Online disinformation and the African firm (2)

Suggestions made about combating online disinformation include state intervention, making social media platforms liable for third-party content, and swamping fake news with the truth. State regulation of social media platforms and making them liable for content on their platforms have yet to produce desired results, however. Germany, Italy, Singapore and France are few examples of countries which have had little success in this regard. The third approach, which is that social media platforms should instead push alternative but accurate narratives to water down the potential influence of identified falsehoods, is seen as likely more effective. The “Related Articles” feature on Facebook is an example. Understandably however, there are concerns about how such related articles would be chosen.

There are other ongoing initiatives as well. Facebook has entered into a fact-checking partnership with Reuters, for instance. However, “contagion is not slowed down by fact-checkers”. Still, the “designers of social media and search engines have the ability to alter the nature of contagion” (Shiller, 2019). And until the opportunity costs of not doing so outweighs the benefits, the purveyors of fake news would probably continue to have a field day.

African governments increasingly keen on social media regulation

African governments are increasingly irritated by fake news; whether they be from local or foreign actors. Social media has become an effective tool for local propaganda by ruling and opposition politicians. Foreign governments are also finding online disinformation quite useful for their ends on the continent as well. There is evidence Russia conducted online disinformation campaigns in Cameroon, Libya, Madagascar, Mozambique, South Africa and Sudan, for instance. While estimates of the costs of online disinformation for Africa are not exactly known, the continent’s low resilience is not in doubt.

Still, a need for control is understandable but fraught with dangers for what are still fragile democracies. Only recently, Amnesty International accused Somalia’s government of putting tabs on vocal local journalists by monitoring their activity online, and reporting them to enforcement units at the respective internet platforms, Facebook, in this case. And in February 2020, Ethiopia’s parliament passed a law that prescribes that the author of any internet post that incites unrest should do time in jail. Nigeria is also working on a law to curb internet misbehaviour. Understandably, there are concerns that these moves would stifle free speech.

Foreign businesses operating in Africa who seek a legal recourse on the back of these laws risk being enmeshed in the unpleasant politics associated with them. In other words, the injured brand being repaired may suffer even greater injury. True, there are media laws that could apply in various countries, but African courts are generally not known for the quick delivery of justice. Simply put, firms operating in Africa would almost surely have to apply their own means to repair any damage from online disinformation.

The issue is increasingly top-of-mind for African firms. According to a 2019/20 survey by Kroll, a global business intelligence and advisory firm, 67 percent of businesses in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) use brand influencers, 67 percent classify reputational damage due to a third-party relationship as a significant/high risk priority, and 60 percent classify adversarial social media activity as significant/high risk priority. And looking ahead five years, 58 percent of SSA firms worry about risks related to market manipulation through fake news.

Edited version of article was first published by Nanyang Business School’s NTU-SBF Centre for African Studies. References available via link viz. https//nbs.ntu.edu.sg/Research/ResearchCentres/CAS/Publications/Documents/NTU-SBF%20CAS%20ACI%20Vol.%202020-17.pdf

Rafiq Raji