• The push to regulate, escalated by Covid infodemic, could muzzle dissenting voices
Image: FILE
You can say anything on the Internet and be whoever you wish to be, but plans by governments across the world to crack down on fake news could make it hard to express genuine criticism.
Anybody with a data connection can write, post photos and send videos to a global audience. As would be expected in real life, malicious actors exist in online spaces, where they deliberately post misleading information to either exploit or deceive the public.
The dilemma for governments is how to stop the spread of false information while ensuring the public’s right to free speech. The veracity of information changes with time and place. What seems true today could be false tomorrow. One person's beliefs could be offensive to another. A good example is the vast amount of information people have been posting online about the Covid-19 pandemic.
So much is the scourge of false news that it is referred to as an "infodemic". Covid-19 has likely generated more fake news than anything else in the past decade. For the first time, the social media giants (Google, Facebook and Twitter) complied with requests to delete false information. This was in sharp contrast to the situation in 2016 when, during campaigns for the US elections, they declined to pull down social media posts allegedly made by external forces wanting to influence the American elections.
The Internet, specifically social media, has grown in importance in Africa's elections. All political players have a social media presence. Elections in Africa are very sensitive to false information; a small bit of incitement could spark violence. This calls for vigilance to ensure elections are not influenced by false information, but governments are known to use the pretext of national security to attack the opposition. In short, most countries lack a neutral authority to distinguish false information from genuine voices of dissent.
According to the BBC, at least eight countries in Africa had partial or total Internet shutdowns in 2020. The countries included Burundi, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Early this year, the Uganda government ordered telecommunication service providers to block all Internet connectivity on the eve of election day on January 14.
Kenya holds its elections in August 2022, and there are worries the government might block the Internet on security grounds. Similar fears were expressed in the months leading up to the 2017 general elections, but there was no Internet shutdown during and after the polls.
“Internet is not a privilege that can be switched on and off at will. It is a right. Access to information is a human right," says Ekai Nabenyo of the Paradigm Initiative, an organisation promoting digital rights for the youth.
COST OF SHUTDOWNS
Nabenyo says Internet shutdowns across sub-Saharan Africa resulted in economic losses of US$2.2 billion (Sh238 billion) in 2019. He believes there is a better way to combat fake news. "With the Internet being used as a tool for information dissemination, the government should provide means to combat misinformation and disinformation rather than shutting down the Internet," he says.
Kenya has not implemented a national Internet shutdown in previous elections. The closest the government came to regulating the flow of information was during the 2007-08 post-election violence, when the sending of bulk SMS was restricted. At the time, social media had not yet taken root in Kenya and people were exchanging updates about the conflict through SMS.
The flood of misinformation surrounding Covid-19 is motivating governments across the world to develop laws against fake news, but critics remain suspicious of how such laws will be enforced. Without adequate safeguards built into the laws, the public will hear only officially accepted narratives. Dissenting voices could be silenced as they would not be allowed to propagate online.
The Kenya Information and Communication Act is the current law that guides the use of communication networks. The law criminalises the sending of false or offensive messages aimed at annoying, inconveniencing or creating anxiety in another person. The law has been used to prosecute individuals for sending insults or threatening messages in interpersonal communication, such as through instant messaging apps (such as WhatsApp), SMS and emails.
Well-known bloggers have faced civil and criminal cases brought about by individuals they reported negatively. Interestingly, nobody ever sues when shown in a good light! People have been tracked down and arrested for posting information seen as undermining public safety, such as promoting terrorism. Before the 2017 elections, individuals who made online posts to perpetrate ethnic divisions were also tracked down.
ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE
Kenyan legislators are already proposing regulations aimed at safeguarding the public from what they see as negative foreign influences. “The Internet should promote our values and principles within our society,” Senator Samson Cherarkey told the Senate. “We have allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to use the Internet to erode our values and principles.” Cherarkey, who represents Nandi county, was contributing to Senate debate last September on regulating social media.
During the debate, senators expressed worries that foreign social media companies such as Tiktok were making money from personal data collected in Kenya. “The question does arise to the safety of the data that Kenyans unknowingly provide to the application [Tiktok] regarding themselves,” Falhada Iman, a nominated Senator, said in her contribution.
The Senate debate will not be the last time Kenyan legislators are proposing a tougher stance on online activity. Across the border, Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni has ordered a crackdown on social media after rumours of his death went viral.
“Social media apparently has been saying that Museveni is dead. Locate quickly the ones who tell such stories because you are wasting people’s time,” an angry Museveni commanded.
In Tanzania, celebrity artistes who cross the line of what the government considers acceptable are forced to pull down offending posts and apologise under threat of losing their performance licences.