Russia has officially labeled American giant Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, as a “terrorist and extremist” organization, opening the possibility of increased court cases against its users in the country.
• Also read: New Russian strikes against Ukraine ahead of an emergency G7
• Also read: War in Ukraine: Russians rampage at civilians in Kyiv
• Also read: Demonstration in Montreal: Ukrainians do not give in to fear
Meta has been classified among the “terrorist and extremist” organizations of the Russian Financial Intelligence Service, AFP noted on the government agency’s website on Tuesday.
Back in March, a Russian court banned Meta for “extremism,” days after Instagram and Facebook were banned in Russia for being inaccessible in the country without a virtual private network (VPN) like Twitter and many media sites Energy.
Since the Russian offensive in Ukraine, the Russian authorities have carried out an intensified repression against critics of the conflict, with fines in the thousands and dozens of criminal cases carrying long prison sentences.
Official recognition of Meta as a “terrorist and extremist” organization makes it easier to prosecute its users in Russia.
Speaking on the Telegram messaging system, which is still legal in the country, renowned lawyer Pavel Tchikov pointed out on Tuesday that criminal prosecutions could be initiated in several cases: if a person publicly mentions Meta without stating their status as a banned organization, or if they show the logo of the company and its subsidiaries.
In addition, according to Mr. Tchikov, Russian companies that use Meta’s social networks to distribute advertisements or work with these applications could also be accused of being involved in an “extremist” organization.
Before the ban, millions of Russians used Meta’s apps, most notably Instagram, a network that remains popular among young people in the country despite being locked down.
Meta also owns WhatsApp messaging, which is also very popular in Russia. However, in March the Russian judiciary had not ordered the blocking of this application, believing that it was not being used as a means of “publicly disseminating information”.