Mark Weinberg: 5 January 1974 to 28 January 2035. Photo: David Harrison

Weinberg, a key figure in the Right2Know Campaign, died on 28 January 2025

By Murray Hunter Obituary  – this post first appeared on GroundUp

There is no single person who could be described as the founder of the Right2Know Campaign, but Mark Weinberg (1974–2025) came the closest. It was far from his only work, but the near-decade he spent working to build a movement for the free flow of information left its mark on South Africa, on civic space, and certainly on me.

He was involved in left-wing student politics at Wits, worked as a media officer for the SA NGO Coalition in its heyday, and spent years as a community media activist prior to Right2Know. His grandparents Eli and Violet Weinberg and his mother Sheila Weinberg were all part of the liberation struggle and went through various bannings and detentions.

Mark was a mentor, comrade and friend. I was 24 when I joined the Right2Know Campaign, and he was younger than I am now. I’m struggling to come to terms with his death, and I am in no position to make sense of his life. But I can reflect on three things I learned from him, and share them.

The power of people

Mark’s belief in movement-building was a hallmark of his activism. This was both a moral conviction (that every voice should be heard) and a practical calculation (that only a mass movement of people can force lasting social change).

The Right2Know Campaign reflected this instinct. In 2010, as the first signs of the creeping security politics of the Zuma era had already started to appear, state law makers introduced the Protection of State Information Bill, a policy proposal that would expand the powers of a new government structure called the State Security Agency. The initial concerns tabled by traditional policy groups were simply shrugged off. In their place sprung the Right2Know, a broad, raucous and chaotic coalition of NGOs, social movements, veteran campaigners and first-time activists. Many people helped to make this happen, but Mark was at the centre.

For the uninitiated, the internal culture of the Right2Know was insane. The meetings were open to anyone committed to attending. The programmes and budgets could be shaped by all who chose to participate. Across competing ideologies, and the vast social boundaries of race, gender, language, geography, an organisation took shape. Its agenda grew too: from the first days, Mark was among those who saw the opportunity (and the need) to expand from a single-issue campaign (to stop the “Secrecy Bill”) to a social movement that put information rights at the centre of broader struggles for social justice. Or, to put it less loftily: Mark was committed to making the right to know a bread-and-butter issue.

Mark was a committed Marxist, but by the time I met him he was also a coalition-builder, capable of overlooking Big P political differences for the greater good. He only seemed to need two things to call you his comrade: a commitment to non-chauvinism (no tolerance for sexism, racism, xenophobic nationalism etc) and a commitment to this messy democratic culture, painful as it could be.

This went against the instincts of some policy wonks – well-meaning people who possibly struggled with the idea that a room full of people without the “right” expertise could really deliver the right kind of change, or at least felt that this slow form of organising was not as efficient as just sending a small group of carefully selected experts to lobby the right policymaker.

It could certainly be painful. Meetings ran long; conflicts erupted. But he had a maddening tolerance for it. I once railed to Mark about some difficult character in our structures – a comrade who turned every discussion into an argument and whose every thought became a manifesto-length email. (I genuinely can’t remember who it was – possibly because the list of suspects is so long.) “But he’s such an arsehole,” I complained. “Yes,” said Mark happily, “but he’s our arsehole.”

But when it worked, it worked. The Right2Know became, for a time, a formidable social force – securing high-profile wins like stopping the Secrecy Bill, but also injecting new energy and agency to grassroots social struggles playing out far away from national headlines. Just as importantly, at its best the Right2Know embodied the kind of collectivist organising that Mark cherished. I remember an observer at one of our elective conferences, who after sitting through two days of debates and discussions among dozens of activists, remarked that she couldn’t figure out who Right2Know’s leaders were. She meant it as a compliment – that leadership was distributed widely across our structures. Mark loved this.

Politics as an expression of love

Mark fiercely believed in the idea of activism as an act of love. His vision for a better world was driven by love – for his children, Liam, Luke and Sasha, and his partner Celeste, but really for everyone who would experience it.

I won’t lionise him: he got tired, he got angry, and he certainly felt despair. Not only at the injustice in the world around him, but at us as well – he carried so much of the excruciating weight of this messy organisation, and when conflict blossomed, Mark was often its target. Yet in the relentless slog of activism and the grind of organisational life, Mark somehow always stayed connected – even tenuously – to the love that drove his work.

He found joy in all sorts of places. He was always plotting some new political stunt or advocacy tool – often dreamed up over a cigarette on the front steps of Community House, where R2K was headquartered. For a while he hosted a talk show on Cape Town TV, combining his passion for community media with his love of comically uncomfortable couches.

Years before an influencer sparked the #DataMustFall campaign, Mark orchestrated marches against price gouging by Vodacom and MTN as a free speech issue. He talked seriously about launching a non-profit phone network across the Cape Flats.

But while his heart was at the barricades, his head was often buried in spreadsheets, funder reports, and a crushing load of emails. Very often he took solace in the idea that he was creating space for other people’s activism, and that working on his spreadsheets and funder reports was his contribution to the struggle. He even forced himself to find joy in these. (Anyone who has worked with Mark would have seen him hunched impossibly close to a laptop screen, his scraggly goatee practically touching the keyboard as he puzzled over some intricate budgeting formula, before suddenly bolting up in triumph when he cracked the problem.)

Nothing lasts forever – and that’s okay

Mark did not seem to fear change. When I once asked how Right2Know’s coalition was built, he seemed to describe it as one temporary expression of an ever-evolving progressive politics.

“We’ve always been here,” he said. “We just had a different name. And when this organisation is gone, we’ll be something else.”

I remember being horrified at this casual acknowledgment that organisations should die – much less ours. But Mark knew from the start that organisations, like people, come and go; causes flourish and fade. He knew to celebrate every victory, however small; he knew to weather every defeat, however stinging.

Right2Know did eventually fade somewhat, though it continues to operate. Its open structures, once a source of the organisation’s vitality, became a haven for people who had been cast out of every other struggle. The low-grade internal conflicts, once a source of its dynamism, became an all-consuming part of its culture. For some, the bruising experience may have been a cautionary tale about the risks of working too democratically, of letting too many people into the room or ceding too much control.

I know Mark drew many lessons from Right2Know’s failures, and no small amount of trauma – but I don’t believe he ever truly gave up on his belief in the power of building a new world together.

Mark is gone, but these lessons remain for any of us to carry them forward. It’s no easy task, but I believe he saw in each of us the same capacity for love, the same commitment to unity, and the same promise of a better world.

The post Three lessons in activism from Mark Weinberg appeared first on Vuka News.

“Of the nine cases referred to and cited, only two could be found to exist, albeit that the citation of one was incorrect,” wrote Judge Elsja-Marie Bezuidenhout about an application for leave to appeal. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

A law firm has been left with legal egg on its face – and the possibility of facing a Legal Practice Council (LPC) investigation – for allegedly using “Google” and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to source what were non-existent legal citations in court proceedings.

Pietermaritzburg-based Surendra Singh and Associates has also been ordered to pay the costs, from its own coffers, of two court hearings in September last year during which Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge Elsja-Marie Bezuidenhout interrogated its court documents and references to case law.

