Anna Dovgalyuk: Why do people think her 'manspreading' video is a Kremlin hoax?

Millions of people around the world have watched a viral video that appears to show a woman taking direct action against "manspreading". So why do some think it is actually Kremlin-backed disinformation?

A woman creeps up to unsuspecting men on the St Petersburg Metro. The men are taking up lots of space, with their legs wide open. Before they can react, the woman dumps a bottle of diluted bleach onto their trousers. It's enough to make a stain, although not strong enough to cause serious injury.

The video was made by Anna Dovgalyuk, a Russian activist, student and social media star. And it racked up millions of views before being removed from YouTube.

The story was picked up by numerous news websites and caused a huge online uproar. Comments heaped praise, scorn, and more extreme threats of violence on Anna and others involved with the video.

But along with the video's viral spread came questions. Was it staged? And also was it - as some believe - a crafted piece of propaganda, sponsored and spread by the Russian government? And if it was, what was the aim?

Anna Dovgalyuk is relatively new to YouTube activism. The video was only her second post on the platform. Her first also had a feminist theme, and was also shot on the St Petersburg Metro. It was a protest against upskirting - taking photos up women's skirts - and showed a model (not Anna) lifting her dress to show passengers her underwear.

That video also got a lot of coverage, and prompted Anna to turn her attention to a project attacking "manspreading" - the phenomenon of men on public transport who sit with their legs wide open or otherwise inconvenience fellow passengers by taking up too much space.

"I thought that it was one of those problems which should be highlighted, that people should be made aware of," she told BBC Trending.

The video went up in late September, and was clocking up views at a rate of a million a day. But almost immediately, questions were raised about its authenticity.

An online news outlet in St Petersburg called Bumaga quoted a man who supposedly appeared in her video, admitting that he was paid to sit on the train and get squirted. Bumaga reproduced a post by the man on the Russian social network Vkontakte. (His account was deleted and the BBC could not immediately reach the man for comment).

Additionally, in the video, Anna states that it was created "in assistance with friends who share my position."

Speaking to the BBC, she denied that it was staged or that anyone was paid to get diluted bleach thrown on them.

"This is some completely random guy," she says, "I don't know what kind of actor he considers himself to be... but there is no evidence, it's just somebody's claim."

'Staged Kremlin propaganda'

The story took another turn when a European Union project to combat Russian misinformation, EUvsDisinfo, called the video "staged Russian propaganda".

According to this theory, the stunt was part of the Kremlin's surreptitious online interventions into various culture wars around the world, and designed to provide evidence that Western-style feminism has gone too far.

The EUvsDisinfo report gave the video another burst of publicity - and several of the same outlets which credulously reported on the video when it went viral ran reports with the European Union's take.

EUvsDisinfo cited two main pieces of evidence: the Bumaga report, and also the fact that the video was picked up and repackaged by a Kremlin-funded social media venture called In The NOW, which has more than three million likes on Facebook. In The NOW also has accounts on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube.

But In The NOW began as a TV programme on Russia Today - now known as RT.

RT and the news agency Sputnik, are directly funded by the Kremlin. Western governments as well as media critics have called them propaganda outlets.

And EUvsDisinfo sees the dark arts of the Kremlin at work in Anna's video and its treatment by In the NOW. "The video stages extreme feminist activism and manages to provoke extreme anti-feminist reactions," its post on the video concluded. EUvsDisinfo turned down a request for an interview about this story.

But is this a case of seeing Russian bogeymen where there are none? Wouldn't any social media company pick up on such clickable content?

In The NOW - which is based in Berlin - says that although it is financed by Russian government money, it has editorial independence.

"There's no top-down editorial memo that goes out, nothing like that," says J Ray Sparks, an American who is chief operating officer of Maffick, the German company that produces In The NOW. "It has never been some kind of propaganda outlet."

Although In The NOW doesn't deny that it receives money from the Russian government, this information isn't readily apparent on its Facebook page. When asked whether its mix of light-hearted stories and more serious news had ever included a video critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Sparks replied: "We haven't done anything recently."

In the NOW's video about Anna's manspreading stunt has racked up more than six million views.

