In a world where stories go viral in seconds, a single tweet can ignite a national conversation. The clash between content creator VeryDarkMan and GTBank reveals a lot more than public outrage, it exposes how digital influence truly works.
Exhibit 1: VeryDarkMan and GTBank on Twitter network
The Spark That Set Off a Firestorm
When Nigerian content creator VeryDarkMan called out GTBank over a loan deduction without application by his mother, it seemed like a routine grievance. But what followed wasn’t routine at all. It erupted into a loud, emotionally charged online movement that trended for days. Two major themes emerged. The first, #FreeVDM, reflected the public’s support for VeryDarkMan and framed the issue as a fight for fairness. The second, #EndGTBank, was broader, an expression of deep-rooted frustration with corporate misconduct and lack of accountability.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
The Power Behind the Hashtags
Though VeryDarkMan was the central figure, his direct role in keeping the momentum was surprisingly limited. Others took the lead in spreading the message. While he lit the match, others kept the fire burning.
Among them were popular Twitter voices like Dami Adenuga, Instablog9ja, Bakare Omodara, and Chie Bolam. These individuals and accounts posted consistently, adding fuel to the trending hashtags. Even lesser-known or anonymous handles like selahmeditate, skinnycomics, and update4321 proved that influence isn’t always tied to fame—it’s tied to consistent engagement.
Exhibit 2: Information centrality in VeryDarkMan and GTBank on Twitter network
What stood out was how much more powerful emotionally driven content was. Posts that expressed either anger or support gained far more traction than those that remained neutral. Online, it appears that emotion is currency—and the more you stir feelings, the further your message travels.
A Quiet Bank in a Loud Crowd
On the other side of this digital uproar was GTBank. But while the controversy trended, the bank remained relatively silent. It barely showed up in the conversations, allowing public opinion to be shaped almost entirely by others. In the online world, not showing up means losing control of your narrative. The result? The bank became the villain in a story it never got a chance to influence directly.
Who Really Drove the Conversation?
Further analysis revealed that the #FreeVDM side carried more weight. Influencers and online personalities who aligned with this sentiment had wider reach and stronger engagement. In fact, the support side of the conversation dominated both in volume and in how deeply it resonated.
Exhibit 3: Power centrality in VeryDarkMan and GTBank on Twitter network
Voices like teeniiola, general_somto, and the_villian_x—names unfamiliar to the mainstream—played significant roles in expanding the conversation. Meanwhile, even the so-called “Negative” voices had stronger impact than the “Neutral” ones. This suggests that taking a stand, regardless of direction, mattered more than staying silent or balanced. Interestingly, #EndGTBank also gained traction, though not as strongly as #FreeVDM. People seemed more invested in defending a relatable public figure than in confronting a corporate entity.
Lessons From the Digital Trenches
So what does this tell us? First, real influence today is decentralized. You don’t need a million followers to shift public opinion—you just need to be consistent, emotional, and relatable. Second, people online respond more to emotion than information. Those who expressed anger or support moved the conversation further than those who analyzed or questioned. Third, silence from powerful institutions is no longer a strategy. In the digital age, absence is a statement, and often, not a favourable one.
The controversy wasn’t just about a bank account. It was about how power, voice, and emotion collide on social media. It showed us how narratives are built not by institutions, but by ordinary people with smartphones and something to say. In the end, this episode is a reminder that digital influence doesn’t always come from the top. It comes from who shows up, who speaks up, and who connects, even if they don’t have a blue checkmark.