From submissions and her own research the judge concluded that “while the real source of the authorities quoted remain unknown” it was likely that the firm had relied on AI technology which was “irresponsible and downright unprofessional”.

Judge Bezuidenhout referred her ruling to the LPC and “urged that it obtain a recording of the entire proceedings including any comments made before I entered court as well as submissions made by the various representatives of the applicant”.

The law firm was representing controversial KwaZulu-Natal politician Godfrey Mvundla who was elected Mayor of Umvoti last year but was then suspended, a decision he claimed had been taken at an “unlawful meeting” of the council.

While Mvundla secured an interim interdict against the Umvoti Local Municipality, Judge Bezuidenhout ultimately discharged the interdict and rescinded the order.

Mvundla then applied for leave to appeal against her ruling. In this application his lawyers cited various “case authorities” to support their submissions that Judge Bezuidenhout had been wrong in law in some of her findings.

In her judgment refusing leave to appeal, which was handed down on 8 January, Judge Bezuidenhout said Mavundla’s counsel, Ms S Pillay (who was briefed by the law firm) had, in written submissions and argument, referred to several cases.

Judge Bezuidenhout said that initially one in particular had concerned her. She could find no such case in any of the official law reports. She asked two law researchers at the court to peruse the notice of appeal and to provide her with information of all the cited cases.

“Of the nine cases referred to and cited, only two could be found to exist, albeit that the citation of one was incorrect,” the judge said.

“I had serious concerns,” she said. She asked Pillay to provide her with copies of the cases. Pillay responded that she had been provided with the references by an “articled clerk” and that she had not had sight of the cases as she was “overbooked” and under a lot of pressure.

It then came to light that the notice of appeal had been drafted by the clerk.

Judge Bezuidenhout directed that the clerk come to court to explain herself.

“She duly appeared before me and explained that she had obtained the cases from law journals by doing research through her so-called Unisa portal. I asked her which law journals specifically and she could not respond. I asked her if she had by any chance used an artificial intelligence application such as ChatGPT but she denied having done so,” Judge Bezuidenhout said.

The judge said she then stood the matter down to enable Mavundla’s attorneys to go to the court library and get the cases.

When the matter was recalled, Suren Singh, the owner of the law firm, appeared. He said he could not get copies because the librarian wanted him to pay for copies “which he was not willing to do”.

The judge postponed the case again to give Singh and his staff a final opportunity to provide proof of the cases either from the South African Law Reports, All South African Law Reports or from SAFLII.

When Singh appeared before her again on 25 September, he indicated that as an “elderly practitioner” (which, the judge said, she took to possibly meaning technologically challenged), he had some difficulty in obtaining the cases, but had tried his best to do so using Google.

He complained that this clerk had been put under “uncalled for duress” by having to appear in court.

In her judgment, Judge Bezuidenhout described all the cases put up by the attorneys, noting that many did not exist at all, some had incorrect citations and those that did exist had absolutely no bearing on the case she was dealing with.

Singh, she said, had submitted that he should not pay the costs of the two hearings. He said he had a “small firm” and stood by his articled clerk.

“He did not want to admit any wrongdoing or take responsibility for how serious the actions of Ms Pillay and (the clerk) were,” the judge said.

She said Singh had suggested that the advocate for the respondent (the MEC for Department of Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs) was equally to blame because he too had not checked the citations.

The judge said it was “unclear if he was conceding” that ChatGPT and other AI programs had been used and, if they had, that this was in order.

“It is clear that a court should be able to assume and rely on counsel’s tacit representation that the authorities cited and relied upon do actually exist. Ms Pillay blindly relied on authorities provided to her (by the clerk) without checking the references,” Judge Bezuidenhout said.

She said she had “serious doubts” about the correctness and truthfulness of the clerk’s contention that she found the citations in law journals and this raised questions over her future legal career.

However, that was an issue to be decided by the LPC.

“An inordinate amount of legal and judicial resources were spent to find the authorities referred to in court,” she said, and presenting fictitious or non-existent cases did not constitute “giving an honest account of the law”.

She said a “brief experiment” of putting just two of the citations into ChatGPT had immediately illustrated the unreliability of it as a source of information and legal research.

Had Pillay checked the authorities before coming to court she would have denounced any reliance on the cases.

“Had whoever signed the supplementary notice of appeal and who was responsible for supervising [the clerk], done the most basic check, the issue would have been discovered even before the document was issued and served. As for [the clerk’s] research, the less said the better. But it unfortunately set in motion a very unfortunate chain of events.”

Judge Bezuidenhout said the applicant (Mavundla) should not be liable for these costs and that Surendra Singh and Associates must pay them from its own coffers.

She dismissed the application for leave to appeal and directed that her judgment be sent to the LPC for possible further action.

The post Lawyers in deep trouble for using AI to draft court papers appeared first on Vuka News.

“Every year, Khanya College looks to expand its network of writers to better cover working class communities especially. This year, Khanya College organised workshops in Johannesburg and Cape Town, these workshops were also aimed at building a movement for alternative…”

The post Forum Activist Journalist Run Workshops for Movement Building appeared first on Karibu – A Working Class News.

The post Forum Activist Journalist Run Workshops for Movement Building appeared first on Vuka News.

The Global Fund, one of the world’s largest health financiers, is sending its inspectors to South Africa in response to allegations of tender fraud linked to an R800-million contract it funded, exposed in a joint Daily Maverick and amaBhungane investigation. 

On Wednesday, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi made the announcement during his oral reply to questions posed in the National Assembly. He was answering a question by DA member Michéle Clarke. TimesLive and Newzroom Afrika first reported on the announcement.

Last month, Daily Maverick broke the news of “ghost company” Bulkeng being awarded the lion’s share of the contract to install oxygen plants at 55 hospitals across South Africa. A subsequent joint Daily Maverick and amaBhungane investigation found evidence of potential tender fraud in the documents Bulkeng submitted for the contract. 

“When this story broke, it disturbed all of us, including [President Cyril Ramaphosa], who wrote me a letter to present to him a report within 14 days,” Motsoaledi told the National Assembly. 

According to Motsoaledi, the project is funded by the Global Fund, a Geneva-based powerhouse coalition of governments and civil society organisations dedicated to fighting Aids, tuberculosis and malaria. It is “the world’s largest multilateral funder of global health grants in low- and middle-income countries”, according to its website.

“When the story broke, I was in Brazil and the Global Fund was there,” said Motsoaledi. 

“We met and they promised that they too would send their own inspectors to investigate this matter.”

The Global Fund donates R10-billion every three years to South Africa, added Motsoaledi. During Covid-19, it set its target on acquiring oxygen plants for South African hospitals when it heard that facilities had run out of oxygen. 

“That’s why they decided that part of the money must now be used to put oxygen plants in 55 hospitals so that, in future, the hospitals will no longer issue tenders for oxygen, and they will be self-sufficient,” said Motsoaledi. 

He explained that his department delegated procurement to the Independent Development Trust (IDT), a government infrastructure implementing agency reporting to the Department of Infrastructure Development under Minister Dean Macpherson.

