Connect with us

Opinion

 Social Media Landmines

Published

on

Nigeria is currently hosting the 2022 UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week in Abuja, and the Minister of Information and Culture, Mr. Lai Mohammed, was on hand to greet the visitors. and to remind them of the enormity of the task ahead of them during the conference. In his address, he pondered on the current state of the world with special emphasis on the unregulated use of social media and other digital platforms.  According to him, there is an urgent need, “for every person to be equipped with the ability to critically evaluate and wisely use the information at their disposal.” The Minister also affirmed the relevance, and timelines of the theme of this year’s Global MIL Week, which is “Nurturing Trust: A Media and Information Literacy Imperative”.  Interestingly, I have also been pondering, and thinking historically after I read the ruling of an inquest into the death of 13- year old Molly Russell, who committed suicide in 2017.

As it turns out, the quest for utopia, and the easy life where everything is at the click of a button has brought monumental benefits to humanity. Historically, no technology has ever gained notoriety and ubiquity as social media in such a small time. With 12.5 trillion hours spent on social media by about 4.7 billion persons globally, social media has stamped its place as an inalienable part of everyday life.  Data from Datareportal reports reveal that in the last twelve months alone, social media platforms have added 227 million new users. The significance of this information is that 59 percent of the world population is on social media, and spending an average of two hours and twenty-nine minutes every day as of July 2022. The internet made the world a global village, but with mobile technology and social media, our loved ones are just a click away irrespective of their location in the world. Social media adoption across the globe brought with it huge benefits for individuals, businesses, and governments. Individuals, especially young people, have benefited the most, as the social media platforms have emailed them to build social networks, establish new relationships, strengthen existing ones, and even minimize, or end some old ones. It has also helped them develop their communication skills in no small measure.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a case in point, where digital technology and social media came to the rescue when more than half of the world was compelled to stay indoors by an unseen enemy. It was the primary means of staying really connected.It has also become a formidable tool for businesses to reach, acquire, and keep customers. It is so relevant that graduate courses on social media marketing and analytics are springing everywhere. According to some estimates, global spending on social media advertising was above $4 billion in the past year. Going by this figure, social media is on course to replace traditional media channels like newspapers, radio, and television.

Unfortunately, this singular factor is one key reason why a technology that has brought so much good, also causes grave psychological harm that can actually lead to death, as in the case of 14 – year old Molly Russell. There are at least three sources of social media harm, namely the actions of other social media users, user exposure and consumption of harmful content, number of hours spent online, and finally, the actions of social media platforms. A 2018 pew research survey of US teens, conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that one in six teenagers has been the target of six different abusive behaviours online. The research surmised that 90 percent of teens believed that online harassment is a problem, especially for people within their age bracket.The disaggregated data also gave insight into two major dangers of social media. The teenagers reported receiving unsolicited explicit images, and another group reported that they were being tracked by someone other than their parents.

However, even more, dangerous harm is caused by the actions, or inaction of the individual user online; ranging from how often, and how long an individual stay connected to social platforms and the impact on self-esteem due to the consumption of social media content. For instance, another 2018 survey by the Pew Research Center of 750, 13 to 17 -year Olds in the US discovered that 45 percent of teenagers are online constantly. This trend has also been shown in adults with very dire consequences. In fact, a study of 1000 Swedish Facebook users observed that women who spend more time on Facebook reported feeling Les happy and confident. Women compare themselves negatively to photos and selfies of other women. They also compare their lives with the seemingly successful lives of others on social media, and the consequence is a deep sense of unfulfillment.

Even though the actions of the individual user could cause reasonable harm, social media companies bear the greatest responsibility for the harm done by their platforms, especially to children who do not know better. Social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and Snapchat have been fingered in several cases of corporate malpractice. They have sacrificed the well-being and lives of young people on the altar of profit. Recent revelations have shown that social media platforms are designed to be addictive; and with endless scroll features, young people are sucked into a vortex of targeted content. Most of the contents targeted at children are sexually explicit in nature, and therefore not age appropriate. Research conducted by 5Right Foundation was able to demonstrate that young people are targeted with unsavory content, including images of self-harm, and pornography. The addictive nature of social media has shown up in the fact that 20 percent of people on at least one social media platform feel they must check them at least once every three hours to avoid feeling anxious. This phenomenon even has a name, ‘Social Media Anxiety Disorder,” or SMAD; and people diagnosed with SMAD find it difficult to carry on a conversation for long without picking up their phones.

They spend as much as six hours on their phones per day to the detriment of school, work, family, and other favourable activities. They also experienced severe nervousness, anxiety, or withdrawal symptoms whenever they are unable to get on social media.Facebook depression is also another new entry in the medical lexicon, and the American Academy of Pediatrics describes it as follows: “When adolescents and teens who spend time on social media begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression as a result of “the intensity of the online world .” Aspects of social media that contribute to Facebook depression are friend tallies, status updates, and pictures of friends enjoying themselves, all of which can make children with negative self-images feel worse about themselves. Earlier this month, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram was particularly fingered in the death of Molly Russell by a London coroner, Andrew Walker.

The coroner said her death was “ an act of self-harm while suffering from depression and negative effects of online content.” According to him, the content Molly viewed on platforms like Instagram and Pinterest was not safe and should not have been available for a child to see. Following the ruling, Matthew P. Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center (SMVLC) noted that Molly Russell’s case was the first time that a social media platform has been adjudicated to have caused the death of a child. According to him, “Russell’s death was not a coincidence nor an accident. It is a direct result of the design decisions that Meta made maximise user engagement over safety, and failure to provide safeguards for vulnerable kids.” Russell’s case is not unique, as SMVLC has an ongoing lawsuit against social media platforms in the US for the death of 11year-old Selina Rodriguez, who was so addicted to Instagram and Snapchat that she developed sleeping disorders, and depression, which eventually caused her death.

By: Raphael Pepple

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By:  King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael  Abraham

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection. 

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office

By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending