How well connected is Russian-language media in Finland?

To gain a more in‑depth understanding of the Russian-language media landscape in Finland, we conducted a network analysis to reveal their connections. This analysis was performed separately for the three most popular social media platforms among the Russian-language media actors in our study: Facebook, Instagram and Telegram. Although differences in platform-specific metrics (such as shares, mentions, follows, reposts and tags) prevented us from making extensive comparisons between them, the analysis allowed us to see the extent of the networks formed by the analysed social media accounts. This stage of the research is based on an analysis of 130 social media accounts from 98 Russian-language media actors from our database.

In our study, the 45 media actors that used Facebook were connected by only 90 ties, accounting for 4.5% of all possible connections. The network was characterised by low density and high fragmentation, with many pendants tied to the network by only one connection. 9 (20%) of the social media accounts on Facebook were isolated and not connected to any of the other accounts included in the study. 2 other accounts were connected only to each other by a single link. We excluded these 11 accounts from the further network analysis.

18 (20%) of the 90 connections were reciprocal, linking 12 social media accounts (Figure 6, marked in blue). The out‑degree statistics reveal that the social media accounts with the most connections to other accounts are Perhekeskus Maria (7 connections to other profiles, accounting for 21% of all profiles), Avtorskie Ekskursii (6 connections, accounting for 18% of all profiles), Damochki Finlyandii (6 connections, accounting for 18% of all profiles), Turku po-russki (6 connections, accounting for 18% of all profiles) and Vsyo o Finlyandii (6 connections, accounting for 18% of all profiles). While these statistics show how many other social media profiles on our database these accounts followed, mentioned or reshared during the research period, they do not reflect frequency, as this was not measured in this analysis.

By contrast, the in‑degree statistics measure how many social media accounts from the database followed, mentioned or reshared content from the account in focus. The accounts that were followed, mentioned or reshared the most are Vsyo o Finlyandii (by 11 other profiles, accounting for 33% of all profiles), SVK (by 10 other profiles, accounting for 30% of all profiles), Eto Finlyandiya (by 9 other profiles, accounting for 27% of all profiles), Neizvestnyi Helsinki (by 7 other profiles, accounting for 21% of all profiles) and Yle Novosti (by 7 other profiles, accounting for 21% of all profiles). The majority of social media accounts that the most other profiles shared, followed or mentioned are also reciprocally connected with each other. As shown in Figure 6, their connections form a near‑closed circle. Consequently, these Russian-language social media profiles can be considered 'central' or 'core' within the Facebook network, and were analysed as individual networks.

In this study, the individual or ego network represents all connections that the selected social media account has within a one‑step distance. In other words, it only shows the account's closest adjacent links, without analysing further connections within the wider network. For example, the Baltic Region account has the densest ego network of all Russian‑language social media accounts in our study, as it is connected by 75% (9 out of 12 ties between 4 profiles) of all possible ties with adjacent accounts (Figure 7, reciprocal ties shown in blue). It has 3 out-degree ties (it followed, shared or mentioned 3 other profiles) and 1 reciprocal in-degree tie (it was followed, shared or mentioned by Turku po-russki), which accounts for one‑third of all profiles in its ego network. All social media accounts in the study can be analysed as ego networks in a similar way. In this report, however, we will only present the analysis of the core ego networks on all three platforms.

Despite having fewer connections, the core ego networks have a network density four to eight times higher than that of the entire Facebook social media network. Among the core social media accounts on Facebook, Vsyo o Finlandii is connected to more accounts than any other core network account (14 profiles, or 33% of all profiles on our Facebook database), but Yle Novosti has the densest network (see Table 3). This means that Vsyo o Finlandii is connected to more accounts that are not well connected to one another, while the social media accounts in Yle Novosti's network are much more closely interconnected.

