THOUGHTS ON THE‘SOCIAL MEDIA’BILL
The Senate should strengthen existing laws against false information, writes Ramat Muhammed
The falsification of fact is not a new phenomenon. It’s one that has existed before bots and the internet and will continue to exist even after bots and the internet have been replaced with new technology. But the new challenge that the internet, and in particular social media pose is that these technologies allow for fabrications to travel faster and more broadly. So I completely understand Senator Muhammad Sani Musa’s urge to introduce what has been dubbed the “Social Media” Bill as a means to help stem the tide of what seems like a tsunami of nonsense coming from the internet. I commend the Senate for having the courage to move this discussion forward and I offer a few suggestions for further refinement and improvement.
Given that the falsification of fact is not a new phenomenon, Nigeria already has established laws to address fabricated information; furthermore, the country has several case studies of prosecutions made under these laws. As I read the bill, I couldn’t help but wonder if we’re splitting hairs. To focus on the technology of transmission (bots and the internet) is to ignore the fundamentals - that fabricated information for the purpose of deception should be identified, verified, catalogued, rectified and removed, regardless of the means of distribution. My first suggestion to the Senate as you consider this bill is to review existing laws that regulate fabricated information, and strengthen those laws for the modern era.
If we are then to focus on the fundamentals, the key question that this bill and any discussion on this matter should address is what constitutes a fabrication or falsification of fact? And this is where things get sticky and why human rights activists are up in arms.
For the purpose of rest of this discussion, let’s classify information into four groups: Factual information - true statements that are relatively harmless and on which we generally all agree; Mistaken information - false statements that are also relatively harmless as they tend to result from errors. I often hear statements made on radio programs one day that are corrected the next day with apologies to the audience. Mistakes will happen especially with daily news reporting; Malicious information - false statements that are deliberately fabricated and designed to create harm and disruptive information - true statements that are framed in a manner to create harm. Most people will not take issue with factual or mistaken information. So let’s focus on malicious and disruptive information.
I think most will agree that if malicious or disruptive information will likely cause harm to
MY SECOND SUGGESTION TO THE SENATE AS THEY CONSIDER THIS BILL IS TO FOCUS THE DISCUSSION ON THE SECURITY AND WELL-BEING OF NIGERIANS AND LET ELECTIONS AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE FALL AS THEY MAY
the well-being and security of Nigerians, it is the duty of government to identify and quarantine that information for further investigation and adjudication. Most people likely see this application as a no-brainer which is exactly why governments use the issue of security as the impetus to pass bills like the proposed bill. This use of government power makes sense to me and I’m in full support of this application, with appropriate checks and balances.
If malicious or disruptive information is harmful to elections or confidence in government, should it be identified and quarantined? According to this proposed bill, yes it should. There is concern expressed in the bill that fabricated information may influence the outcome of an election. But fabricated information - whether malicious or disruptive - has always been used to influence the outcome of elections - it’s part of campaigning. This practice pre-dates the internet and if the internet should be destroyed tomorrow, fabricated information will continue to be used to influence the outcome of elections and it will spread like it always has: through the marketplace, churches and mosques. So to me, this concern reads more like a justification to nullify and void election results. I’m not saying this is what the bill intends, I’m just saying that it’s an obvious outcome. And a very dangerous one.
The bill also cites concern that malicious or disruptive information may diminish public confidence in the performance of government. First of all, Nigerians will always complain about government from now until eternity. It’s the national pastime of any democracy. And it’s a good thing. It means that people are actively engaged and want/ expect things to be better. Secondly, humans generally build impressions based on their experience, not the information they receive. If public confidence in government is low, it’s probably because people’s day-to-day experience is being frustrated by conditions that are, right or wrong, associated with government. So to me, this concern reads more like a justification to clamp down on criticism of government inefficiencies. Again, I’m not saying this is what the bill intends, I’m just saying that it’s an obvious outcome. And also a dangerous one.
My second suggestion to the Senate as they consider this bill is to focus the discussion on the security and well-being of Nigerians and let elections and public confidence fall as they may.