Are social media companies contesting state sovereignty?

Social media is the latest in a long line of new information technologies that have the potential to alter the way nation-state politics have traditionally been conducted. What is sometimes overlooked is the fact that the majority of new information technologies have also provided powerful opportunities for sovereigns to maintain or even expand their control over their subjects.

Less perniciously, social media has also made it possible for governments to more successfully influence public opinion or regulate the economy, so bolstering rather than undermining their roles or legitimacy.

However, it's possible that the Internet is a unique type of information technology with properties that make it more threatening to sovereignty than earlier advances in print and electronic communications. The fact that the Internet is not subject to the same physical and regulatory limitations as telegraph, telephone, radio, and television technologies is perhaps the most notable aspect that makes it more concerning to sovereignty.

Given its features, such as limitless access, social media's emergence as one of the internet's 21st-century faces has only served to increase this threat. The various dynamics present in the social media eco-system have tested new paradigms about the exercising of freedoms.

Although social media has enhanced human rights such as freedom of expression, millions of users from all over the world share a variety of viewpoints every day. These ideas do not all agree. Some are thought to be severe, damaging, or even insulting. Consumers hold a variety of ideas, which causes them to feel torn: On the one hand, they want to be able to openly voice their opinions on current political, social, and economic topics without interference or being told that their opinions are unacceptable. On the other hand, when people openly share their opinions, some of that information may be deemed inappropriate, insensitive, damaging, or extremist by those individuals, and they may want it removed. Additionally, users may not always agree on what content is offensive or what steps social media networks ought to take.

It can be difficult for social media platforms to maintain the internet while still serving as a hub for user-generated content and self-expression. The borderless access is not so borderless as far as states can limit access to the internet protocols. Recent close calls with content filtering by social media corporations, particularly Facebook, have strained relations with nation-states and served as a justification for arbitrary shutdowns under the pretense of preserving state sovereignty. Only days before elections for a new president and parliament in Uganda in 2021, Facebook shut down accounts it claimed were connected to the Ugandan government. Facebook deactivated a number of government official accounts in Uganda after accusing them of engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior" during the public discussion leading up to the election.

The social media behemoth claimed that a network affiliated with the ministry of information had been impersonating users and posting under false identities to increase the prominence of messages supporting the current administration.

In a BBC interview, however, the government accused Facebook of illegally moderating its content by deleting those platforms and being biased thereby and that the social network is trying to influence the election outcome messing up state sovereignty. In retaliation, the government of Uganda indefinitely suspended Facebook access hitherto and blocked all its internet protocols to prevent it from inflaming political tensions within the country.

This move by Facebook only served to open Pandora’s Box. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, was first blocked from Twitter and Facebook, and now that ban has been extended to Africa.

For a while, Mark Zuckerberg emphasized that Facebook must permit all types of free expression and cannot act as a judge over political debates let alone be an arbiter of truth.

The platform has, in fact, been focusing more curtailing false information in recent years, but the recent violence and disarray inside the US administration have compelled it to step up these efforts and make some rather significant choices.

Social media firms can no longer describe themselves as neutral observers. They do a poor job of finding the right balance between respecting state autonomy and content moderation. Otherwise, authoritarian regimes are more than happy to conceal themselves behind such content moderation to crack down on the online rights, activities of political opponents and shut down portions of the internet, depriving users of the benefits that can be derived from such use, such as electoral democracy.

Social media firms for the benefit of its users and its influential platforms, their oversight boards must develop more open content regulations that strike a balance between respect for state sovereignty and content control.