Big Tech and authoritarian states: Belarus
The Atlas Times automated desk · Published
Updated
Original reporting by Daria Dergacheva · Global Voices
Adapted source excerpt: CC BY 3.0; adapted summary Terms and license
Source published
In the latest GV podcast, we discussed why Russia restricts access to many social media services, while Belarus does not impose comparable restrictions; censorship, surveillance, and digital authoritarianism — Belarusian style.
AI-assisted analysis. Published after automated checks; no human review.
Summary
A Global Voices podcast featuring expert Mikhail Doroshevich examines the unique approach to digital authoritarianism in Belarus, contrasting it with Russia's more restrictive model. Despite having historically vulnerable internet infrastructure controlled by state operators, Belarus has not blocked major Western social media platforms like Meta or Google, unlike Russia. This openness is strategic, as the Belarusian government and state-owned media actively utilize these platforms to spread propaganda, making a full blockage counterintuitive. However, this access comes at a cost to individual users, who face severe repression for simple interactions like likes, comments, or subscriptions to independent channels. This environment fosters deep self-censorship, where citizens carefully manage their digital footprints to avoid fines or prison sentences. The state monitors users directly, often employing Russian social profiling tools, rather than relying on platforms to do the surveillance. While some state media channels have been removed from YouTube due to content strikes, the platform remains a key channel for Belarusian state media. In the realm of artificial intelligence, Belarus faces limited access to US-based models like OpenAI, prompting a shift toward Chinese or Russian alternatives, though Google's Gemini remains accessible. The country's IT sector continues to grow, primarily serving Russian clients, with data storage largely confined to domestic data centers to maintain control. The overall picture is one of a hybrid system where global tech platforms are both a tool for state reach and a source of friction for individual digital freedom.
Key points
- Belarusian internet infrastructure is historically more restricted than Russia's, with international connections controlled by state-owned operators, yet it currently allows more access to Western social media platforms than Russia.
- The Belarusian regime has not blocked major Western platforms like Meta or Google, partly because state-owned media and government actors actively use these platforms for propaganda.
- Users in Belarus face significant repression for digital activities such as likes, comments, and subscriptions, often resulting in prison sentences and fines, which drives widespread self-censorship.
- Surveillance in Belarus relies on the state monitoring users directly and using Russian social profiling tools, rather than platforms conducting the primary monitoring.
- YouTube has removed several Belarusian state television channels due to content strikes and ownership issues, though many other state media outlets continue to operate on the platform.
- Access to certain AI services like OpenAI is limited in Belarus, leading users to rely on Chinese or Russian models, while Google's Gemini remains available.
- Belarus's IT sector continues to develop, with companies predominantly serving Russian clients, and data storage is regulated to remain within domestic certified data centers.
- Digital authoritarianism in Belarus is characterized by a mix of open platform access for state propaganda and targeted repression of individual users, differing from the broader blocking strategies used in Russia.
Context and interpretation
This analysis highlights that digital authoritarianism is not a monolithic strategy; Belarus demonstrates a model where regimes maintain open access to global platforms for state control and propaganda while simultaneously using targeted legal and surveillance mechanisms to repress individual users, challenging the assumption that blocking is the primary tool of digital repression.
Source: Global Voices