A Shona proverb wisely states, “Machongwe maviri haakukuridze pamutanda mumwe” (two roosters cannot crow on the same perch). It is impossible for two dominant forces, or rather two forces with the intention to be dominant, to peacefully co-exist. In a way, this characterises the current situation that we are facing with regards to social media corporations and states.
States are strengthened by their ability to create a unified community, to have at least the majority, if not all citizens on their side. This community is usually bound by state borders, limiting state power within these spaces. There are exceptions, as in the case of imperialist nations such as the USA, the U.K., Canada, China etc., whose influence extends beyond their borders. Corporations on the other hand, are strengthened by having more customers, more users – a larger audience using their product from which they can collect data and monetise it. With some exceptions, corporations are not generally limited by borders. So basically, states require citizens while corporations require users/customers. At any one time we are one or the other, both, or neither. When we encounter our governments, say during elections or in raising issues to our local representatives, we are performing our citizenship. When we are sending cat pictures to our aunt on Facebook, we are customers/users. When we tweet to our president, we are performing our citizenship while being customers/users of Twitter. When we are marginalised from accessing our leaders, our political rights, and digital tools – it could be argued that we are neither.
And so, what happens when there are two roosters on the same perch? Sometimes, states and corporations will have the same goal. Sometimes in the bid to have more citizens on their side states will stifle customer/user rights. And in other situations, corporations will undermine governments. Both parties will each exert the power that is available to them, or one will exert a power that stifles the other. This is what has happened in Nigeria more recently, where the Nigerian Federal Government has recently banned the use of Twitter. This comes a couple of days after the president’s Twitter account posted a threat to punish secessionists. The information minister is reported as having said that the reason for this ban was “the persistent use of the platform for activities that are capable of undermining Nigeria’s corporate existence”. The choice of language here is somewhat ironic, yet a reflection of the principles of statehood. Because nation-states are founded on myths of homogeneity, social media’s unbounded trait is conceived as a threat.
I read political scientist, Catie Bailard’s Democracy’s Double-Edged Sword: How Internet Use Changes Citizens’ Views of their Government; as an explantion of this. Bailard argues that the internet can be said to function in two ways: window opening and mirror holding, allowing citizens of a country to compare their democracies with others. The author explains window opening as:
“The internet’s capacity to promote a more globally consistent conception of what constitutes good democratic governance becomes particularly powerful in light of the tendency for leaders of authoritarian and sup-par democratic countries to glorify and propagandise their responsiveness and democratic virtues to their own citizens, despite the international community’s awareness of the democratic failings of many of these countries” (Bailard 2014:41–42)
With regards to mirror holding, the author holds that,
“by providing a broader and more extensive array of political information, the internet holds up a mirror for users to better discern and reflect on how democratic practices (and governance more generally) actually function in their own country”. (Bailard 2014:21)
Through a quantitative analysis, Bailard argues that for more authoritarian states, access to the internet leads to an increased dissatisfaction with the government, while for more ‘democratic’ governments; it leads to increased satisfaction among citizens. This means that more oppressive governments have a reason to see the internet as a threat and thus, will use whatever means is necessary to control it. In this piece, I will not discuss the connotations of a “globally consistent conception of democracy”. However, Bailard’s major conclusion, that the internet increases access to information for the citizen/user can explain easily how social media can be perceived as a political threat.
Another Shona saying, which is present across many cultures too, cautions, “Panorwa nzou, huswa ndihwo hunokuvara” (when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers). The Nigerian government exercising hard power over the digital sphere, Twitter in particular, is a threat to Twitter’s model. Twitter said that the reason for deleting the Buhari’s tweet was that it violated the platform’s policy on abusive behaviour, and this was Twitter exerting its power in the digital realm for which it is responsible. And while it may seem that this back and forth of power play is simply between these two elephants, it is the citizen/customer/user who suffers the most.
From this Twitter Ban, NetBlocks estimates that Nigeria will lose approximately 2.18 billion Naira per day as a result of blocking the platform. This is because banning twitter could lead to loss of productivity and commerce. Thus, it is not simply Nigeria the state that loses, but Nigerian citizen business owners and operators. But the cost of this ban is not only monetary. When the government bans Twitter, citizens can no longer organise politically or socially. They can no longer connect with others locally and globally. In October 2020, #EndSARS was trending on Twitter, and other social media platforms. Nigerians at home and abroad used the hashtag to voice discontent about “the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), that rights groups had for years accused of extortion, harassment, torture and murders”. The trend then grew to include other socio-political grievances. Using social media Nigerian citizens at home and abroad, and allies, brought a global spotlight on a local issue. It was on Twitter that organisations such as Feminist Coalition raised funds to provide resources for those on the frontline during the #EndSARS protests. It was through Twitter that the rest of the world got to know about the issue and supported the citizens. Removal of access to such networks, is another way in which the citizen/customer/user suffers.
For all the concerns that we have about the use of data, mis/disinformation – it is no doubt that social media provides essential spaces and services for citizen/users. The current situation in Nigeria, highlights the need to continue, and perhaps expedite, the conversation on how we think of regulating, moderating, and monitoring the internet and its various digital components. In Nigeria, lawmakers are considering a law that promises “to regulate social media including by punishing “false statements” and enabling the government to shut down the internet”. But this government-corporation conflict is not limited to Nigeria, and this is not the first time it will happen. In Zimbabwe, the internet has been shut down in the past to prevent citizens from sharing information during moments of peaceful protest that turned violent after the military showed up. Resolving the concerns we have about digital platforms with their socio-political utility, becomes more essential when we consider that corporations and states will not always see eye-to-eye at the detriment of the perch upon which they both operate; the space occupied by the citizen/customer/user.
References
Bailard, Catie Snow. 2014. Democracy’s Double-Edged Sword: How Internet Use Changes Citizens’ Views of Their Government. Johns Hopkins University Press+ORM.
Beyond the Digital 