By Ronald Austin Jr.
ON April 4th 2018, the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerburg, admitted that up to 87 million users of Facebook may have been affected by a data breach spearheaded by a British political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica (CA), initiated by Cambridge Professor Aleksandr Kogan.

Professor Kogan procured the data of 300,000 by placing a Facebook-linked app, ‘thisisyourdigitallife’, on this social media platform. Professor Kogan was able to access personal information of the ‘friends’ of the 300,000 users whose data he captured without their permission. Through this app, Facebook users were paid to participate in a personality test under the pretext of academic research. This information was taken and stored by Professor Kogan.

It was then sold to Cambridge Analytica for US $800,000. Cambridge Analytica used this information to create a software platform for influencing the US presidential election and sold it to the Donald Trump campaign. This software platform targeted voters with ‘micro targeted ads’ based on voting patterns, location and political preferences. The Cambridge Analytica/Facebook imbroglio is another stark reminder that social media is undoubtedly ground zero for modern political movements.

These social media platforms are used for various purposes outside of politics; this column has no intention of denying this fact. The positive aspects of social media include: social networking, saving lives during times of disasters, an excellent tool for small businesses, bringing the world closer together as one digital community and a great source of information. This fact is worthy of mention, but it is not the focus of this column.

Most people in the world of modern technology walk with their heads buried in their little mobile devices in zombie-like fashion. It is estimated that 2 billion monthly active users are on Facebook — this is 33% of the world’s population. This teems with potential to have unparalleled reach for anybody with a specific political purpose or movement, whether honourable or dishonourable.

In its 14 years of existence, Facebook knows your events, your location, what you are doing at what time, where you are heading, who you are interacting with and what your preferences are. Of course, you can adjust your privacy settings, but can you reasonably expect privacy on this most public forum?

Facebook utilises this information for marketing purposes, but when market-driven purposes are hijacked for political purposes, these platforms are a treasure trove for any political movement, whether state or non-state actors. For example, any fable, rumour or myth can take the form of ‘news’ and appear on these platforms and the stories can be adopted as fact by those whose computer screens or mobile devices they reach

The WhatsApp messaging service requires a phone number and internet connectivity, information from this source comes directly to your phone. It is more efficacious and direct. The world is replete with examples of how this social media platform demonstrates admirably that social media is indeed ground zero for political movements. Dark forces, shadows moving through the issues use WhatsApp to great and sometimes, regrettable effect. Non-state actors such as terrorist organisations and a plethora of extremists gravitate towards this information source, due to the fact that messages are encrypted, they cannot be accessed unless WhatsApp decides to hand over the information.

This was evident in the British Home Office fight with WhatsApp over the London bombings 2017. The Home Secretary Amber Rudd, stated ‘It was completely unacceptable that WhatsApp was enabling terrorists to communicate in secret, knowing the police and security services will not be able to read their encrypted communications’. Again, the efficacy of this conduit for communication provides fertile ground for political movements, in this case, regrettably, a political movement that embraces death and destruction.

Twitter is less pronounced in Guyana. This platform is less pictorial razzle and dazzle and you are allowed only 280 characters. Twitter is the thing of choice for most world leaders. For example, Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi is followed by 37 million people on Twitter. The Indian prime minister uses this medium to get his message to the people. In this case, we see an example of social media being used by a state actor for a specific political purpose. Another great exemplar of this scenario in the usage of this social media tool, is the case of President Donald Trump.

He is followed by 30 million users. He has effectively usurped this mode of messaging both as candidate Trump and as President Trump, to promote his ‘Make America Great Again’ political movement to great effect.

The digital sphere is one big frontier where anyone can start a fire once you have internet connectivity. Even though digital companies have mechanisms in place to guard against extremism, this is very difficult to control to a large extent. Having recognised that social media is critical to mass political mobilisation, governments in closed societies have devised ways to censor the internet access in their countries.

Iran, Yemen, China North Korea, Syria, Turkey and many other nations now censor internet domestically. Once the entire internet is state-owned, it is easy to block websites from citizens. In the case of private ownership, the Internet Service Providers are mandated to block certain websites; this is tied to the conditions of their licences to provide internet service.

A report from ‘Freedom House’ in 2016, revealed that internet access by citizens of the world declined for its sixth consecutive year. Governments continue to crack down on social media and messaging apps based on the clear indication, that this is ground zero for political movements.

It would be remiss of any political movement– both state and non-state actors — to ignore the power of social media — this is ground zero for political movements.