Skip to main content

Shunning Russia: How Big Tech might be doing more harm than good

Tech companies are withdrawing from Russia in response to its attack against Ukraine, but some experts say they need to go further.

Apple has stopped selling all of its products in Russia, while Microsoft is suspending all new sales of its products. The marquee names are joining a long list of companies pulling out of the country. The exodus raises a host of ethical and practical issues.

Related Videos

“Companies need to look at how they can create opportunities for these refugees and stability for them,” Raj Shah, North America Lead for Technology, Media, and Telecom at digital consultancy Publicis Sapient, said in an interview.

Tech Drain

Russians have lined up to stockpile Ikea furniture, plump their wardrobes with Uniqlo clothing, and taste McDonald’s, KFC, and Starbucks before the companies shut down operations in Russia over the war. When Apple and Samsung jumped onto the departure, Russians raced to buy imported smartphones and other electronics before the supply dwindled.

Just as China has Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent to replicate the West’s Google, Facebook, and Amazon, Russia may easily build its own “homegrown” versions.

As international companies pull out of Russia, homegrown firms will likely step to fill the void, Shah said. Russia has an educated population, many of whom had already moved to a de-Westernized set of platforms and tools for social media and eCommerce. “Severing many of those links with the West will be painful but not irreplaceable,” Shah added. “And if countries like China don’t sever those links, then Russia will have access to the technology it needs to replace or replicate much of what it is blocked from, but with more government control. Just as China has Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent to replicate the West’s Google, Facebook, and Amazon, Russia may easily build its own “homegrown” versions.”

But cybersecurity analyst Joseph Steinberg said the Russian government is replacing American technology products with Chinese offerings. The result of the boycott is that American companies are reducing their foothold within the Russian infrastructure and slashing the capability to conduct future intelligence or cyber-attack operations.

“Considering that China poses a far greater danger to our national security and to that of the West in general than does Russia and that China’s government is an immoral repressive regime with little regard for human rights, today’s boycotts may be doing far more damage to the cause of freedom over the long term than they are benefiting it,” Steinberg added.

Fighting Disinformation

A Twitter logo graphic.
Twitter has rolled out a series of updates to its platform. Twitter

The invasion marks the beginning of what Wasim Khaled, the CEO of cybersecurity refers to as the ‘Future of Conflict’. The term includes real-time Tik Tok and Twitter updates, engagement on social media, and influencers swaying public opinion.

“While cyberactivism is playing a key role in motivating people to join hands and shame them if they don’t, disinformation on social media is blurring the lines of what’s actually happening – making it difficult to distinguish what side is the ‘right side’,” Khaled said in an interview. “Global conflict is occurring on land and online, and individuals are armed and empowered with smartphones making this event unlike any other in history. The invasion of Ukraine is setting the stage for all future geopolitical events of this magnitude and it is clear social media will remain a key territory in the landscape of war.”

“Tech companies like Meta and Twitter have effectively blocked or removed much misinformation and propaganda campaigns launched at the onset of the invasion,” Khaled said. However, the influence of these earlier campaigns is still driving current-day narratives.

“The goal since the onset of the invasion has been to disempower Russian propaganda artists from having another tool in their war chests and while success is being demonstrated on this front, it is being done reactively which still gives room for error and demonstrates lack of preparedness.”

Protecting Reputations

Technology analyst Rob Enderle said that the withdrawal from Russia was prompted by brand protection and liability protection.

“Companies were being called out, and people were boycotting them for not leaving Russia, and sanctions could have put their assets at risk,” he added. “So, they exited the country to protect their brands and assure they wouldn’t be on the wrong side of sanctions.”

Big Tech’s reactions to the war in Ukraine have been varied.  For example, Google Pay and Apple Pay can no longer be used in Russia, whereas Meta eliminated the ability for Russian state media to monetize Facebook and Instagram content.

For tech companies, the revenues generated in Russia are only a tiny portion of their global revenues, so taking actions to remove themselves from Russia is symbolic and does not affect their bottom line much.

“A company’s response to the crisis affects its reputation — that is, how do customers view the response and how does this affect sales of products and services,” Pam Drake, a professor at James Madison University with expertise in finance and business, said in an interview. “A company’s management and its decisions affect the value of the company’s ownership interest and, while profit affects a company’s value, so does risk and reputation risk.”

“Another consideration is that a company may have contracts that are hard to unwind and breaking these contracts may result in a liability,” Drake added. “In some cases, companies have not been able to close down franchise arrangements due to complex contracts.”

“For tech companies, the revenues generated in Russia are only a tiny portion of their global revenues, so taking actions to remove themselves from Russia is symbolic and does not affect their bottom line much,” Drake said.

“Therefore, these moves by Big Tech are mainly symbolic and reputational. In other words, shunning Russia will not materially affect the profitability of Big Tech — but not shunning would affect Big Tech’s reputation and share value,” Drake added.

Weighing the Moral Argument

An abandoned and broken down building in Chernobyl.
Alexey Furman/Getty Images

“The ethics of canceling Russia using economic weaponry is complicated,” Drake said. “Do we cancel an entire country because of an out-of-control autocrat? Have actions against Russian artists, athletes, and oligarchs altered the course of the war?”

