The bad and the ugly of digital age

What you need to know:

  • We are now at a point where digital activity is driving significant offline action.
  • The World Economic Forum in 2014 highlighted “digital wildfires”, a term referring to the rapid spread of massive digital misinformation in online media, as one of the main threats to our society.
  • We now live in a “world on wi-fire” in which hyper-connectivity could amplify humankind’s most primeval emotions on a large scale.
  • Our deeply entrenched technological fabric also happens to serve as an ideal setting for accelerating the probability of digital wildfires.

The sensational manner in which Chase Bank collapsed is still fresh in many Kenyans’ minds. A unique element about this was the role of digital media.

Specifically, Twitter (and the infamous KOT) was apparently so influential in this crisis that it gained a mention from Central Bank Governor Patrick Njoroge in his first press conference regarding Chase Bank. We are now at a point where digital activity is driving significant offline action. This is our new reality.

The World Economic Forum in 2014 highlighted “digital wildfires”, a term referring to the rapid spread of massive digital misinformation in online media, as one of the main threats to our society. We now live in a “world on wi-fire” in which hyper-connectivity could amplify humankind’s most primeval emotions on a large scale.

As Kenyans, we are proud of how far we have come in ICT adoption and consumption of digital media. However, our achievement seems to be a double-edged sword. Our deeply entrenched technological fabric also happens to serve as an ideal setting for accelerating the probability of digital wildfires. Individual reactions, especially those rooted in fear and panic, can quickly multiply and get out of hand. The Chase Bank case was a manifestation of this phenomenon.

There are a few things we need to understand about the nature of digital wildfires. First is the motivation. The spreading of rumours online is an act of goal-oriented communication often motivated by a desire to find out whether or not they are true.

Twitter research conducted in the aftermath of the Chase Bank fiasco shows that a large number of the people tweeting were simply trying to find out if what they had heard from their friends was true.

Secondly, the situation may make digital networks more susceptible to wildfires. In the case of Chase Bank, the ambiguity brought about by the failure of both the lender and the Central Bank to communicate effectively during the crisis only served to fuel the fire.

There was an information vacuum. The conventional media, which was the second port of call for the distressed public, was also caught up in time-consuming verification processes. This is where social media trumps all. The public does not hold itself to such lofty standards. It can easily brush aside the responsibility of verification and get away with it.

As with the effects of most wildfires, the damage was done before any reassurance or correction could be done. Tweets from the CBK and mass media did not get nearly as much reach or response as those from regular accounts claiming to have information on the collapse.

REACTED TO RUMOURS

Thirdly, the larger context matters. What happened before this point? In the case of Chase Bank, two other banks had gone under in the past nine months. This was a major factor in how Kenyans reacted to the rumours of a probable Chase Bank collapse.

Looking at data from Twitter, it was apparent that the wounds from the Imperial Bank collapse were still fresh for many Kenyans.

The lack of trust in the banking sector was apparent in the way depositors rushed to make withdrawals after they heard the rumours.

Lastly, understanding who the key propagators of information are and trying to win them over to your side is an important aspect in dealing with digital wildfires.

The role of the masses in the Chase Bank crisis was perhaps one of the most important factors. Having digitally-attuned citizens means that a large number of people are getting their news from digital platforms.

However, this news does not necessarily come from traditional authorities like conventional media or government. On social mediums, authoritative sources are now jostling for position with friends and relatives.

In the Chase Bank case, this was evident in the reach and responses that tweets from regular accounts got in comparison to the media and the government. On social media, almost anyone can come off as an authority, especially in the circles in which they are already influential. Those within a social group are less likely to believe information that comes from outside that group.

Alertness must become the new cornerstone of digital communication for brands and organisations. Listen just as much, or even more, than you talk. However, digital platforms are a noisy place, so ensure that you have the right tools and team to separate the signal from the noise and put out your next spark before it becomes a wildfire.

Mr Madung is the co-founder of data science firm, Odipo Dev. [email protected].