On Tuesday, 29th October, 2019, Lai Mohammed, the Nigerian Minister of Information, made it known that the Nigerian government is planning to regulate the use of social media. This, he asserts, became necessary as a result of the high rate of fake news and hate speeches circulated through the social media.

As expected, Nigerians didn’t receive this news with relish. They used different platforms to express their distaste and distrust for the incumbent government. Some went as far as seeing this ‘regulation’ as an onset of dictatorship, after all they should be free to express themselves.

But if you sit back and look at this critically, you may find out that there may be need for the enactment of laws that will monitor and control what is posted on social media. This isn’t just for the government benefit but also for individuals. For example, regulating the use of the social media may reduce the rate at which scammers hunt and defraud their victims. Regulating the social media may also reduce the rate of character defamation and blackmails that is on the increase these days. It is also possible that regulating the social media may make the platform less toxic and destructive.

So, why then are Nigerians uncomfortable with the news?

If you check the different posts and comments raised by Nigerians in different platforms concerning this issue, you will only see one thing – “fear of being suppressed”. Nigerians are truly afraid that the government wants to suppress their voice. They saw the social media as the only platform where they can make their grievances known to both the local and the international bodies. Social media is the only means through which Nigerians can easily and efficiently communicate to the government. It is the most effective means of obtaining and disseminating information. So, when Lai Mohammed brought up the social media regulatory issue again, Nigerians became suspicious of the intentions of the incumbent government.

Nigerians are also sceptical about the regulation of social media because they have not witnessed any hate speeches or fake news (at least not in a long time) that will warrant this decision. So calling for its regulation seems way out of place. If you truly weigh situation of things right now, you won’t blame anyone who believes that the federal government wants to gag Nigerians.

But, it is possible that the Federal Government (FG) meant well for Nigerians. It is possible that they want to protect Nigerians through regulating what is sent into the air waves. It is also possible that Nigerians will benefit if the social media is truly regulated. But, the FG needs to convince Nigerians first. They need to win the hearts of Nigerians. They have so many things to do and consider before continuing with the regulation plan. Here is the basis for this write up – what Lai Mohammed and his team need to do to convince Nigerians that regulating the social media is necessary.

THINGS NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO
Below are some of the questions the FG needs to answer before continuing with the social media regulation plan.

1. What is Hate Speech?
It is not enough to tell Nigerians that hate speech is circulated through the social media when they have not been told what hate speech is. Different people can interpret that term differently. For this, the FG needs to clear up the air on what is and what is not hate speech. One thing Nigerians will want to know here is if going to the social media to voice out their grievances against the government or private individuals is also an aspect of hate speech. Nigerian government needs to explain in its minutest details, what it considers hate speech to entail. There is serious need to disambiguate that term so that people will know what they are expected to do or not.

2. What is Fake News?
How can Nigerian government brand a piece of information as fake? How can one determine that the circulating news isn’t a product of investigative journalism? The Nigerian government needs to convince the Nigerian citizens that fake news involves malicious stories released into the air to cause havoc and instability. They also have to release parameters that will be used to check on whether the news in question is true or not. They have to convince Nigerians that investigative reporters will not be victimised by this law.

3. Who is the Regulation Protecting?
This is the heart of the matter? So, who is this intended regulation actually protecting? If the regulation is designed to protect government officials, who are lax in their duties or corrupt, then the regulation may not hold. If the regulation is meant to address only government related matters, then it will be faulted. If the regulation isn’t designed to protect every single Nigerian – rich and poor, educated and non-educated, male and female, high and low – then, expect serious outcry from Nigerians. As stated earlier, this regulation should be designed to also reduce the rate of cybercrime, blackmail, character defamation and any other thing that violates their human person. So, let the Nigerians be told who the regulation is protecting.

4. Why must there be a Regulation?
There is need to convince Nigerians that this regulation is necessary. They need to be convinced that it is only through the FG control of what is posted on the social media that sanity could be brought into that platform. They need to see how havoc can be created as a result of malicious messages sent through the social media (and of course there are many of them).

Looking at this, it may be possible that what Nigerians actually need isn’t regulation but sensitization on the proper use of the social media. However, let the Minister of Information and his team try harder to state why this regulation is the only way the social media can be ‘sanitised’.