“In the short-term, this does not seem to alter Putin’s war, but perhaps longer-term it may as the country becomes more isolated,” Drake said. “However, there is always the risk that this isolation may solidify ordinary Russians’ fight against the West and risk an expanded war.”

Many companies are trying to walk a fine line between punishing the Russian government for the Ukraine invasion while protecting the livelihood of their employees, Enderle said. For example, some companies that exited Russia have provided up to 90 days’ salaries in Russia for their laid-off workers.

“On the other side is pulling support from franchisees where they are likely in default on the related contracts, but given those contracts have to be enforced in Russia, it will only become a big problem if they intend to return,” he added. “The employees aren’t at fault for the war and thus shouldn’t be punished individually.”

Sergii Opanasenko, the co-founder of Ukraine-based web development company Greenice, said that companies can’t stand on the sidelines of the conflict.

“Regardless of whether the company decides to continue business as usual or not, it is a choice and representation of whose side you are on,” he said. “If you continue working in Russia, you indirectly support this war, period.”

Editors' Recommendations

Jack Dorsey resigns as CEO of Twitter, hands reins to CTO Parag Agrawal
Jack Dorsey, co-founder and former CEO of Twitter

It looks like Twitter founder Jack Dorsey is leaving the chief executive's office once again — but this time, it's by choice.
Sources within Twitter first shared the news with CNBC earlier this morning, and it’s now been confirmed by Dorsey himself — quite appropriately via a Tweet on his social media platform.
While the original reports didn’t have much to say about why Dorsey was stepping down, or when it would be happening, it didn’t take long for the erstwhile CEO to share the news himself. In his tweet, Dorsey includes a screenshot of the email that he sent internally to Twitter employees, describing it as part of his desire for Twitter “to be the most transparent company ever.” 
Dorsey explains that although he will continue to serve on the board until the end of his term next spring, as of today, he is officially handing over the reins of CEO to Chief Technology Officer Parag Agrawal, as confirmed by the company’s board of directors. The board also named Bret Taylor as the new chairman of the board, He will succeed Patrick Pichette in that role. 
In his internal email, Dorsey also shared that he has no plans to remain on the board after his term expires, as he feels “it’s really important to give Parag the space he needs to lead.” 
Dorsey says that he’s leaving because he feels it’s best to separate a company from its founders, and that now is the right time to do so. “I believe it’s critical a company can stand on its own, free of its founder’s influence or direction,” Dorsey said in the message to Twitter employees. 
Based on the message, it appears that Dorsey has been planning this for a while. He noted that he’s been working hard “to ensure this company can break away from its founding and founders.” It’s just been a matter of finding the right person to take over the helm, and Dorsey had been grooming Agrawal for some time, due to “how deeply he understands the company and its needs.”
“Parag has been behind every critical decision that helped turn this company around. He’s curious, probing, rationale relative, demanding, self-aware, and humble. He leads with heart and soul, and is something I learn from daily. My trust in him as our CEO is bone deep,” Dorsey told employees in the internal email.

Dorsey's past with Twitter has been marred by controversies
Over the years, Dorsey has had a somewhat tumultuous relationship with the company that he helped to create in 2006. He initially served as CEO until 2008, but was pushed out of the role after his co-founder Evan Williams and the board felt that he was unfit to lead the growing social media company. 
While Dorsey remained with Twitter as chairman of the board, he refocused most of his attention elsewhere, forming the popular mobile payment company Square. Once that was up and running, Dorsey rejoined Twitter in early 2011 to focus on product development, dividing his time between that and his ongoing work at Square. 
After four more years of struggling to come up with a long-term vision, Twitter’s board returned Dorsey to the position of permanent CEO of Twitter in fall 2015, replacing Dick Costolo, who had taken over from Williams in 2010.
During Dorsey’s second tenure, he’s presided over a social network that’s faced some significantly new and different challenges. 

Read more
Graphics cards are still more than double their list price, report finds
Promotional photo of an Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 graphics card.

A report examining the price trends in the GPU market shows there is little sign of improvement, with some graphics cards now reaching nearly double their retail cost.

According to the latest survey by 3DCenter, while there’s been a slight decrease in prices during the past few weeks for certain AMD graphics cards, the cost for the majority of cards have increased once again. AMD’s RDNA 2 GPUs are now 90% over the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), with Nvidia’s Ampere-based lineup hitting 95% over MSRP.

Read more
How powerful is the M1 Max’s GPU? Estimates say possibly more than a PS5
apple m1 max chip

Apple announced several new products at its Apple Unleashed event on Monday, the most impressive of which was the M1 Max that's coming to MacBook Pro 2021 models. This revision to the M1 chip bumps up the core count across the CPU and GPU, with the latter scaling up to 32 cores. And a new performance estimate suggests that those cores could be more powerful than the PlayStation 5.

Notebookcheck performed an analysis of the M1 Max's GPU cores to estimate the performance. Using the M1 as a baseline, the outlet was able to extrapolate that the 32-core M1 Max could produce about 10.4 teraflops of GPU power. That's based off of the 8-core M1 chip, which produces about 2.6 teraflops of GPU power.

Read more