theguardian.com
Record High Internet Shutdowns in Africa in 2024
A report by Access Now and #KeepItOn revealed a record 21 internet shutdowns in 15 African countries in 2024, exceeding previous years and highlighting the weaponization of internet access by governments and non-state actors amidst conflicts, protests, and elections.
- What is the significance of the record number of internet shutdowns in Africa in 2024, and what are the immediate consequences for affected populations?
- In 2024, Africa experienced a record high of 21 internet shutdowns across 15 countries, exceeding previous records. These shutdowns, often lasting over a year, were primarily in response to conflicts, protests, and political instability, impacting millions of citizens.
- What role do telecommunication providers and non-state actors play in facilitating internet shutdowns, and what are the broader implications for human rights?
- This surge in internet shutdowns, also a global trend with 296 shutdowns across 54 countries in 2024, demonstrates a worrying weaponization of internet access. The involvement of both state actors (governments) and non-state actors (militias) highlights a systemic issue.
- What measures are needed to effectively counter the rising trend of internet shutdowns in Africa and globally, and how can international bodies better enforce existing resolutions?
- The continued rise in shutdowns despite the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' March 2024 resolution signals a concerning lack of enforcement and a growing disregard for digital rights. This trend necessitates stronger international cooperation and pressure on governments and organizations complicit in these violations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The report's framing emphasizes the negative consequences of internet shutdowns, focusing on the record-high numbers and the human rights violations involved. The headline and opening sentences immediately establish this negative tone. While this perspective is important, the framing lacks balance by not equally highlighting any potential benefits or justifications offered by governments for these actions. The use of words like "weaponised" and "precarious" further reinforces this negative perspective.
Language Bias
The report employs strong, emotive language to convey the severity of the situation. Words like "weaponised," "precarious," and "cut off" evoke strong negative feelings. While this language highlights the report's urgency, it also reduces neutrality. Using more neutral terms like "restricted," "uncertain," and "disconnected" would be less emotionally charged while maintaining the essence of the message.
Bias by Omission
The report focuses heavily on the number of shutdowns and the countries involved but provides limited details on the specific reasons behind each shutdown beyond broad categories like "conflicts, protests, and political instability." While it mentions election-related restrictions, it doesn't delve into the specifics of those elections or the nature of the restrictions. Further, the report doesn't explore the potential justifications governments might offer for these shutdowns, such as preventing the spread of misinformation or maintaining national security. This omission limits the reader's ability to fully assess the situation and understand the complexities involved.
False Dichotomy
The report presents a clear dichotomy between governments restricting internet access and the negative impact on citizens' rights. While this is a valid concern, the analysis lacks nuance regarding potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives on internet shutdowns. There is no exploration of situations where restricted internet access might be considered a necessary measure for public safety or national security. This framing simplifies a complex issue and might lead readers to an overly simplistic understanding.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a surge in internet shutdowns across Africa and globally, often during political unrest, conflicts, protests, and elections. These shutdowns impede access to information, restrict freedom of expression, and hinder efforts to promote peaceful and inclusive societies. The actions of governments and non-state actors in shutting down internet access undermine democratic processes and the rule of law, thereby negatively impacting the achievement of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).