“For this issue, because we are just a client department, it is [Macpherson] who is busy investigating this issue, but I talk to him every day about it, including today, to get to the bottom of this,” said Motsoaledi. 

“I can assure you that it is being investigated by Minister Macpherson, because IDT accounts to him. I am working with him, and the Global Fund is independently going to investigate this matter because this is their money. Then they will be able to bring out the findings.”

Daily Maverick revealed last month that the contract to install the highly technical pressure swing adsorption (PSA) oxygen-generating plants ballooned from R256-million to R836-million. 

Bulkeng managed to clinch the lion’s share of the contract — about R400-million — despite the company having no online presence, no certification from the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (Sahpra) and a very elusive director, Nkosinathi Ndlovu. 

A subsequent joint investigation by amaBhungane and Daily Maverick found more damning evidence that Bulkeng had seemingly used a Sahpra certificate belonging to a third-party company without that company’s knowledge, and a witness signature used in its offer letter to the IDT may have been forged. 

Read more: Alleged tender fraud, shock ‘death’ of contractor cloud R836m hospital oxygen plants project

Bulkeng also seemingly used a business address in Sandton to tender for the contract when it no longer occupied those offices. 

Days after Daily Maverick and amaBhungane finally met with Ndlovu, he was purported, via X (formerly Twitter), to have died; however, attempts to verify this at police stations, mortuaries and via the police were unsuccessful.

The post Global Fund deploys inspectors to probe R800m health contract after ‘ghost contractor’ exposé appeared first on amaBhungane.

The post Global Fund deploys inspectors to probe R800m health contract after ‘ghost contractor’ exposé appeared first on Vuka News.

The post AmaBhungane and Open Secrets challenges PetroSA’s diesel contracts secrecy appeared first on Open Secrets.

supplied by AmaBhungane by Caroline James and Qiqa Nkomo (Open Secrets)

For the past two years, PetroSA – South Africa’s national oil and gas company – has reaped enormous profits from the loadshedding crisis by buying diesel from unknown suppliers and selling it to Eskom at a profit.

But aside from PetroSA, we wondered, who really benefits when the lights go out?

This is what we have been trying to find out. For months we have submitted requests under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) to PetroSA, asking them to name the companies that received roughly R20-billion in contracts to supply them with diesel.

And for months, PetroSA has resolutely refused to even respond to our requests.

But PetroSA is not only refusing to disclose this information to us: National Treasury is also in the dark about PetroSA’s apparent deviations from standard procurement procedures.

In its recent annual report, PetroSA proudly proclaimed – in bold white letters on a midnight blue background – that “The spirit of Batho Pele, which means ‘People First’, underpins the PetroSA values”.

The question is: which people is PetroSA really putting first?

AmaBhungane’s recent investigations have also uncovered how Russia’s state-owned Gazprombank appeared to be cherry-picked for a tender to refurbish the Mossel Bay gas-to-liquids refinery; how a controversial businessman received massive contracts to build offshore gas infrastructure seemingly without having the financial resources to carry them out; and how those contracts were scuppered by an unpaid soccer player who successfully placed the company in liquidation.

These controversial contracts could cost PetroSA many billions more. But when we submitted PAIA requests, asking it to disclose records of how these contracts were awarded, we got the same stoney silence.

It’s a constitutional right

As a state-owned entity, created to play a strategic role in the oil and gas industry, PetroSA success or failure has repercussions for South Africa’s economic development. Yet despite its professed people-centered approach, PetroSA treats  information requests from civil society as an annoyance which can be ignored.

Our courts have recognised that the constitutionally-enshrined right of access to information is fundamental to the public’s ability to enforce other constitutionally protected rights and to facilitate transparency and accountability. They have also emphasised that civil society and the media should not have unnecessary obstacles placed in their way when performing this role. A civil society which is lively and engaged must act based on accurate information and so relies on requests for information under PAIA.

Timeously accessing the relevant contractual documents would afford the public the opportunity to assess the extent to which PetroSA, as a subsidiary of the Central Energy Fund which reports to Gwede Mantashe’s Department of Mineral Resources and Petroleum, is performing its responsibilities effectively and efficiently.

But despite this crucial public role, PetroSA seems to believe the government’s obligations to act transparently do not apply to it.

At Africa Oil Week 2023, Minister Gwede Mantashe said, “if you want to expose the business of PetrolSA, you’re basically killing it.”

But the truth is quite the opposite; increased transparency leads to a more competitive environment and therefore lower prices. Procurement contracts secured in secret, and thus without meaningful oversight, risk costly and damaging outcomes such as corruption, unnecessary debt and, of particular concern to the energy sector, severe capacity constraints and grid instability.

Information Regulator

PetroSA’s apparent zeal to cultivate an environment in which secrecy thrives, indicates that its professed ‘people first’ ethos is not in fact what it practises. The constitutional requirements of fairness, equity, transparency, competitiveness and cost-effectiveness are plainly eroded by the stifling of public participation in this manner.

Last week, amaBhungane and Open Secrets decided to approach the newly-established Information Regulator, who is tasked with adjudicating PAIA as well as POPIA (Protection of Personal Information Act) requests.

Together we have filed a detailed affidavit setting out how PetroSA has systematically ignored our official requests, and why, in our view, PetroSA’s obsessive secrecy cannot be allowed to stand.

While we, as civil society, will continue to push against this unsustainable approach, we hope that the PetroSA leadership will internally reflect and revert to the Batho Pele value that they profess to hold.

The post AmaBhungane and Open Secrets challenges PetroSA’s diesel contracts secrecy appeared first on Vuka News.

BY MACUA – The post Radio Macua first appeared on MACUA.

We are thrilled to let you know that we’ve launched a podcast show called Radio MACUA. This is a people’s centred limited podcast series produced by the Mining Affected Communities United in Action (MACUA) and Women Affected by Mining United in Action (WAMUA) in partnership with ActionAid International.

MACUA-WAMUA is part of a loose network of civil societies called Green Hydrogen Watch, which seeks to monitor and share experiences of Green Hydrogen developments in South Africa. In this limited series, Radio MACUA shares experiences of ordinary people, activists and scholars about the development of Green Hydrogen in South Africa.

The episodes explore a range of themes, from just energy transition, informed consent, water scarcity, land dispossessions, sustainable jobs and employment and global inequality, as the world grapples with ambitions of moving away from carbon intensive industries.

LISTEN TO THE FIRST EPISODE HERE

The post Radio Macua appeared first on Vuka News.

Op-Ed: Disinformation, Big Tech, and the 2024 Elections – Are Platforms Doing Enough?

BY Jean-Andre Deenik

The year 2024 will be remembered not just for its monumental electoral significance, with over 70 countries holding elections, but also for the enormous challenges presented by digital disinformation and misinformation. In an age where billions rely on online platforms for news and political discourse, companies like Google, Meta, and TikTok have found themselves at the forefront of democracy. With a rising tide of false information threatening to distort electoral outcomes, these platforms’ responses are under increasing scrutiny. But are their measures truly adequate to protect the democratic process, or do they fall short?

