Regulation of social media was initially delegated to engineering and technological groups but later assumed by international organisations and government agencies.
There have been divergent opinions between ‘founder’ countries (such as the US) and countries like Uganda that have adopted the social media platforms. The US and Europe have advocated for established principles and standards, such as free expression and privacy which do not fit the authoritarian ideals of regimes such as that in Uganda. On the other side, Russia and China believe and support internet sovereignty that perfectly fits Uganda’s autocratic needs and its quest for international legitimacy.
Social media regulation remains a contested space of geopolitical competition and between companies and national governments. Some supporters of Uganda’s President Museveni in the 2021 general elections were also suspended by Facebook, citing manipulation of the public debate ahead of the election in the same year.
The tensions between governments and private technology companies have created a dilemma about available tools for regulation in both private and government law. These suspensions by private companies have ignited debates on freedom of expression among world leaders. At the same time, people in autocratic states where platforms are also limited or controlled by the government want freedom of speech.
Uganda has many of the signs of an autocratic regime and is sometimes called a dictatorship. The practice of dictatorships interfering in communication is not new; some classic work on authoritarian rule highlights the role of autocrats in controlling public and private information. President Museveni has, therefore, found solace in countries such as Russia and China that have given him the confidence to restrict social media use when he detects political dissent and mobilisation.
Internationally, there are ambiguous debates worldwide about the appropriate timing for rightfully restricting or shutting down the internet. Even in places where freedom of speech is highly valued and not controlled, shutdowns are used to address political uprisings. For instance, in the US there have been instances where mobile services have been cut for hours to avert anticipated protests. Such scenarios give confidence and justification to autocratic leaders worldwide to put in place well-tailored regulations and policies to control political action in disguise of national security.
The Ugandan regime has achieved its objective of not only controlling political dissent and activism but also surveillance and control of the social media platforms at large. Social media companies have exercised excessive control over social media use, creating a rift among the states that has led to questioning the principle of freedom of expression and who decides its form and practice as an international norm. Therefore, the lack of standardised rules and norms on social media has created a dilemma for developing countries as well as an opportunity for authoritarian states to use regulations to serve their interests.
Photo credit: Pexels
Credit: Source link