Description
In fragile and conflict-affected settings, information control can both escalate violence and suppress dissent. Governance mechanisms for digital information thus function not only as operational tools but also as procedural safeguards for public order and rights protection. This paper asks: How do observable features of platform governance, policy clarity in local languages, enforcement transparency, public archiving, and accessible appeals mediate the shift from routine content moderation to exceptional interventions during crises in African conflict contexts?
To address this question, the article draws on comparative case studies using process tracing – Nigeria (North-East; 2019–2023 elections and insurgency), Ethiopia (Tigray and Amhara; 2020–2024 conflict and shutdowns), and Zimbabwe (Harare and Bulawayo; 2019 protests and 2023 elections) – to show that locally tailored platform-governance features can mitigate arbitrariness, bias, and politicisation during crises. While global frameworks such as the Santa Clara Principles and Meta’s Oversight Board promote transparency and accountability, they often assume institutional conditions, such as regulatory coherence and state capacity, that are absent in many fragile contexts. Recognising this gap, the article refines securitisation theory within Critical International Relations (CIR) by foregrounding infrastructural acts—such as design choices and content moderation workflows, alongside traditional speech acts. It specifies three measurable features of platform governance relevant to these settings: (1) clarity in platform policies as applied across different languages, (2) enforcement transparency at the language-specific level, and (3) the accessibility and timeliness of appeals mechanisms. Through this framework, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of how digital governance can be adapted to fragile contexts, offering both conceptual refinement and policy-relevant insights for enhancing platform accountability in the Global South.
