Alternative social platforms are a new phenomenon in the global digital environment, giving some hope that the global information and communication space can escape the complete control of Western giants, whose actions are arbitrary and depend solely on their own domestic politics. New digital ecosystems are actively developing around the world for exchanging audio, photo and video content, and in some cases, carrying out online financial transactions and other special functions. They are created and tailored for certain regions, countries or language groups, writes Anna Sytnik. The author is a participant of the Valdai - New Generation project.
They reflect the cultural and legislative characteristics of local markets and act as competitors to global players such as the American platforms YouTube and Facebook (owned by Meta Platforms Inc, recognised as an extremist organisation and banned in the Russian Federation) or the Chinese platform TikTok. Alternative social platforms oriented at the countries of the world majority include instant messengers, social networks, video hosting and streaming platforms, videoconferencing services, educational platforms, e-commerce, banking and other financial services. Examples of these platforms include both regional leaders with tens or even hundreds of millions of users - Vkontakte in Russia, Ayoba in Africa, WeChat in China, Moj in India, LINE (LINE is blocked in the Russian Federation by decision of Roskomnadzor) in Southeast Asia or Rubika in Iran, as well as solutions at the startup level - for example, Boithok in Bangladesh or Minly in Egypti. Thus, according to the recently published report “Alternative Social Platforms of the World Majority”, by the end of 2024, there were about 80 alternative social platforms in 133 countries. The reasons for their emergence are related to both internal needs and global trends. But the current changes are based on the desire of states to effectively manage strategic resources – big data flows and artificial intelligence technologies. So far, control over social platforms popular around the world has been concentrated in the hands of large transnational corporations that use this opportunity for political purposes and benefit without providing donor countries with adequate opportunities in return. Therefore, in recent years, the countries of the World Majority have become increasingly active in paving the way for independent digital development. Alternative social platforms are starting to serve as the foundation of a new digital multipolarity, where the technological dominance of the West is no longer inevitable.
The global information and communication space has developed over the past decades under the influence of large Western corporations such as Meta (Meta Platforms Inc. is recognised as an extremist organisation and banned in the Russian Federation), X (X is blocked in the Russian Federation by decision of Roskomnadzor) and Alphabet. The rapid growth in popularity of such IT giants in the early 2000s formed a general idea of what the digital reality around us might look like. At the same time, the information they collect has become a strategic resource for exerting influence on the part of both state and non-state actors.
Nowadays, technology companies collect huge amounts of information about users of social platforms, including personal, behavioural and geospatial data, as well as text messages. Access to them allows us to analyse public sentiment and political activity as well as implement effective information and security policies (for example, the fight against extremism). In addition, data on the international audience helps form a positive image on the global stage as part of the implementation of digital diplomacy.
However, these opportunities are distributed unequally between states, which can be considered a modern form of exploitation – data colonialism. As before, the consequence of this phenomenon is inequality in access to goods, knowledge and power, which in the current conditions also leads to the colonialism of artificial intelligence (AI). Despite the fact that advanced AI is trained on user data from all over the world, its management is concentrated in the hands of a few states and corporations, which creates a dangerous situation in terms of the technological balance of power in world politics.
The second, no less significant reason for the emergence of alternative social platforms is to be found in the restrictive policies of IT corporations. The excessive power of TNCs over the global information space has led to the undermining of freedom of speech and instability for content creators. This has been especially evident since 2022, as American companies have reduced the visibility of Russian content in social media ranking algorithms – so-called deranking, and deprived Russian media and individuals of access to American platforms for political reasons - deplatforming. There is also a reverse process — deplatformisation as a response to the unilateral political censorship of global (mainly American) social platforms. It is noteworthy that over the past 17 years, 52 developing countries have blocked the activities of the latter. These restrictive state measures against unfriendly technology companies stimulates the development of domestic solutions.
The third reason is the opaque regulation of disinformation by digital ecosystems in the era of post-truth, information chaos and the polarisation of societies. Modern approaches to combating negative phenomena in social networks are selective in nature, since they depend on politics, "ethical principles" and the corporate standards of platform owners. The concentration of control levers in the hands of a limited number of actors makes it difficult for states to independently neutralise disinformation campaigns by themselves, as bots and increasingly advanced deepfakes flood global networks.
Finally, the globalisation of content and the loss of local context against the backdrop of the rapid development of AI have jeopardised the preservation of cultural heritage. Large social platforms are often not adapted to the needs of small nations, ethnic groups, and poorly educated social groups. The lack of representativeness of these peoples’ data in AI training can even lead to their “digital extinction,” depriving communities speaking rare languages of equal access to innovations and further pushing them to the periphery of the political arena.
In summary, the development of local and regional social platforms helps combat at least four challenges: data colonialism, the spread of disinformation through bots and deepfakes, deplatforming and deranking, as well as threats to the preservation of cultural heritage in the AI era. Such solutions help strengthen digital sovereignty, allowing countries and regions to retain control over their data, technology, and information environment, creating independent ecosystems for knowledge sharing and interaction.
***
While alternative social platforms are still unable to compete with global ones in terms of reach, the trend towards sovereignty in the online space through the development of alternative social platforms is long-term and will continue to gain momentum in the context of growing geopolitical tensions. In the coming decades, we can expect the further strengthening of the regionalisation of the technological environment, where states and their associations will seek to strengthen their digital sovereignty. Therefore, the social platforms of the World Majority countries should not only be considered as local alternatives, but also as hubs in which a community is created to determine the further path of development. The formation of ecosystems within the countries of the World Majority is a serious obstacle to players interested in collecting and using user data for their own purposes. The digital anti-colonialist movement is already being embodied in the introduction of laws on the localisation of social platform data, requiring their storage on servers within the country. States and cultural communities need to continue developing their own platforms for preserving and popularising national heritage — creating digital archives, and taking into account the diversity of cultures and languages in the process of training AI to avoid the biases of large linguistic models.
Bringing platforms under the control of the states where they operate is an effective tool for protecting society from disinformation. In the fight against this challenge, technology exchange and the creation of centres for monitoring and analysing information flows can be possible at the regional level. At the international level, the proportional representation of all countries should be achieved in the development of universal rules for regulating social platforms and artificial intelligence.