Election Plans: A Promising but Incomplete Step

Acknowledging their potential role in undermining electoral integrity, tech giants such as Google, Tiktok, and Meta have made their election plans public. ” However, a critical evaluation of these plans against international best practices, such as the European Commission’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems’ (IFES) guidelines, reveals significant gaps and oversights. Google, Meta, and TikTok’s plans might appear comprehensive in theory, but they fall short in key areas, particularly when it comes to post-election reviews, transparency, and proactive disinformation countermeasures.

Each of these platforms seems to lack a solid strategy for assessing the effectiveness of their methods. Neither Google, Meta, nor TikTok includes provisions for post-election reviews or mechanisms that allow for public feedback on the risk mitigation measures they implemented. This absence of introspection raises concerns about whether these companies are truly committed to evolving their approaches based on past elections or whether their efforts are performative, aiming more at appeasing critics than solving the actual problem.

On the positive side, Google, Meta, and TikTok have demonstrated a commendable initiative with regards to the South African 2024 Elections by collaborating with the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC). Additionally, Meta and TikTok have engaged with independent organizations such as Media Monitoring Africa and Code for Africa. Enhanced cooperation between advertising technology companies and civil society organizations aims to uphold free and fair elections.

The Threat of Disinformation

Disinformation is not just an abstract threat; it’s a concrete force capable of undermining citizens constitutional right to vote. The South African context is no different. Misinformation can warp perceptions, manipulate voter turnout, and distort the playing field, leaving certain political groups disadvantaged. This is especially alarming when we consider the role these platforms play in shaping public discourse. Their algorithms, moderation policies, and responses to electoral disinformation can significantly influence what millions of voters see and believe.

At the heart of this issue is the challenge posed by disinformation’s sheer scale and sophistication. Whether it’s AI-generated fake news, manipulated political ads, or outright hoaxes, the capacity of online platforms to swiftly detect, evaluate, and neutralize such threats is being put to the test. The election plans rolled out by Google, Meta, and TikTok represent their effort to address this digital maelstrom. However, it is crucial to assess the effectiveness of these plans in practice.

Cases of platforms like Meta (Facebook) failing to remove disinformation under the guise of free speech are rampant. This is especially dangerous when such content targets journalists, undermining the very essence of press freedom, which is crucial in the fight against disinformation. By neglecting to robustly address these issues, tech companies may be inadvertently contributing to the erosion of democratic norms.

Moreover, the over-reliance on top-down regulation to combat disinformation, without investing in bottom-up empowerment, creates a lopsided response. Governments and electoral commissions could collaborate with these platforms to promote reliable information, but the tech companies seem more focused on avoiding governmental backlash than empowering the electorate with trustworthy sources.

Evaluating Big Tech’s Election Plans

The platforms’ election plans, while a necessary step, fall short in key areas, particularly when benchmarked against international best practices like those outlined by the European Commission’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).

Google

Google’s election plan suffers from a lack of transparency, particularly when it comes to assessing the effectiveness of its mitigation efforts. The absence of post-election reviews and public feedback mechanisms raises concerns about accountability. How can we trust that these measures work if there is no evaluation?

Meta

Meta has a similar blind spot, failing to outline plans for post-election reviews and feedback. Moreover, despite its efforts to combat disinformation, its vague references to AI leave much to be desired. AI is one of the biggest players in the creation and detection of false content. If Meta truly intends to address the issue, it needs to make its AI strategy far clearer and more prominent.

TikTok

While TikTok has made waves as a new player in political discourse, its election plan also overlooks post-election reviews. Given the platform’s popularity among younger users—a key demographic in many elections—this lack of transparency is worrying. If TikTok wants to be taken seriously as a responsible platform, it must implement better systems for evaluating its efforts.

Lack of Understanding of South African Context and Global South at Large

One glaring issue with the election plans of Google, Meta, and TikTok is their vagueness regarding moderation practices, especially in Global South countries like South Africa. While these platforms may dedicate significant resources to moderating content in Western countries, the same level of investment is not evident in regions with diverse languages and cultures. In South Africa, uncertainty about the number of moderators fluent in local languages like Zulu, Xhosa, and Afrikaans is a major blind spot in these plans. Without local language moderators, harmful content may slip through the cracks, spreading unchecked and disproportionately affecting  communities who have been historically marginalised .

Furthermore, there is an evident lack of clarity regarding how much of these platforms’ resources are allocated to election-specific content moderation in these regions. While the election plans tout general initiatives for content oversight, they rarely disclose the specific measures for ensuring that local contexts are properly accounted for, underscoring a disconnection between their global narratives and local realities.

The Larger Picture: Disinformation and Democracy

The battle against disinformation cannot be fought by platforms alone. Governments, civil society, and international bodies all have a role to play in safeguarding electoral integrity. Research shows that sometimes regulatory approaches from the top fail to empower the public to resist disinformation. Internet companies like Meta and TikTok, which often hide behind the guise of “free speech,” have allowed disinformation to persist under the guise of protecting individual rights.

As more elections take place in 2024, the role of tech giants in safeguarding electoral integrity cannot be overstated. While Google, Meta, and TikTok’s election plans are a step in the right direction, they fall short in critical areas, especially in relation to local contexts in countries like South Africa. To truly mitigate the harm caused by disinformation, these platforms must prioritize transparency, post-election reflection, and a global commitment to content moderation that respects the linguistic and cultural diversity of their user bases. The integrity of democracy depends on it.

The post Disinformation, Big Tech, and the 2024 Elections appeared first on Vuka News.

During war, the internet is as critical as food or medicine.

Satellite over the African continent. Credit ESA/Mlabspace via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO.

Sudan is battling not only bullets but also the suffocating absence of communication infrastructure, an often-overlooked lifeline that is as critical as food or medicine. As the country grapples with a severe food-security crisis, grassroots initiatives, such as mutual aid groups and emergency kitchens, are the only reliable sources of survival for millions. Yet these fragile support networks depend on stable internet access—a vital tool now throttled by war. With the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) tightening its grip on communications in territories it controls and using smuggled Starlink devices to monitor and control access, international actors remain disturbingly silent on this critical obstruction.

The stakes are clear: Without the restoration of internet access, Sudan’s humanitarian and political futures stand to collapse. The very infrastructure that once mobilized resistance, toppled dictators, and enabled life-saving coordination is now at the mercy of warlords and foreign indifference.

Sudan’s food-security crisis is dire and worsening. As international aid becomes increasingly inaccessible due to the conflict, the most vulnerable communities are relying on mutual aid groups, support from the Sudanese diaspora, and central kitchens run by voluntary emergency rooms. These grassroots initiatives are not merely filling gaps left by international humanitarian efforts; in many cases, they are people’s only lifeline. “Sudanese are barely helping each other survive, with minimal international support or protection,” said William Carter, Sudan country director for the Norwegian Refugee Council. For many, this local network is the difference between a daily meal and days of starvation.

