The Manipulation of Social Media in African Countries Endangers Human Rights in More Ways than One
By Jenny Scotland
Social media has become a battleground for the leaders of African countries and their opposition. The consequences are devastating. Ethiopia’s latest conflict was preceded by an escalation in the circulation of hate speech and disinformation on Facebook, which intensified ethnic divisions and provided a platform for mobilising attacks. In turn, these troubling trends have justified the Ethiopian government’s decision to cut off internet and communications in the region of Tigray where the violence is taking place. Both uses of social media - its weaponisation and its prohibition - have had tragic implications for human rights. The manipulation of social media is becoming a common occurrence not just in African countries, but globally. The divisive nature of social media transcends borders, fostering tensions in democratic and authoritarian countries alike. Facebook still enables white nationalist groups to operate in the United States, but American-owned tech companies’ pernicious impact in other parts of the world calls for stricter international regulations.
Unsociable media
Unrest in Ethiopia is largely due to the country’s volatile ethnic politics. Since 1991, the country was divided into federal ethnic regions and governed by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), a coalition of the four main ethnic parties: the Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, and southern groups. Despite the apparent diversity of the leadership, the coalition was dominated by the Tigrayan party, the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which created resentment among the other ethnic groups. Perceived inequality, along with repressive authoritarian governance, forced displacement, and an ongoing war with neighbouring Eritrea fomented widespread discontent, culminating in a series of protests which brought Abiy Ahmed to the chairmanship of the EPRDF in 2018. For many, Abiy, an Oromo, symbolised an opportunity for meaningful political reform. He set off to a promising start by making peace with Eritrea, releasing political prisoners and reintroducing opposition parties, and was rewarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019.
Abiy sought to execute extensive political reform which would ‘subdue the role of ethnicity in politics’ and extend representation to other minority ethnic groups. He thus dissolved the EPRDF coalition into a single party, the Prosperity Party, and articulated plans to abolish the federal system. These changes generated a serious backlash and revealed the true depth of ethnic tension in the country. Those who stood to gain from Ethiopia’s ethnic politics fiercely opposed Abiy’s reforms, and many Oromo ethno-nationalists felt betrayed by his political compromise.
Social media has only intensified polarisation. On June 29, 2020, the prominent Ethiopian and Oromo musician Hachalu Hundessa was murdered in Addis Ababa after an incendiary Facebook campaign demonised him for ‘abandoning his Oromo roots’ by siding with Abiy. Hundessa’s death was the catalyst for an outburst of ethnically motivated violence culminating in over 160 further casualties, primarily of the Christian Amhara, Christian Omoro and Gurage minority groups. Facebook was the primary platform for sharing hate speech, inciting violence and posting photographs of damaged property.
An Ethiopian voluntary organisation, The Network Against Hate Speech, has been reporting hate speech and incitement of violence on Facebook and YouTube almost daily over the last few months. The BBC is also reporting examples of misinformation used to stir up tensions in the current conflict, such as manipulated images of a S-400 Russian missile defence system and a downed Ethiopian fighter jet which were made to look like they were related to the conflict.
The use of technology to incite violence bears chilling similarities to the central role of the radio in the Rwandan genocide. Unlike the radio, social media is far more complex and susceptible to manipulation from an innumerable range of actors. Computer programs choose to deliver engaging, selective content for each individual user, including information that is harmful, such as misinformation, sensationalism, and “hate-clicks”. Due to social media’s lethal potential, it is imperative that Facebook and other social media platforms take responsibility for the circulation of inflammatory content. As of yet, Facebook’s Community Standards aren’t available in Ethiopia’s two main languages and there are no full time Facebook employees in the country. The $750 billion company instead relies on voluntary grassroots activists to report malicious content and events on the ground. However, there is only so much local activists can do. Facebook needs to establish effective regulations on its platform in order to prevent the weaponisation of social media between ethnic groups.
Pulling the Plug
With the increasing use of the internet in African countries and a vacuum of effective social media regulations, leaders have been taking matters into their own hands by cutting off the internet and communications at the local, regional, and national levels.
The Ethiopian government blocked the internet for three weeks after the death of Hundessa on the 30th June, and did so again in Tigray from the 5th November following the onset of violence in the region. It is not the first time this strategy has been used by African governments. In fact, it has become the new normal. In 2019, at least 213 shutdowns were recorded, and since May this year Ethiopia, Algeria, Guinea, Sudan and Tanzania have all blocked the internet for varying amounts of time.
Governments justify this action by claiming that cutting off the internet will combat fake news and hate speech, protecting public safety and national security. However, in Access Now’s ‘Keep it On’ campaign, data shows that these blackouts often coincide with general elections, school exams, and public protests, thereby restricting people’s free speech and democratic freedoms. Ugandan IT research centre CIPESA claims that Internet shutdown is a tool of social control and censorship.
The blackouts prevent outsiders from determining whether and how human rights violations occur. Turning off the internet after the death of Hundessa meant that it was difficult to trace exactly who was responsible for the violence. The same opacity characterizes the conflict in Tigray. Amnesty International reported a massacre of hundreds of people on the 9th November, yet knowing which actors were involved and the true extent of the violence is difficult without communications intact.
Both the unregulated use of social media and its prohibition pose serious risks to human rights. In the case of Ethiopia, the weaponisation of digital platforms has been devastating, yet the issue is by no means exclusive to Africa. Internet shutdowns occur in countries across the political spectrum, with India and Venezuela among the most infamous perpetrators. Hate has manifested itself on Facebook in various regions, from white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups in the US and UK to the incitement of genocidal violence against the Rohingya people in Myanmar. Despite acknowledgement of past failures, Facebook continues to have adverse effects in Africa today. The only solution is for Facebook and other tech companies to take responsibility for controlling the spread of hate speech and fake news on their platforms. This will not be an easy task, given the abundance of different languages in the region and the complexities of local politics. It also depends on the willingness of digital platforms to become more accountable. If they don’t step up their game, it will call into question the urgent need for stricter and more robust international governance in the realm of social media.
Comentários