With the exception of Damochki Finlyandii, all core accounts have a higher number of in‑ties than out-ties. They are more likely to be followed, mentioned or reshared by others than to follow, mention or reshare content themselves. For example, Yle Novosti is followed, mentioned or reshared by all 7 adjacent profiles

Yle Novosti's network also has the highest proportion of reciprocal ties, which further demonstrates its close connectedness. Although Eto Finlandiya has the largest number of reciprocal ties, its network is larger, meaning the proportion of reciprocal ties is smaller compared to Yle Novosti. By contrast, the Neizvestnyi Helsinki ego network has the fewest reciprocal relations, despite its other network characteristics being similar to those of other core social media accounts on Facebook. This suggests a greater degree of equality within the Yle Novosti and Eto Finlandiya networks and greater instability within the Neizvestnyi Helsinki ego network. In practical terms, if any of the connections in a less stable network disappear, the network itself may also disintegrate. However, reciprocal ties can ensure the continuation of information exchange and the existence of the network.

Overall, although Facebook is used more frequently among the media actors that we categorised as 'groups', the 'business', 'media' and 'NGO' actors tend to have denser networks on average, and are more likely to have accounts among the core accounts in the Facebook network. Only 3 of the 17 media actors categorised as 'groups' are at the centre of the network: Vsyo o Finlyandii, Damochki Finlyandii and Turku po-russki (see Figure 6).

Out of all the analysed platforms, the Russian‑language media network on Instagram is the most dense, close-knit and reciprocal. The 41 media actors that used Instagram were connected by 131 ties, accounting for 8% of all possible connections between them. The network has the fewest isolates, i.e. accounts not connected to any other account on the list (7, or 17%), which were removed from further analysis. Almost half of the ties in the network (62, or 47%) were reciprocal, which is much higher than on Facebook or Telegram. This may partly be because Instagram had a higher number of individual accounts that were well connected to one another, but group, media and business accounts were also involved in reciprocal connections.

The close‑knittedness and reciprocity of the network is evident in Figure 7, where the density in the centre is higher compared to Facebook or Telegram networks and the distances between the nodes are much shorter. The core of the network consists primarily of individual media actors, though some business and media actors are also present. The difference between individual and other types of accounts in the core of the network is that individual profiles are more likely to have out-ties, while other types of accounts are more likely to have in-ties. In other words, individual media actors tend to follow, share or mention others, whereas business, media and other types of media actors are more often followed, shared or mentioned. This trend is evident across all three platforms, but it is particularly obvious on Instagram due to the large number of individual media actors.

The accounts that follow, share or mention most of the other accounts are Northern sights (13 connections to other profiles, accounting for 39% of all profiles), finnishwithuliana (11 connections to other profiles, accounting for 33% of all profiles), Polina Laku (10 connections to other profiles, accounting for 30% of all profiles), from_hel_with_love (10 connections to other profiles, accounting for 30% of all profiles) and korkaolga (10 connections to other profiles, accounting for 30% of all profiles). The most followed, shared or mentioned accounts were from_hel_with_love (by 13 other profiles, accounting for 39% of all profiles), enjoyfinnish (by 12 other profiles, accounting for 36% of all profiles) and Culturalist (by 10 other profiles, accounting for 30% of all profiles).

The basic characteristics of the core ego networks on Instagram are shown in Table 4. Among the largest ego networks on Instagram, 2 have almost as many connections as the entire Facebook network, and 6 have the same number of connections or more than the entire Telegram network. For example, the largest ego network on Facebook, Vsyo o Finlyandii, connects 15 nodes with a total of 38 ties; the largest ego network on Telegram, Finlyandiy blizhe, connects 12 nodes with a total of 25 ties; and the smallest core network on Instagram, Tochka, connects fewer nodes with more ties than either of these two networks (11 nodes, 45 ties). Core networks on Instagram are also denser than those on Facebook or Telegram.