However, these life-saving efforts rely entirely on stable communication and internet access. Families sending remittances, mutual aid groups identifying communities in need, and emergency kitchens coordinating supplies all need the internet to function. Without it, this already fragile support system—stretched to its breaking point—will collapse.

In RSF-controlled areas, communication relies solely on smuggled Starlink devices, which operate unofficially and at a steep cost. Access is scarce, dangerous, and heavily monitored, as many of these devices are controlled by RSF soldiers. It is outrageous that, despite the RSF’s ongoing obstruction of aid, international actors have remained silent on their failure to maintain communication infrastructure. This lack of accountability further exacerbates the humanitarian crisis and undermines the vital networks that Sudanese communities depend on for survival.

However, the stakes extend far beyond immediate humanitarian needs—the internet is crucial to Sudan’s political future. The ongoing war is reshaping the country’s political landscape and civic space. Long before the outbreak of conflict on April 15, the internet was a vital piece of infrastructure for civic engagement. It was the battleground where Sudan’s grassroots movements organized, confronted divisive narratives, and led the opposition that toppled a 30-year dictatorship in 2019. The same digital networks sustained resistance to the 2021 coup and spurred the remarkable local emergency responses we see today. Their activism was pivotal. Yet the ongoing war has dramatically disrupted this dynamic, threatening the very infrastructure that once empowered a generation of activists and transformed Sudan’s civic landscape.

The conflict-driven displacement has forced countless activists, politicians, and civil society leaders to flee major cities targeted by the RSF, with many unable to return due to the worsening security situation. In the relatively safer states of northern and eastern Sudan, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) imposes severe restrictions, with increasing reports of activists and politicians being targeted. As a result, political and civil society gatherings have largely shifted outside Sudan, leaving the country’s internal civic space severely compromised. Resistance committees—once the backbone of civilian resistance—have been devastated by this displacement. Their ability to convene and organize within Sudan has been further crippled by communication blackouts. 

Despite repeated promises by the US special envoy to prioritize Sudanese citizen voices in the negotiation process, the design of these processes remains vague. Moreover, the demands placed on the warring factions have failed to restore civilian agency. On the contrary, the mediation framework has further militarized civilian actors, eroding citizen agency as many Sudanese are now left waiting for the outcome of US elections. A critical and immediate demand—restoring and maintaining internet access—cannot wait until a ceasefire. It is a fundamental right that must be secured without delay.

Meanwhile, the RSF continues to exploit humanitarian platforms, offering only lip service to mediators and international actors. A straightforward and enforceable demand—that they ensure a functional communication system in all areas under their control—would be a vital step, both easy to monitor and essential for the survival of grassroots efforts.

The post Beyond humanitarian aid appeared first on Vuka News.

Minister of Trade and Industry Parks Tau is having to deal with acrimony between certain MPs and the National Lotteries Commission. Photo from government website

On 18 September Members of Parliament in the Trade and Industry Portfolio Committee, some of whom have serious question marks over their integrity, launched an attack on the recently appointed board and commissioner of the National Lotteries Commission (NLC).
The attack on the NLC comes ahead of the process to appoint the next licence for running the national lottery, a highly lucrative contract.
One of the issues raised by MPs is why the NLC surrendered R300-million to the National Treasury.
But the DA member of the committee says questions raised by his colleagues on the committee “paint a distorted picture of the state of play” at the NLC.

The National Lotteries Commission (NLC) says that despite two legal opinions expressing reservations it had to surrender R300-million from its reserve fund to the National Treasury.

Failure to do so would have resulted in both the board and the NLC commissioner being guilty of financial misconduct, NLC Board Chairperson Reverend Barney Pityana explained in a letter to Parliament dated 3 October.

The payment to the Treasury was raised by MPs during a fiery and often ill-tempered meeting when Pityana, NLC Commissioner Jodi Scholtz and other senior executives when they appeared before the trade and industry parliamentary portfolio committee on 18 September.

The NLC had reserves of R1.4-billion at the time of the payment but was only ordered to pay R300-million to the Treasury, Pityana, told Parliament.

The NLC reserve fund ensures that it has sufficient funds in its kitty if cash flow problems arise.

MPs said that the NLC had not answered questions in Parliament sufficiently and instructed Pityana to supply written answers. Pityana has done so.

Parks Tau is the recently appointed Minister of Trade and Industry. Mzwandile Masina is the recently appointed chair of the parliamentary portfolio committee.

In a letter to Tau, Masina had asked the minister to disband the NLC’s board and dismiss Scholtz, as had several other MPs during the 18 September committee meeting.

The committee has summoned the Treasury to appear before it on 16 October to explain the R300-million payment.

GroundUp reported last week about a coordinated campaign – both within Parliament and outside of it – pushing for the dismissal of Scholtz, who was appointed early in 2023, and the dissolution of the NLC’s board led by Pityana.

The NLC has been under sustained attack these past few weeks, with allegations of corruption, nepotism, conflicts of interest, and discrimination against staff, so far without evidence being offered by MPs and others making these claims.

Many of the MPs’ questions during the 18 September committee meeting appeared to be based on recent media reports and allegations contained in letters to Minister of Trade and Industry Parks Tau.

Several different people and organisations have coalesced around the assault on the NLC, which had been engulfed by corruption for a decade.

The attack on the NLC in Parliament was led by Masina, former cabinet minister Malusi Gigaba and the EFF’s Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, with MPs from other parties on the committee joining in.

The attack is taking place against a backdrop of the process to appoint a new lottery licence operator. There appears to be a fightback by former and current executives and some board members, who have either resigned or are facing disciplinary hearings for their role in the massive looting of the lottery that took place until 2022. In 2022, the new board, headed by Pityana, was appointed.

Properties and other assets worth tens of millions of rands belonging to former NLC executives and board members, paid for with misappropriated lottery funds, have been frozen by courts.

The new board and administration embarked on a clean-up of the organisation and has taken measures to hold those involved in the looting to account.

The Democratic Alliance appeared to be a lone voice in Parliament defending the NLC against these attacks.

In a statement this week, DA MP Toby Chance wrote: “Widely reported attacks by members of the portfolio committee on trade, industry and competition on the National Lotteries Commission (NLC) board chair and executive management at a committee meeting that took place on 18th September paint a distorted picture of the state of play at the Commission.

“The DA believes the current board and management must be given the benefit of the doubt in their herculean task of cleaning out the NLC’s Augean stables,” Chance said.

The DA will monitor matters closely and hold all parties – Minister Tau, the board and executive management – to account to restore sound governance and management controls over this institution, vital to the survival of so many organisations and worthy causes, he said.

“Bullied”

EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi raised the issue of the R300-million payment to the Treasury, arguing that because the Commission did not receive government funding, it should not have acceded to a Treasury instruction to pay over money from its reserve fund. “You say that you were bullied by the Treasury, but you will not restore order if you do not stand up to politicians.”

During the committee meeting, Pityana told MPs: “We argued with Treasury and got their concurrence that the money was kept in reserve for a legitimate purpose. In the end, the Treasury ruled that we were obliged in terms of the Public Finance Management Act and Treasury directives to surrender the R300-million, failing which both the board as the audit authority, and the audit officer, who is the Commissioner, would have been guilty of financial misconduct,” he said.