As can be seen, it is easier to convince Nigerians to accept regulation of social media if only the agency concerned enlightens Nigerians more on what they plan to fight against. The incumbent government should also give Nigerians reasons to trust its decisions regarding their (the Nigerians’) welfare. For this, if the master plan for this regulation about to be established doesn’t include protecting EVERY Nigerian, then it needs to be revisited. Else, the proposal will be kicked out, again.

The Google’s $2.1 billion purchase of Fitbit sounds like a great news not only because it saved the company from crumbling, but also because Apple will now have a competitor to beat when it comes to wearables. Apple has been enjoying the dominance orchestrated by less competitiveness and the monopoly that Fitbit’s undersize granted it.

But not anymore, with Google’s acquisition of Fitbit, the market for wearables has been thrown into competition once again. Google hopes that it can at least catch up in terms of fitness tracking and wellness functionality.

Upon the announcement of a deal by the two companies, Fitbit’s stock rose to almost 16 percent, the highest in recent times. As part of the deal, Fitbit will be pooling its resources under Google instead being a subsidiary of Alphabet.

Apple watch has dominated the market where Fitbit was only playing the underdog competitor. A situation the new deal will push to change. Google sought to fill a gap in its hardware lineup that currently lists phones, tablets, clamshells, headphones and speakers. But there are challenges, bordering on user privacy and shipping partner.

But in a statement, Fitbit called Google the “ideal partner to advance our mission,” it said that Google will only advance its tradition of putting users in control of their privacy and how their data is used. The statement made the assurance that users’ health and wellness information will not be used for targeted ads by Google. And in the matter of shipping, the future versions of Fitbit Versa is likely going to be shipped with the assistance of Google instead of Amazon’s Alexa.

Google also noted that the acquisition of Fitbit will bring the best out of its smartwatch platforms and health applications; revealing their intention to share the fitness tracking device with partners. But the acquisition was actually necessitated by the fact that Google has a slim chance of competition with Watch OS without the partnership that will create a diverse range of products.

Although the acquisition has created an avenue for Fitbit to compete with Apple, it has made the perceived monopoly of the tech industry by the dominant companies a truth.

Google had Facebook to compete with in the bidding to acquire Fitbit, but beat them to it by paying double the amount Facebook offered: A situation that confirmed the fears of many that the tech industry is gradually being narrowed to a few giants in field flexing financial muscle.

Earlier in the year, Google had acquired Fossil’s smartwatch technology for $40 million, showing aggressive determination to expand its paths in the field of wearables.

Facebook also has been trying to up its game in the hardware market with Oculus virtual headsets, smart speakers, planned AR glasses, the acquisition of the fitness app called Moves back in 2014, and recently, the CTRL-labs, a startup developing technology that can interpret human brain signals through an armband, acquired in a deal worth around $750 million.

It is noteworthy that the two companies have been on the list of antitrust probe in the U.S. where their activities have spurred the interest of regulators to investigate if they are leveraging their dominance unfairly to hurt competitors.

The mutual interest of the two companies in Fitbit and hardware tech is a confirmation that the anticipated muzzling of smaller companies in terms of value-based competition is becoming faster a reality than imagined. And that has been the basis for the call for a break-up of the big tech companies, currently being spearheaded by the Democratic presidential aspirant Elizabeth Warren.

In her publication on Medium on March 8, she decried the growing dominance of a few companies in the tech industry, and how it has enabled them to bully their way into position of acquisition of smaller companies that can’t keep up with the competing measures that has been set so high through accumulated influence of the big tech companies.

“Today’s big tech companies have too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy. They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.

“I want a government that makes sure everybody – even the biggest and most powerful companies in America – plays by the rules. And I want to make sure that the next generation of great American tech companies can flourish. To do that, we need to stop this generation of big tech companies from throwing around their political power to shape the rules around their economic power to snuff out or buy up every potential competitor.

“That’s why my administration will make big structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition – including breaking up Amazon, Facebook and Google,” she promised.

It is a glaring fact swinging with crippling shots, and small businesses are at the receiving end of it.

Therefore, Fitbit didn’t fail because it lacked the needed substance to succeed, it failed because it lacked the weight and muscle to get into the ring with titans. Alas, it’s the same story with many other companies. It’s only a matter of time before they fell into acquisition space that the tech bullies have created.