Deliberate internet shutdowns are on the rise, or at least they were in 2021. A new report, “The return of digital authoritarianism: internet shutdowns in 2021”, from Access Now shows that authorities and governments in 34 countries “deliberately shut down the internet at least 182 times” last year. This is an increase from about 159 shutdowns in 29 countries in 2020.
A representative of Access Now called these intentional shutdowns “vicious weapons of digital dictatorship”, explaining how this tactic was wielded to silence dissent during war, protest and elections. The motley crew of internet shutdown-happy governments include Myanmar, Iran and Sudan, but the worst offender was India, which reportedly flipped the off switch 106 times in 2021. India has been the worst offender on this measure for four consecutive years.
This may be why India chose not to sign the Declaration of the Future of the Internet, a new set of guidelines signed by 60 countries earlier this week, including the US and the UK — but not, noticeably, SA, or almost any other country on the continent.
Refraining from imposing government-instituted internet shutdowns is one of the principles of the declaration, a document championed by the US and tabled as an attempt to implement some codes for the conduct of authorities on the unruly web. The idea is that this will inform national policies on matters such as digital surveillance and the provision of affordable connectivity.
To be fair to all signees and nonsignees, this is not a binding agreement and it may yet still be signed by more countries in the coming weeks. Though I’ve not seen a commitment from SA yet, I see that Kenya, for example, says it still needs to review the document and get it through its internal structures before publicly endorsing it. Fair enough.
The volunteer hall monitors of Musk’s reputation lurk in the comments section, after all.
Efforts like this declaration are not efficient. They are not elegant, streamlined or simple. There are many reasons to critique them, to consider who signs and why, but they are also collaborative and — largely — transparent. Meanwhile, the world’s richest man is so concerned about consequence-free speech and his continued ability to manipulate cryptocurrency values and share prices…
Sorry, scratch that. Best not test anyone’s tolerance for free(ly offered) critique. The volunteer hall monitors of Musk’s reputation lurk in the comments section, after all. Let me rephrase: meanwhile, Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk is so concerned about the plight of free speech in the world that he’s pushed through his purchase of Twitter, with plans to take the “digital public square” back into private ownership.
Exactly how he is stumping up the money for the $44bn buyout is still taking shape. The latest iteration of the proposal will entail Musk covering about 75% of the price, plus a leveraged buyout that would put some $13bn in debt onto Twitter’s own accounts.
Musk’s Twitter purchase is not yet a done deal. There are still regulatory hurdles to overcome. Still, many are treating it as a fait accompli — including the far-right crowd (in the US and beyond), who seem quite confident that Musk’s Twitter will allow for the return of figures such as Donald Trump. The far left fear it will signal a descent into unfettered hate speech.
Could suffer
There might be one good commercial reason to hope Musk will not allow that. As the New York Times recently posited, Musk’s “plan for Twitter includes both more cash than the typical buyout and more debt than Twitter may be able to handle given its patchy profitability”. Twitter has only reported two profitable years — 2018 and 2019 — since it listed publicly in 2013. Like most social media platforms Twitter relies on advertising for revenue, and there has been increasing focus on using advertising spend as carrot and stick in the fight against hate speech and the rise of authoritarianism on these platforms, as well as in traditional media.
The New York Times writers caution that Twitter’s advertising revenue “could suffer” if a more laissez-faire approach to content moderation is adopted on the platform “since most advertisers are wary of associating their brands with polari[s]ing content”.
Free speech must be protected, naturally. Free speech means I can say I believe the ANC has failed to handle the load-shedding debacle with any grace or proactivity. It means I can say I think most politicians are more effective at scaring people than governing. I can make statements that critique or promote an idea, but this right is not absolute. The defence of free speech is not an excuse for tolerating hate speech or amplifying hate via social media. A defence of this right might ask whether the speech in question meets the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
So what are the real concerns and threats to a free internet future? I like this take: “Online hate speech and disinformation are circulating at an accelerated pace. Journalists, politicians and human rights defenders face constant surveillance and are subject to frequent online attacks. Pegasus spyware is reportedly being used in 45 countries, often in total secrecy and outside any legal framework …”
The citation above comes from a speech delivered last week by Michelle Bachelet, the UN high commissioner for human rights. Bachelet was speaking at a graduate school in Geneva about digital technologies and human rights, and these trends — hate, attacks on media freedom, and state surveillance — were some of the “indicators of regression” she put forward. Internet shutdowns also made the list, as did a right to privacy. Surprisingly, the right to spew hate and disinformation in 280 characters did not make the cut.
• Thompson Davy, a freelance journalist, is an impactAFRICA fellow and WanaData member.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.