“The audit officer is obliged to surrender and may argue the case once the money has been paid,” Pityana said, adding that the NLC was contesting the payment and had asked for the money to be refunded.

In his written response to Parliament on 3 October, Pityana elaborated further on the R300-million payment, saying that the NLC was concerned about the Treasury’s reasoning for the payment. The NLC had sought two legal opinions. Both “confirmed the reservations” of the board about the payment.

Lottery licence

Asked by Masina whether he had “any concerns surrounding the fairness and transparency” in the current lottery licence process, Tau responded: “Except for the letter received from the Portfolio Committee and another one from United Civil Society in Action (USCA), I am not aware of concerns surrounding the fairness and transparency in the current lottery licence process.”

The UCSA letter was from its head, Tebogo Sethathu, who is linked to some members of the NLC’s former board and executive. His now-defunct organisation, the Gospel Association of South Africa, has received several lottery grants totalling R9.7-million. These grants are under investigation by the Special Investigating Unit.

In response to questions by Masina about conflicts of interest and the transparency in the adjudication of the award of the next lottery operator, Tau said he had been advised that “everyone involved in the licensing application process operated in terms of an approved Conflict of Interest Framework”.

Tau further wrote: “This required board members, the commissioner, executives of the NLC involved in the process and members of the evaluation committee, as well as all advisors, to declare their interest and confirm that there was no conflict of interest in their involvement.

“All these participants are also required to declare whether they have any relationship with the applicants, the companies involved either as shareholders, service providers to the applicants as well as all the executives and key individuals related to the applicants. These declarations are subjected to an independent review by attorneys to determine whether any possible conflict of interest exists.”

The post Minister responds to attack on the Lottery appeared first on Vuka News.

The Deputy-Ombud dismissed a complaint by Juwairiya Kaldine and the Patriotic Alliance against the Mail & Guardian. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

There’s an open piece of publicly-owned land in Eldorado Park that has apparently been used for all sorts of unlawful activity, from serious crimes against the person, to the dumping of trash. In December 2023, Juwairiya Kaldine, a ward councillor in the City of Johannesburg, wrote to the Eldorado Park Taxi Association indicating that she had no objection to the association developing a taxi rank on the land.

Kaldine, who is a member of the Patriotic Alliance (PA), is also the chairperson of the City’s section 79 committee on development planning. Section 79 committees are also known as portfolio committees, and according to the City’s website, “monitor the delivery and outputs of the executive”. Being chairperson of this particular committee is something that appears in her profile across various social media accounts.

In her letter to the taxi association, Kaldine is said to have written this:

“If the City of Joburg, through its future development plans, needs to develop during [the taxi association’s] occupation, through my office, it’s important that the City of Joburg communicate and afford three months’ notice where the owners of the land won’t assist the association to move.”

In an article published in April this year, titled “PA councillor ‘fraudulently’ transferred land to taxis”, the Mail & Guardian reported that Kaldine “ha[d] been accused of fraud by a civil society group after signing approval to give land owned by the Gauteng government to a taxi rank development without following the law”. Lodged with the speaker of the city council by a group known as the Community Accountability Gatekeepers, the complaint called for action against Kaldine.

A read of the article as a whole makes it clear that Kaldine did not transfer any land to anyone, and – whether rightly or wrongly – was understood by the taxi association as giving them permission to occupy, build on, and use the land as a taxi rank. According to the article, an official or officials within the Gauteng human settlements department also shared that view. For the record, the land in question is not City property; it is owned by the provincial government.

In a complaint lodged in April with the Press Ombud, Kaldine and the PA alleged three violations of the Press Code: section 1, which requires the media to “take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; section 3, which – as the ruling notes – deals “with the obligation to take care with matters involving dignity and reputation”; and section 10, which – among others – requires headlines not to “mislead the public and … [to] give a reasonable reflection of the contents of the report … in question”.

Because the complaint “[did] not make a specific argument about dignity or reputation”, the allegation that section 3 was breached was not taken any further. In so far as the section 10 complaint is concerned, the ruling concludes that “[t]he headline reasonably reflects the substance of the report”, because it “clearly presents the accusation of fraud as a claim.” That may well be true of the online title (“PA councillor accused of ‘fraudulent’ Joburg land transfer”), but not necessarily the case with the print headline.

That leaves the section 1 claim, which was the nub of the complaint. In his ruling, the Deputy Ombud noted that “the newspaper did not publish the claim unchecked”, put the allegations to the City and the provincial government, conducted a deeds search to determine who owns the land, relied on internal notes of the relevant provincial department, provided evidence of the taxi association’s building on the land, and gave all parties an opportunity to respond.

In his view, “the newspaper discharged their responsibilities in dealing with the matter”.

“In a matter of public interest, as this undoubtedly is, journalists must be able to shine a light on allegations that are formally brought to the attention of relevant authorities. Only if they are completely spurious would one recommend caution. I do not believe the claim is as ludicrous as the complainants say.”

The ruling leaves one somewhat unsatisfied, in large part because the complainants’ central concern – the allegation of fraud – was not tested in the article. There is simply nothing even to suggest that Kaldine acted fraudulently, something the article does not say. And no land was given away. At most, based on what’s reported, Kaldine may have acted inappropriately in suggesting that the land could be used, without making it clear to the taxi association that she had no authority to authorise its use.

The post Complaint against Mail & Guardian by the Patriotic Alliance dismissed appeared first on Vuka News.

Opinion pieces must take fair account of all material facts, Ombud asserts. Illustration: Lisa Nelson

Complaint lodged by GroundUp partially upheld

By Ombud Watcher first published on GroundUp

Awkward. That’s the fashionable term when faced, as this commentator is with writing a column on the outcome of a complaint to the Press Ombud lodged by the very publication that is to publish the column in question.

And awkward it is to analyse a recent ruling that concerns a complaint lodged by GroundUp, and its editor, Nathan Geffen, in respect of an article published by TimesLIVE, and written by its editor, Makhudu Sefara.

But the purpose of this column is “to bring Press Ombud rulings to a wider audience and to give more public scrutiny to the rulings.” In order to achieve this purpose, this commentator cannot shy away from rulings that concern GroundUp, whether as complainant or respondent, and regardless of outcome. So with that out of the way, let’s dig in. Buckle up; it’s going to be a bumpy ride!

On 6 February 2024, Sefara published an article titled Ray Joseph and GroundUp’s unethical pursuits and the journalism of suppositions. Part chronological record, part opinion, and part hearsay, the article goes back five years to an allegation that Joseph (a freelance journalist who writes for GroundUp from time to time) had verbally abused a junior reporter at Sunday World who had contacted him for comment on a piece she was writing about the National Lotteries Commission (NLC).

At that time, Joseph had been investigating and writing on the NLC for about three years, focused on allegations of widespread corruption and incompetence.

The article, later published by Sunday World and titled “Lotteries body at odds with journo”, reported that the NLC had lodged a complaint with the South African National Editors’ Forum accusing Joseph “of writing scathing stories about them after it stopped funding an NGO of which he was once a director.”

