Ethical risks of using Tilda and the choice of safe alternatives

The article explores the ethical, security, and technological risks of using web platforms originating from the aggressor state, particularly Tilda Publishing, within the framework of modern Ukrainian web development. The study focuses on issues of jurisdictional dependence, data localization, and potential indirect financing of the aggressor state through digital service payments [1]. Ethical challenges are examined from the perspective of digital sovereignty and responsible design, emphasizing the necessity of transparent and accountable technological ecosystems. The research integrates concepts of normative digital sovereignty (Roberts, 2024) and rights-based digital governance (Fratini, 2024), applying them to the analysis of web infrastructure in Ukraine.

A comparative evaluation of several popular platforms — Webflow, WordPress, Carrd, and HTML/JS development — is conducted according to key ethical and security criteria: jurisdiction, user control, data exportability, transparency, and risk of external interference. The analysis demonstrates that Tilda, despite its technical simplicity, poses critical ethical and information security threats due to its partial connection with Russian jurisdiction and limited user data control. In contrast, open-source or Wes­tern-hosted solutions provide higher transparency and resilience against censorship or data leakage.

The findings confirm that adopting ethically neutral and transparent platforms is both a technological and strategic priority for Ukraine. Such a transition not only enhances data protection and independence but also aligns with the broader global movement for ethical digital ecosystems. The article concludes that fostering a culture of ethi­cal web development contributes to national information security, supports innovation, and reinforces Ukraine’s position in the international digital space  [1]; [3; 6, pp. 10–11].

Keywords: web platforms, digital ethics, Tilda, Webflow, WordPress, digital sove­reignty, information security, ethical design.

doi: 10.32403/0554-4866-2025-2-90-274-278