Nigeria banned Twitter — why does it matter to the Blockchain Community?
The Twitter ban illustrates much that is wrong with social media but, more importantly, how Blockchain could fix it.
Twitter as a Social Institution
Anyone who has ever been to Nigeria will know of the importance Twitter holds in Nigerian society. The saying goes that there is an entire population, “Twitter-Nigerians”, — who seldom appear in real life. However, they did last October to demand their rights to be alive and work with a laptop. Something fundamental for the people reading this article, but something daring and dangerous in a country where special police forces may pick you up and label you a Fraudster based on your outfit or a Nigerian Prince, sending scam emails or conducting other internet crimes.
The unjust oppression of the best, and the brightest minds in Nigeria is worth an outcry in itself. This outcry, the need to say what really needs to be said, found its vent often on Twitter: #bringbackourgirls #ENDSARS
Twitter is one of the working social institutions Nigerians can turn to, to express grief and demand justice — to organize and rebel against their oppressive government, fathers and religious leaders. But also an institution that’s allowed social mobility. Enabling young Nigerians to learn from around the world — and teach the world what the powerhouse of African creativity can do.
It is a Natural Impulse wanting to Destroy such Institutions
The Nigerian government found itself in a position western governments find themself in too. What do you do if a (foreign) company has built such deep social infrastructures in your country? Infrastructure masked as harmless and innocent application: primarily used for jokes, entertainment and trivialities alike. Nevertheless, infrastructure able to facilitate and organize a revolution: Early in 2011, the Facebook campaign “We Are All Khaled Said” spread through the network first and then onto the streets of Egypt. It became clear; these networks can become threatening to governments.
Social Networks as Supranational Institutions
Last year, the White House and the honourable Office of the President — even though equipped with enough warheads to exterminate the entire world, a power only God ought to yield — is powerless without a platform. An internet company with the aspiration to build a good product has become, willingly or unwillingly, a supranational power if their user agreement can end the most powerful president’s visibility. That the exact interpretation and execution of such a user agreement is in the hands of a small circle of tech executives should give one pause to think.
Again what happened in Nigeria?
- The Nigerian President Buhari posted on Twitter a tweet that one can read as a threat against the Igbo people. A minority that most Westerners will only dimly remember, if at all, from the horrible Nigerian-Biafra Civil War that raged for three years until 1970. (Only as a side note: Nigeria was supported by the United Kingdom — while France supported Biafra)
- Twitter’s interpretation of the tweet prompted them to take the tweet down and suspend the account of President Muhammadu Buhari for 12 hours for violating terms and user guidelines.
- The Nigerian government responded by banning twitter nationwide and indefinitely — experts close to the subject speak of an educational slap.
Let us translate the problems at hand
- Should a president be allowed to threaten a minority group on a public platform?
- Should a small circle of foreign tech executives have in power to de-platform an elected leader of a nation?
- Should a government be allowed to disempower its citizens by taking away social institutions such as Twitter?
A framework to build social media on blockchain protocols, addressing the concerns above and beyond …
Imagine running a social media platform as a decentralized application on a blockchain protocol — such things are already happening. Most of the new projects remind you of existing social media platforms but focus on unique, innovative aspects. For example, Twetch, a twitter-like platform with a focus on content creator monetization. Aether is Reddit-like, a decentralized platform focusing on self-governing communities that exchange information peer-to-peer in an explicit non-permanent environment. All content is gone after six months — making it easier to evolve as a community. And, of course, Signal, a WhatsApp-like peer-to-peer instant messenger.
What each of the decentralized applications have in common is that there is no centre of power. No central switch that can be taken down, no central service that can be disconnected. The data stays with you, and you exchange it to the next user that wants to consume it. Going back to the original issues at hand — how would the dropping away of a centre change the game for social media at large?
I. This setup alone would address the third problem at hand: Should a government be allowed to disempower its citizens by taking away social institutions such as Twitter? My intrinsic moral compass tells me no. A government should not have the right to take social institutions perceived as valuable by most away from the people. Freedom is an imperative human right that shouldn't be trampled on. Setting up a social media platform on a decentralized protocol will not allow anyone in the world to take it down — as no government can switch off bitcoin, even if many wish they could.
II. After clearing question three, let’s move to question two: Should a small circle of executives have the power to de-platform an elected leader of a nation? This is a complex question as we have here two different impulses at hand. Firstly the right of a corporation to administrate its property — we ought not to damage rightfully established property rights. However, seeing social media platforms as social institutions, there are ways to navigate this question in an elegant manner. One may consider the path of self-governing communities that Aether chose. Now it would not be a far distant group of tech executives that make the decision of which person is allowed to stay or not. The decision would be with the community that has created / moderates / provides the nodes for the platform that the leader chooses to make his or her remarks.
III. It is often the questions to which many people have very easy answers that are the hardest to solve genuinely: Should a president be allowed to threaten a minority on a public platform? This question is more of an existential question that I can only answer for myself. It depends on the moral code of the surrounding culture, the point in time, and in history. I, a secular liberal, would say no. However, I believe that this is an opinion that starts within me, and I have no right to extend my moral judgment towards a foreign culture. Nevertheless, leaving my own culture behind, I believe that the affected communities should be the only ones in charge to decide since they provide resources on which a decentralized platform runs.
The conclusion is clear — decentralized and inherently trustworthy technology could radically change the game of social institutions.
The creation of social networks that bring all power to the user by relying on peer-to-peer exchange of information and nodes changes the game radically. Such networks cannot be switched off — nor be controlled by outsiders of the system. The communities provide the resources to run the platform themselves e.g via highly efficient nodes — such a node could already run on smartphones. These communities could agree on their code of conduct and punish wrong behaviour based on their very own moral standard. Presidents would be guests on the platforms their people provide them — and presidents would need to accept the power of the people that resides ultimately with the people as they are sovereign in a democracy.