Three months later, Geffen published an article in GroundUp titled “Does Sunday World want to do journalism or be a defender of corruption?”, which took issue with what he perceived to be a malicious attack on Joseph. In his impugned article, Sefara states that “[t]he story was said to have been written by Nathan Geffen”, identifies Joseph as its true author, and characterises it as “a story on Sunday World receiving adverts [from the NLC] in return for puff pieces as news when … [he] was editor”.

Sefara’s account is presented as background to what appears to be the focus of his story: that GroundUp’s “anger at being ‘banned’, such as it is, on TimesLIVE, has driven their unethical pursuit at reinstatement.”

The alleged “banning” was a decision taken by Sefara, as editor of TimesLIVE, not to carry any GroundUp stories following the latter’s alleged failure properly to explain what had led to one story – published in December 2020 – having to be withdrawn.

Sefara’s account about what happened at that time, which is set out below, was the subject of Geffen’s and GroundUp’s complaint to the Ombud:

“In December of 2020, I was asked to unpublish a story that was supplied by GroundUp which was false. I asked, why did they send a false court story? Was their reporter not in court? Naturally, I wanted to know what went wrong so this was not repeated.

The response was flippant: ‘The reporter is on holiday, we will revert in January’ is the summary. I believed this to be unreasonable. I had not asked for the reporter’s leave to be cancelled. All they had to do was to ask the reporter to take five minutes to explain, so they could explain to us. But no, TimesLIVE must just unpublish the falsity and wait until after the December 2020 holidays.”

GroundUp’s complaint alleged breaches of three clauses of the Press Code: clause 1.1, which requires the media to “take care to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly”; clause 1.3, which imposes an obligation on the media to “present only what may reasonably be true as fact”, with opinions, allegations, rumours and/or suppositions having to “be presented clearly as such”; and clause 7.2, the so-called safe harbour provision, which effectively recognises the common law defence (to defamation) of protected comment.

Two issues appear to have been at the core of the complaint: first, the characterisation of GroundUp’s response to TimesLIVE as being “flippant”; and second, the summary of the response: “The reporter is on holiday, we will revert in January”. The narrowness of the complaint is, however, not at all clear, given the breadth of issues addressed in the ruling. For example, the ruling suggests that one basis for the complaint was the allegation that the withdrawn GroundUp story was false. (This basis was not upheld.)

On the use of the word “flippant”, the Ombud held that “[a] reasonable reader reading the particular paragraph would not, in … [his] view, be confused that it is Sefara’s view or opinion that GroundUp was ‘flippant’.” So far, so good. But then, in addressing the alleged factual basis of the opinion, the ruling goes somewhat awry, with the Ombud finding that the “summary” of the GroundUp response Sefara received from one of his new editors was “substantially true”.

But Sefara’s account of what happened bears little resemblance to what actually appears to have happened. In his initial email to TimesLIVE on 22 December 2020, which is quoted in the ruling, Geffen stated:

“Huge apologies. We made a mess of this story. There is no way to correct it. It simply has to be retracted.”

“There is no court order. There was a notice of motion but no evidence that the court granted the order. I’m afraid we were misled by one of the sources, but the fault is very much ours.”

“Sorry, in the new year, when we return to work, we’ll look into why our systems broke down and this story got through.”

Sefara says that he asked his “news editors to request GroundUp for an immediate explanation”, and was told by one of them that “the explanation could only come after the holidays because the reporter who got the story wrong was already away on holiday.” (When a follow-up to GroundUp was eventually made, on 18 January 2021, Geffen provided an explanation the very same day. As the Ombud notes, Sefara makes no mention of this fact.)

To take advantage of the safe harbour provided by clause 7.2, an opinion must have “taken fair account of all material facts that are either true or reasonably true”. But none of the detail of Geffen’s email was even mentioned in the impugned piece. Instead, the reader was simply left with the impression that GroundUp did no more than kick for touch, giving a “trust me bro” response as a basis for pulling the piece. Sefara’s opinion on the response being “flippant” was thus based on a mischaracterisation of the facts.

The ruling upheld GroundUp’s complaint in respect of one clause of the Press Code. The Ombud finds that the piece as a whole, which he correctly characterises as opinion, does not take fair account of all material facts, as required by clause 7.2, and accordingly, cannot rely on that safe harbour clause:

“The fact that GroundUp did revert – albeit after a follow-up from TimesLive – with a detailed explanation, is a very material fact in the context of the opinion piece. A reasonable reader is left with the impression that, to this day, there has been no explanation from GroundUp. GroundUp is avoiding providing an explanation but is instead trying to circumvent Sefara’s authority as editor through other means to ‘lift the ban’, so to speak.”

“In the context of Sefara’s opinion piece, it matters a very great deal whether GroundUp offered an explanation or not. It informs readers to agree or disagree with the views expressed by Sefara.”

“Stating to readers that no explanation was provided”, the Ombud holds, “is a factual assertion within the opinion piece which stands to be adjudged as factual reporting regulated by clause 1. … The publication made an incorrect factual assertion. It is in breach of clause 1.1. of the Press Code.” And to remedy this “Tier 2 (serious) breach”, the Ombud orders TimesLIVE to update the article online, “briefly set out GroundUp’s explanation”, and record that the update was made pursuant to an Ombud ruling.

Interestingly, the ombud didn’t ask for an apology in respect of the established breach of clause 7.2. In previous decisions, such breaches have often been met with demands for apologies. That said, Ombud decisions have been inconsistent on this issue.

With this in mind, I would have expected the ombud to explain why an apology was not ordered, if one had indeed been requested. And if an apology was not requested, the ombud should have said so.

TimeLIVE has asked for leave to appeal the ruling. This article will be updated with the outcome.

The Ombud Watcher columns are written by a lawyer with expertise on the Press Code. GroundUp’s editor takes responsibility for its content. (Incidentally, an apology was not sought by the GroundUp editor when the complaint was lodged.)

The post Press Ombudsman orders TimesLIVE to give correct account of facts appeared first on Vuka News.

The post CW board responds to allegations in recent Sunday World article appeared first on Corruption Watch.

The post CW board responds to allegations in recent Sunday World article appeared first on Vuka News.

The post #InTheSpotlight | Beyond the hype, what might AI actually mean for healthcare in SA? appeared first on Spotlight.

