societies with very different political systems and views on media and freedom of expression. But they have one thing in common: they exist in a digital world where a large part of the information flow still passes through global platforms and technological systems developed outside BRICS.

If BRICS wants greater independence in economics, trade, payment systems and technology, should information also become part of that discussion?

But digital independence must not automatically mean government control over information. It would be unfortunate if the world simply moved from one information monopoly to another.

Perhaps BRICS could instead contribute to a more pluralistic digital landscape where people have access to different perspectives, where the power of algorithms is scrutinised and where no single government or technology company gets to decide what the entire world sees.

Because if the world becomes more multipolar economically and politically, but remains dependent on a handful of actors for its information flow – is it really multipolar?

Is it right for governments and platforms to have greater power to remove trash content and disinformation – or are we at the same time opening the door to a form of information control that could eventually be used against completely different opinions?

And if BRICS wants to be part of a genuinely multipolar world, shouldn’t the right to a diverse and open flow of information also be part of that struggle?

^{The author’s views are their own and do not necessarily reflect the blog’s.}

📌 Subscribe to Think BRICS for weekly geopolitical video analysis beyond Western narratives. Follow also our new channels BRICS Business and Think BRICS Chronicles.