Original reporting: Daria Dergacheva · Global Voices — Latest Stories · CC BY 3.0 · 2026-10-24
A Global Voices video podcast on the state of digital repression in Belarus
This post is part of Global Voices’ October 2026 Spotlight series, “ Big Tech and Authoritarianism .” In this Spotlight, we explore how Big Tech facilitates and hinders authoritarian governments and practices, and how these choices influence the Global South. You can support this coverage by donating here .
There are more autocracies in the world in 2026 than there are democracies. Some researchers identify digital authoritarianism as the use of digital technology by regimes to surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations. Others argue that the same practices are also carried out by hybrid and democratic regimes. However, they can not execute them without major tech companies becoming complicit , with or without their knowledge.
Typically, when speaking about digital authoritarianism, academics and media talk about China and Russia (and occasionally Iran and Syria). However, countries such as Belarus (or Eritrea, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Myanmar) that consistently rank as more authoritarian than China are rarely discussed.
Global Voices invited an expert on Belarusian internet, digital rights and media, Mikhail Doroshevich , on the GV video podcast “Big Tech and Authoritarian States.” We discussed why Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenka’s regime is not blocking Western social media platforms, how the internet and self-censorship are weaponized, and how platforms help the regime to spread its propaganda.
You can view and listen to the podcast in Russian on our YouTube Channel and read the translated transcript below:
Daria Dergacheva (DD): Hello, dear viewers. My name is Daria Dergacheva, and welcome to another Global Voices video podcast. Today we are discussing Big Tech and authoritarian states. Our guest is Mikhail Doroshevich, who works on digital issues in Belarus. We will speak in Russian, but an English translation and subtitles will be available. Please leave your questions in the comments and like the video.
Mikhail, welcome. Please tell us a little about yourself. This is the second Global Voices video podcast I have hosted, and today we want to focus on Belarus.
Mikhail Doroshevich (MD): I can describe myself very briefly, in one sentence: I am a researcher who has been studying the Belarusian internet for more than 30 years. A well-known political scientist once introduced me in a publication as a “veteran of the Belarusian internet.” Since then, I have jokingly used that description myself. But let us talk about something more interesting.
DD: Being a veteran of the Belarusian internet is interesting in itself! I would also like to talk about its history and what is happening now. I recently saw an article from Carnegie suggesting that the internet in Belarus remains considerably more open than in Russia. I find this paradox fascinating. How does the Belarusian regime deal with Western, Chinese, and Russian platforms?
MD: That is quite a complicated technical question. In infrastructural terms, the Belarusian internet has always been more restricted than the Russian internet. By infrastructure, I mean connectivity and connections to the global internet. Since the 1990s, Russian internet providers and mobile telecommunications companies have had their own international connections. Belarus, by contrast, has always had a vulnerable infrastructure.
International connections were controlled by state-owned companies, including the national operator. Private providers and mobile operators never had their own independent international connections. Yet today Russia restricts access to many social media services, from LinkedIn onwards, while Belarus does not impose comparable restrictions on those platforms. So Belarus historically had greater technical constraints, and shutdowns regularly accompanied political campaigns. Blocking websites and resources designated as extremist or terrorist is still widespread and ongoing. But Belarus has not followed the path Russia has taken in recent years. Their technological approaches have diverged.
DD: Do you think the platforms comply with [blocking or takedown] requests from the Belarusian state? Why is this happening?
MD: We would have to look at the platforms’ annual transparency reports. Of course the state sends requests. As far as I recall, both Meta and Google have reported receiving requests from Belarus. Whether and how they respond is another matter. That is a question for the platforms themselves. Belarus also faces restrictions imposed by technology companies. For example, some artificial intelligence services are unavailable to Belarusian users.
MD: That is OpenAI. Yes, OpenAI’s services are unavailable.
DD: In April, YouTube removed Belarusian television channels that had previously been available. Has anything changed since then, or do they remain removed? And why did the government apparently not react?
MD: The government did react. Additional channels were affected in September, with one taken down literally during a live broadcast. It is important to understand that YouTube does not simply switch a channel off without a process. It has a three-strikes system, and these channels had received strikes. They knew about them, not least because they were creating alternative channels. They tried to move their content and audiences to alternatives both in April and in September. The September ban suggests that the enforcement was connected to ownership rather than only to content. Our hypothesis about the April removals was that they were content-related: The television channels’ YouTube accounts probably violated several platform rules. Strikes can be contested after a period of time, but that involves a legal or formal procedure.
DD: So the government has not restricted YouTube in retaliation for the removal of state-media channels?
MD: No. Many other state-owned Belarusian media outlets continue to operate on YouTube and upload hundreds of videos each month. Some of the channels that were removed are trying to move their content to Rutube [a Russian video platform]. Belarus also has a domestic video platform, but neither comes close to YouTube in technical capabilities, functionality, or usage.
DD: Why do you think Lukashenko’s government has not entered into the same direct confrontation with platforms as Putin’s government? Why does it not block Western platforms? And Russian platforms such as VKontakte still work, correct?
MD: Of course they do. The authorities themselves use these platforms. That brings us back to the previous question: Why block the platforms on which they operate?
DD: Have Google or Meta services blocked state-supported media or other accounts associated with the Belarusian authorities?
MD: There have been removals following user complaints, affecting both state and independent media, but only for short periods.
DD: So there have been no major conflicts with Western, Russian, or Chinese platforms?
MD: I doubt that Chinese domestic platforms are widely used in Belarus, apart from among Chinese citizens living there. TikTok is a different case: it is not available inside China itself.
Sources and further reading
Global Voices — Latest Stories · Daria Dergacheva · Original publication: 2026-10-24
Substantive reporting republished under CC BY 3.0; credited source text reformatted into paragraphs. No third-party photographs republished.