Khashoggi: Bots feed Saudi support after disappearance By Chris Bell and Alistair Coleman

Suspected bot accounts are attempting to shape the social media narrative following the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Arabic hashtags expressing support for de facto Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, condemning news organisation Al Jazeera and urging users to "unfollow enemies of the nation" were among those amplified by the involvement of bot networks alongside genuine users.

Twitter has suspended a number of bot accounts.

Mr Khashoggi is missing, presumed dead, after he was seen entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October.

Turkish officials allege the journalist, who had been critical of the Saudi regime, was killed there.

On 14 October, the Arabic hashtag translating as "we all have trust in Mohammed Bin Salman" was among the top global trends, featuring in 250,000 tweets. Additionally, "We have to stand by our leader" was used more than 60,000 times.

On Wednesday, a hashtag translating as "unfollow enemies of the nation" was also highly used, while in the past 24 hours the term "campaign to close Al Jazeera, the channel of deception" has gained traction, used close to 100,000 times on the social network.

Bot networks were used by both sides in an effort to control the conversation on social media during the crisis.

Ben Nimmo, Information Defence Fellow at the Atlantic Council, analysed one of the Arabic-language hashtags with bot involvement.

"Unfollow enemies of the nation" was used in excess of 100,000 times. The vast majority of that came through retweets, which can be a signal of bot activity.

Accounts which had been dormant for a long time were suddenly tweeting again, posting identical or near-identical material to other suspicious accounts.

Others were newly-created or exhibited other characteristics typical of bot accounts.

Attempts to control and manipulate social media conversations have become an increasingly prominent global issue.

On Wednesday, Twitter published more than 10 million tweets from suspected state-backed Russian and Iranian "troll farms".

While US national security chiefs have warned of "a pervasive messaging campaign by Russia to weaken and divide the US".

The New World: How it is perceived

Colin Calloway’s approach to the concept of the new world is one which differs from traditional views. This is mainly because, instead of focusing mainly on the European context, he creates a balanced focus on the manner through which Native Americans and European settlers were able to interact and create a vibrant new culture. For the most part, traditional conceptions of the new world tend to attribute the establishment of history as well as organized society to European settlers and often disregards the Native Americans as being individuals who lacked history because none of their histories was written, but instead transmitted orally. As a result, the history of the new world has come to be recorded from the time of European settlement and the contribution of the Native Americans to the development of the new society have been totally forgotten because of the Eurocentric view of them as being savages. However, Calloway is able to bring together the histories of both European settlers and Native Americans in such a way that promotes the idea of their having interacted and each having affected the lives of the other. The American culture, according to Calloway, did not just come up as a result of European settlement, and instead, it came about because both Europeans and Native Americans made their contributions to it; bringing about a unique culture that has become dominant in the whole country. Thus, Calloway considers Native Americans to have been advanced enough both socially and culturally to have an influence on the Europeans who ended up settling amongst them; in contrast to the traditional meaning of the new world.

One of the most significant aspects of the interactions between European settlers and Native Americans, covered by Calloway, is that it led to the spread of diseases that were prevalent in Europe into Native American populations. The spread of these diseases was not done intentionally, but instead, it came about as a result of the interaction between a small number of Native Americans and settlers, mainly through trade (Calloway, 2013, p.50). These diseases were most prevalent in trade routes and this is the main reason why the first people to get infected were often the Native Americans who lived close to these routes or in whose settlements Europeans travelled through. These individuals would in turn, as a result of other Native Americans further into the interior, end up infecting the latter; thus resulting in massive deaths from diseases which traditional Native medicine could not cure. The large number of Native Americans throughout the Americas who ended up dying did not do so because of direct interactions with European settlers, because a majority of them had not set eyes on a European before (Calloway, 2013, p.50). Instead, the diseases spread because of interactions between those Native Americans who had interacted with Europeans, and those who had not. The depopulation of some areas which came about as a result can be considered to be based, not on malice on the part of European settlers, but on the ignorance between the latter and the Native Americans concerning the dangers of European diseases. In this way, Calloway seems to blame disease, rather than the violent interactions between Europeans and Native Americans in the form of wars that would come up in later years, as the case of the loss of large populations of Native Americans.

