Ukrayina Cherez iPhone.

People around the world have had their eyes fixed on eastern Europe for the past number of weeks, watching the horror unfold as the conflict continues between Russia and Ukraine. But for the first time on this scale, we’re able to see an unfiltered view of what’s really happening. Rather than traditional outlets such as Fox or CNN, social media has become the platform of choice Ukrainian people are relying on to show the world what’s happening at their doorstep. How has this become the norm, then? Does it mean we’re afforded a more impartial source, viewing Ukraine through an iPhone?

Social media has more or less since its inception been used as an opportunity for people to spread news. The scale at which this happens however has grown significantly, mostly due to how widespread the platform has become. It’s generally considered here in 2022 borderline abnormal to not have any form of social media. This results in around 53 percent of us now admitting to news consumption from social media sites. Digital platforms in general actually now beat out television as people’s preferred method of catching up on current events. Videos posted depicting the war in Ukraine have views totaling tens of millions, inarguably co-fueling the current public opinion of Russia’s actions.

The rise of social platforms such as Facebook and TikTok are only partially responsible for this ease of access to candid videos. The other factor here is the steep rise in mobile phone ownership, specifically those with cameras of good quality. Taking Ukraine in particular, smart mobile device ownership amongst people aged 18 to 30 has exploded from just nine percent in 2013 to over 85 percent in that demographic today. Simply, more people are able to whip out a phone, capture an atrocity then instantly upload it to help the rest of the world see what’s going on through the eyes of someone’s actual experiences.

We benefit in a few ways from this type of exposure. While sometimes unpleasant to watch, it does offer a view of an atrocity in its raw form. We see the horror, we experience the feelings; not first hand but with a better grasp than that of something Reuters has made safe for general consumption. Another virtue with this variety of modern media availability is speed. We’ve gone from “This just happened” to “This is happening right now,” using cellphones and widespread mobile internet availability to live stream without the need for an anchor or correspondent’s flowery prose. The vastness in number of these photos, videos and broadcasts is unprecedented and supports the shift in news viewing habits.

This movement with it however does highlight a pitfall. When we receive our news from traditional outlets, we’re afforded context. Even if bundled with it is an opinion or an agenda, we’re still left with a more complete picture. A video shared directly to a service like TikTok lacks this context, which can cause us to make incorrect assumptions. With something like the war in Ukraine, it’s less harmful. We’re able to clearly see and glean what’s really happening from both other news outlets and the sheer volume of the content. It can be dangerous in other situations however. A video’s angle, length and audio track can vastly change its message.

The takeaway here is perhaps then that treating social media as supplemental, rather than a condensed source of information, grants us the best of both worlds. Especially for matters which are less clear cut, as it’s not to say someone wouldn’t leverage this new boost in popularity to spread disinformation. Being well informed and forming options based on that knowledge give us the best chance of avoiding conflicts of our own.