When a new law banning TikTok in the US came into effect on 19 January 2025, the popular
app stopped working across the country. While we expected diplomatic relations between the
US and China to be the most affected, what is observable is that the US citizenry is the most
affected. Many are not pleased with the move, which appear to indicate an emerging cross
border citizenship with share technologies, values and interests to better their life
experiences. Feenberg (2013) argues that technologies carry with them the cultural values of
where they were manufactured to the places they are used. This implies that the Chinese
cultural values carried to US by TikTok technology seems acceptable by the US citizenry.

The Biden administration had expressed concern that TikTok exposed the US to a security risk
because cyber criminals could easily access critical information about US security systems
through any of the estimated 170 million users (Walsh, 2025). However, President Donald
Trump, now starting his second term in office, has given the giant social media platform 90
days to comply with US requirements, including TikTok’s China-based parent company,
ByteDance, sell at least 50% ownership to the US to allow it to attain a high level of control of
the platform. China had objected to the move, arguing that the law violated freedom of
expression.

These unfolding events have many implications for the African continent. The most obvious
one is that African dictatorial regimes may feel emboldened to clamp down on social media
in their countries, using the US as the point of reference. The affront on TikTok in the US is
comparable with how some African countries have closed social media to their citizens. Similar
to the US, the African countries cite security threats. However, while the US indirectly also
seeks financial gain through control over the social media platform, the African governments
seek to keep their people uninformed, especially around electoral issues. Notably, the
financial aspect is not of interest to African government because the infrastructure used for
social media in Africa is largely owned by China and the US. For instance, according to the
Centre for AI and Digital Policy, an independent research firm, as at 2024, China supplied
about 90% of the cell-phone towers in Africa, while the US supplied most of the computer
applications. This diminishes the power of African governments to pursue financial interests
beyond taxation.

On the other hand, the African citizenry has developed immense interest in social media use,
including artificial intelligence (AI). At the same time, the various arms of the Kenyan
government, including the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, have social media
accounts/handles which they use to disseminate information to the nation. The people use
the platforms as a feedback loop to satirise the government and lash out about its perceived
malpractices, including corruption. Similar to many African governments, the Kenyan
government has become angry about citizenry criticism and is threatening to ban access to
social media.

In Uganda, the leading privately owned newspaper, the Daily Monitor, reported in 2021 that
in 2016 and 2021, the government shut down social media during general elections, arguing
that ‘ill-intentioned people’ may use it to spread hate messages and cause violence. The
shutdown dealt a blow to Uganda’s leading opposition party, whose main electoral campaign
strategy was crafted around social media use (The Conversation, 2021).

In Tanzania, social media was shut down during general elections in 2020, with the
government citing national security issues. The government argued that social media would
be used by individuals and opposition parties to incite the citizenry into violence.

In January 2019, Zimbabwe, the authoritarian government arbitrarily shut down the internet
to control the citizenry’s political activities. The Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari shut
down X (then called Twitter) in June 2021 after his tweet threatening to use violence against
the separatist south rebels was pulled down.

While most debates around social media bans revolve around government repression,
insufficient debate is generated on the power of social media ownership. We need to ask
ourselves who holds these owners to account. While we may vote out governments for
shutting down social media to their people, we are not holding the executive officers and
ownership of the major social media platforms accountable. Therefore, in many ways, the US
ban may be a warranted move towards igniting debates about who holds the owners of social
media platforms accountable.

By Job Allan Wefwafwa