Ethnographic analysis reveals systemic role of social media in Ukraine-Russia conflict
Original framing: “Social media and monetization in the Ukraine-Russia war” — Phys.org
The original framing omits the role of indigenous and local knowledge systems in resistance and resilience, the historical parallels between digital and pre-digital mobilization in warfare, and the perspectives of non-Western scholars and communities affected by the conflict. It also lacks attention to how social media platforms are governed by corporate and state interests that shape the visibility and framing of the war.
High structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
This narrative is produced by academic researchers and disseminated through scientific media outlets like Phys.org, primarily for Western academic and policy audiences. The framing serves to highlight the role of technology in modern warfare but obscures the broader structural forces—such as NATO expansion, energy geopolitics, and economic inequality—that underpin the conflict. It also risks reinforcing a technocentric view of war that distracts from deeper historical and geopolitical causes.
The framing of the Ukraine-Russia conflict as the 'TikTok war' reflects a Western-centric view of digital media. In many parts of the Global South, social media is used differently—often as a tool for grassroots organizing and survival. Cross-cultural comparison reveals how digital media can be both a weapon and a lifeline, depending on the socio-political context.
Fantoni’s ethnographic work on the role of social media in the Ukraine-Russia conflict reveals how digital platforms are not just tools of communication but are deeply embedded in the material and economic structures of modern warfare.
By analyzing the monetization of soldierhood and the commodification of digital content, the study highlights the need to understand digital media as part of a broader geopolitical and economic system. Cross-culturally, this pattern mirrors how digital spaces are used in other conflict zones for both resistance and repression. A more systemic approach would integrate Indigenous knowledge, historical context, and the voices of marginalized communities to develop ethical and effective strategies for digital engagement in war. Future research and policy must move beyond the technocentric framing of conflict and address the deeper structural forces that shape both digital and physical violence.