According to Calloway, the peaceful interactions that took place between the Native Americans and European settlers tended to be based on the self-interest of the latter. This is because in their settlement of a new land, of which they were unfamiliar, they needed the Native Americans more than the Native Americans needed them (Calloway, 2013, p.53). Europeans considered Native Americans to be potential trade partners, and they actively sought to establish trade links aimed at bringing the latter into the economic system that had been established by the Europeans. Furthermore, European missionaries were eager to convert Native Americans to Christianity and these often sought to ensure that this objective was accomplished by going directly to their villages and ministering to them (Calloway, 2013, p.53). The result was that there was a significant growth of contact between these populations to such an extent that they were able to achieve a high level of cultural exchange. Thus, while some Europeans went to settle among the Native Americans, and even adopted some of their customs, some of the latter also chose to discard their own lifestyles and settle among Europeans. In this way, such scenarios as Europeans having tattooed their faces like Native Americans and Native Americans drinking tea became quite common. The creation of a hybrid society which involved the adoption of elements of both European and Native American cultures took place. Through the analysis that he makes concerning the interactions between Native Americans and Europeans, Calloway ensures that he disputes the prevalent narrative about the often hostile interactions between the settlers and the natives, and instead brings out a more positive outlook of these interactions.

Jill Lapore explores the concept of literacy and the means of transmitting history in the context of the new world. She states that the history of Native Americans has been for the most part disregarded because they did not maintain written records (Lapore, 1994). This disregard began to take place during the early European settlement of the Americas and has continued to the twenty first century where written records are considered to be the means through which history can be recorded. However, the disregard of Native American history does not take into account the fact that unlike European history, which was written down, Native American history, was kept through oral tradition. These oral traditions have instead come to be regarded as myths because there are no contemporary written records to verify their authenticity. Lapore points out that in the seventeenth century, there were a significant number of literate Native Americans who lived in European settlements and who could have written the oral histories of their people (Lapore, 1994). However, not record is made of any attempt having been made to put down these histories. Lapore suggests that the main reason behind this lack of written history of the Native Americans is that in order to achieve literacy, Native Americans were required to completely discard the traditions of their own people and instead adopt the Europeans lifestyle. This meant having to adopt Christianity, speak English, and live in European settlements. The result was that many of these individuals ended up losing touch with their own people; instead living at the periphery of Native Americans and Europeans since they were no longer fully accepted by either (Lapore, 1994). These individuals could therefore not write down the oral histories of their people for fear of being rejected by the Europeans whose culture they had adopted.

Another aspect of Native American and European interaction is discussed by William Cronon who considers this interaction from the European standpoint. For most Europeans who settled in the new world, the vastness of the land and its wilderness was incomprehensible because in Europe most of the land had been utilized and the wilderness that remained was in private hands (Cronon, 2003, p.33). When they considered the Native Americans and the simple life that they led surrounded by such abundance, they came to believe that the Native Americans were lazy. Furthermore, this concept of laziness was further enhanced because it was the women, rather than the men in Native American communities who farmed while the men hunted. In Europe, it was the men’s task to farm the land; enforcing the belief that Native American men were lazy. Cronon points out that these perceptions by Europeans were wrong because Native American societies were organized differently. Native Americans often sought to use the land according to their own needs rather than using it abundantly in order to create a surplus, the way the Europeans did (Cronon, 2003, p.122). Additionally, they often sought to make sure that they utilized what they had effectively, especially in winter months when, in situations where there was impending scarcity, these people tended to choose to go hungry in order to utilize the remaining food for as long as possible. These were customs that Europeans failed to understand and would make them enforce their dominance in society in a bid to promote their own way of life, which they thought was superior.

The common perceptions concerning American history, especially its origins, should be changed. This is because despite eventual European dominance over America, American history was not made up only by the European settlers. Instead, Native Americans also made significant contributions while they too were influenced by European culture. American history can be considered as an amalgamation of these two distinct cultures, which brought about a new culture that was adapted to a new environment as a result of interactions between Native Americans and Europeans. A full understanding of American history cannot be achieved without the inclusion of the peaceful interactions that took place between Native Americans and Europeans, because the contributions of the former is one of the main factors that brought about the success of settlements, which in turn brought about American history.

References

Calloway, C.G. (2013). New Worlds for All: Indians, Europeans, and the Remaking of Early America. Boston: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cronon, W. (2003). Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 2003.

Lapore, J. (1994). Dead Men Tell No Tales: John Sassamon and the Fatal Consequences of Literacy. American Quarterly, 46(4): 497 – 512.