Prime
To ban or not ban Facebook
What you need to know:
- Rather, as political institutions, governments are more responsive to public concerns, and unlike private companies, they have legitimacy and room for broader participation by the general population.
My last article highlighted Big Tech’s growing power, its increasing involvement in politics, and how this threatens our democracies. The article did not claim governments are inherently more moral than private corporations – they, too, have sinned.
Rather, as political institutions, governments are more responsive to public concerns, and unlike private companies, they have legitimacy and room for broader participation by the general population.
On the other hand, private companies cater to shareholders, their primary concern being profit maximisation. Consequently, they are not suited to arbitrate on public affairs.
Yet, this never stops private companies from pursuing political power. To illustrate this, we recalled how in the past private companies arrived in different parts of the world to ‘trade’ only to end up colonising and ravaging local communities.
Interestingly, the warning signs of a company’s real intentions are easy to see. Think about it. Why would a company interested only in trade build a large army, fully clad with infantry, cavalry, and artillery units? If that company had security concerns that needed a military solution, shouldn’t it have been the state to provide it? Why did the local leaders focus on more minor squabbles and allow those corporations to acquire superior military power? Evidently, they underestimated the threat until it was too late.
We should not allow such history to repeat itself by undermining the threat of Big Tech’s growing power. They gave us a glimpse of that power when they gagged a president of the world’s sole superpower. Notably, they didn’t follow the natural laws of justice and haven’t consulted the courts to see if their punishment was proportional. What more demonstration of power are we waiting for?
Moreover, our lives’ increased digitisation means social media sites are the new public squares and should be treated as public goods. Today, barring someone from social media is equivalent to barring someone from accessing a public place in pre-digital Uganda.
Such decisions cannot be left entirely to the whims of private companies. They should be handled by qualified people who are mandated to arbitrate such matters, i.e., the Legislature and Judiciary.
Of course, less powerful states have limited power over Big Tech companies based in more powerful foreign countries.
And that in itself is risky. What happens when those foreign countries become less friendly, as happened when the USA barred some companies from dealing with China’s Huawei? Where would Huawei be if it didn’t have an extensive internal Chinese market to fall back on?
The answer, therefore, as painful as it will be initially, is to create our own social media platforms. Most of the current interaction on social media is local, i.e., a Ugandan Facebook user is likely to have primarily Ugandan friends and follow mostly Ugandan brands. The most followed brands and celebrities in Uganda are all local. Therefore, in adopting a local solution, we wouldn’t lose our essential connections.
Nonetheless, our small numbers create a scaling challenge. Uganda has about 47 million people, 18.5 million internet users, of which only 3.3 million use Facebook. If we consider the East African Community, we upgrade to 200 million people, 97 million internet users, and 21 million Facebook users.
So, the logical solution is to think East Africa, i.e., develop an East African-based social media platform and phase out Facebook. This would bode well with our aspirations for integration and reduce the danger of relying on a powerful weaponisable tool controlled by a foreign power whose attitude towards us can change instantly.
Mr Kibudde is a socio-political thinker
[email protected] Twitter: @kkaboggoza