Furthermore, the level of reciprocity within all core ego networks, with the exception of enjoyfinnish, is very high and more equal. This suggests that, although there are many gaps in the connections on core ego networks on Instagram, the existing connections are usually stronger due to reciprocity. Enjoyfinish, on the other hand, has many pendant connections (connected only with one tie, for example with Julikalife or SVK) in its ego network, which makes the network less stable, with lower reciprocity and density rates.

Since the ego networks of core Instagram accounts are much larger in terms of both nodes and ties, the ego account’s out‑ties and in-ties do not dominate the network as they do on Facebook or Telegram. The only exception is enjoyfinnish, which has 12 in‑ties to the account, constituting 30% of all ego network ties. This means that ties in Instagram ego networks are much more evenly distributed, and the ego account does not dominate its own network but forms part of a larger system. On Facebook and Telegram, however, the ego account is more central, with many accounts connected only to it as pendants.

The social media accounts of the Russian‑language media included in our study were the least connected on Telegram. Of the 44 accounts on Telegram, 16 (36%) were isolated and not connected to any other account. Some of the media actors that manage these isolated accounts, for example Gazeta, Pro Helsinki or Real Finnish, were well connected on Facebook or Instagram, which suggests that Telegram is not a priority social media platform in Finland.

The 44 Russian‑language media actors that use Telegram were connected by 51 links, accounting for just 2.7% of all possible connections. The Telegram network was also the most fragmented, with the fewest reciprocal ties. The sparse connections are clearly seen in Figure 8. Not only is the Telegram network less tightly knit, it is also much more extensive, indicating greater distances between accounts. It is also more difficult to identify the 'core' accounts, since the out‑degree and in-degree statistics are equally low for most accounts. Moreover, the Telegram network is clearly divided between accounts with more out-ties (following, sharing or mentioning others) and in-ties (being followed, shared or mentioned by others).

The media actors that followed, shared or mentioned the most other accounts are Finlyandiya blizhe (10 connections, accounting for 37% of all profiles), Echo Helsinki (5 connections, accounting for 19% of all profiles) and Russkoyazychnaya afisha (5 connections, accounting for 19% of all profiles). On the other hand, the accounts that were followed, shared or mentioned most often by others are Fin la la land (by 7 other profiles, accounting for 26% of all profiles), Nerdsbay (by 5 other profiles, accounting for 19% of all profiles) and Yle Novosti (by 5 other profiles, accounting for 19% of all profiles). Table 5 summarizes the results of the ego network analysis for these accounts.

As can be seen from the table, the ego networks of core Russian‑language social media accounts on Telegram are small in terms of both network size and number of connections. Although densities are similar to those on Facebook or Instagram, the Telegram network stands out for its lack of reciprocity. Another characteristic of social media account networks on Telegram is that ego connections often make up the majority of ego network ties. For example, Yle Novosti’s ego network has only 6 connections, 5 of which are direct links to the ego account. This is typical of nearly all core accounts, with the exception of Nerdsbay. This indicates that the other accounts in these networks are poorly connected to one another and only exist in the network because of the ego account. It would appear that on Telegram, Russian‑language social media accounts either follow, share or mention other accounts – or are being followed, shared or mentioned by others – within a very unstable and isolated network.

A unique feature of the Telegram network is Aleksanteriliitto's role as a 'gatekeeper' within it (Figure 9). Aleksanteriliitto is connected to the wider Telegram network via a single in‑tie with Echo Helsinki (see Figure 8). What makes it exceptional is that it forms its own separate 'mini network' with other accounts that would otherwise have no connection to the general Telegram network. The accounts in this 'mini network' are rather specific: 2 general chats that are reciprocally connected; a media account; and an account related to border issues. Without reciprocity, Aleksanteriliitto is followed, shared or mentioned by all of them. This demonstrates that Aleksanteriliitto could exert specific control over information shared through it within this 'mini network' on Telegram. Such isolated 'mini networks' were not observed on Facebook or Instagram.