BY Jesse Copelyn – IN SUMMARY:

• AI in Healthcare: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being tested and used in healthcare to assist with diagnostics, research, and even therapy, with varying levels of success. AI can perform tasks traditionally done by doctors, such as detecting tumors in x-rays and diagnosing illnesses.
• AI in Diagnostics: AI has shown potential in diagnosing diseases. For example, Google tested an AI model that provided more accurate diagnoses than doctors using the same patient information.
• AI as a Therapist: AI-powered Chatbots are being used for tasks like answering medical questions, booking appointments, and even providing therapy via apps. However, it’s unclear if AI therapy is truly effective due to limited studies.
• AI in Medical Research: AI is helping with medical research, such as Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold, which predicts protein structures. This has helped researchers working on vaccines like malaria.
• Challenges of AI in Healthcare: AI still faces challenges, such as generating incorrect information (“hallucinations”). The impact of AI in low-resource areas (like rural clinics) is also unclear.
• AI in TB Screening in South Africa: AI is making a big impact in screening for tuberculosis (TB) in South Africa, where mobile x-ray units use AI to detect abnormal lung images. AI-based tools called CAD (computer-aided detection) can identify TB and, or better than, human radiologists.
• AI Performance in TB Detection: In a 2021 study, the AI tool qXR captured 90% of TB cases at a specific threshold score, outperforming human radiologists. The tool analyzes x-ray images and assigns a score indicating the likelihood of TB.
• AI in Silicosis Screening: AI is also being used to screen for silicosis, a lung disease affecting miners. The National Department of Health is adopting CAD systems for both TB and silicosis to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes.
• Regulatory Challenges: Regulations for AI in medical devices are outdated. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) hasn’t yet registered AI-based devices, and there’s concern that AI systems’ evolving nature complicates regulatory oversight.
• Data and AI Training: AI is sometimes trained on outdated data. For example, AI tools might miss subclinical TB (cases without symptoms) because they were trained on data from symptomatic patients.
• International Support: International agencies like Global Fund and USAID are funding AI-assisted x-ray machines for TB screening in South Africa, deployed in mobile clinics and hotspot areas.
• AI and Public Health Systems: South Africa’s health data systems are fragmented, which could hinder AI deployment. Building internal AI expertise and ensuring interoperability in digital systems will be critical for success in using AI.
• Vision for the Future: AI holds promise for improving South Africa’s healthcare, especially in tackling diseases like TB and silicosis. However, the transition will be challenging without proper infrastructure and technical expertise.

The post #InTheSpotlight | Beyond the hype, what might AI actually mean for healthcare in SA? appeared first on Vuka News.

Gaza-based Al Jazeera journalist Youmna El Sayed in the Bo-Kaap, Cape Town, on Sunday, says she had to flee her home base after being displaced six times by the Israeli army. Photo: Matthew Hirsch.

By Matthew Hirsch – IN SUMMARY:

• Youmna El Sayed’s Displacement: Gaza-based Al Jazeera journalist, Youmna El Sayed, fled to Egypt in December due to bombings. Her daughter, Joury, missed home and her kitten left behind.
• Evacuation by IDF: Her family was displaced six times. In October, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) gave them five minutes to evacuate Gaza City before levelling their building.
• El Sayed’s Decision to Leave: She left Gaza to save her children, acknowledging her privilege in being able to evacuate while many others could not.
• Targeting Journalists: El Sayed accuses the IDF of deliberately targeting journalists, noting that journalism offices were bombed early in the war and journalists were forced to evacuate despite wearing press gear.
• Media Criticism: She criticizes the media for focusing on Israeli hostages while ignoring Palestinian civilian deaths and detentions. Thousands of Palestinians, including civilians, have been detained and tortured by Israel since October.
• International Journalists Barred: She claims international journalists were denied access to expose atrocities in Gaza.
• Plea to Pro-Israelis: El Sayed encourages pro-Israelis to visit Gaza and imagine their children in Palestinians’ shoes to change their perspective.
• Death Toll: Approximately 42,000 people have died since 7 October – over 40,000 Palestinians and nearly 1,500 Israelis. 116 journalists have been killed. The Lancet warns the actual death toll in Gaza may be much higher.
• Recognition: El Sayed received the Pimentel Fonseca Civil Journalism Award in April.

The post Journalist fled Gaza to save her family appeared first on Vuka News.

According to her, this is part of an ongoing process that started over 5 years ago. “The connectivity with fibre project started back in 2014 and we have done a lot to connect the country. But, we want to do more by adding 100,000 more kilometres around the country. And, that process is happening even now”, she explained.

Ms Kerema made this known while speaking at TikTok‘s launch of its inaugural Safety Advisory Council for Sub-Saharan Africa in Nairobi. The council is the first-of-its-kind safety consultative group by any social media platform in the region.

Read also: Kenyan government to engage TikTok on introducing direct monetisation for content creators soon

According to her, the project named the “Last Mile County Connectivity Project” builds on President William Ruto’s Bottom-up Economic Transformation Agenda (BETA). And, it aims to install reliable, stable, affordable, and high-speed internet connectivity across the country.

The government’s Kenya Kwanza’s Flagship initiative under the Jitume Programme targets to empower over 1 million youths in the country to access reasonable and sustainable income and to provide infrastructure and over 23,000 digital devices to centres among other activities.

Notably, the Kenyan government adopted a complex joint venture plan for the project noting that the technologies platform plays a crucial role in accelerating the country’s development in the digital era. This includes a mandate for the private sector to build 48,000 kilometres and the state to build 52,000 kilometres, as opposed to having a company that is 48 per cent privately owned and 52 per cent state-owned do it alone.

George Njuguna, Safaricom’s ICT director, told reporters last year that Safaricom is supporting the project and that of the 48,000 kilometres of lines, “we have already completed 13,000 kilometres.”

Broadband in Kenya: Much done. Much yet to come

Speaking with correspondents in April, Government Spokesperson, Dr Isaac Mwaura reported that the project had laid a total of 13,712 kilometres of fibre cable and increased the number of Public-Wi-Fi hot spots from 40 in 2022 to 1,222 in 2023. Cumulatively, it has also established a total of 1,262 Wi-Fi spots.

He cited the connection of 247 digital hubs with the internet, the training of 800 youths under the Presidential Digital Talent Program, the deployment of 12,087 virtual desktop infrastructure devices, and 136 Jitume sites, as some of the government’s achievements.

He noted that the government has, to date, distributed at least 13,488 devices to 176 digital lab institutions. He also added that the project has connected at least 119,462 youths to online jobs besides onboarding a total of 74 government services.

In a private chat with Technext, Ms Kerema added that another significant part of the project is to enhance the government service delivery, through digitization and automation of all critical government processes, as well as make 80 per cent of government services available online.

Beyond providing access to internet connections for citizens, she further highlighted the skills acquisition component of the project. According to the secretary, one of the main functions of the hub is to help young people acquire digital skills:

“We have put up over 100 digital hubs, in addition to the over 300 initial ones. And, we are planning to build more centres where young people can get digital skills. Once they go through this curriculum, they can go out and get jobs”, she explained.

In all, Ms Kerema pointed out that the target is to empower half the population through direct-to-home connectivity for 3000 households, and public access for the majority of others:

“Almost the entire population will have access eventually. They can access the internet from their homes if they have a mobile phone through our telco partners. Otherwise, they can visit any of our hubs across the country. If none is close to them, they can visit a government facility. They have wifi connections. If there isn’t any around, they can use wifi in the marketplaces across the country”, she concluded.

The post Broadband: Kenya plans to roll out 100,000km fibre, connect 3,000 homes in 2 years first appeared on Technext.

The post Broadband: Kenya plans to roll out 100,000km fibre, connect 3,000 homes in 2 years appeared first on Vuka News.

In this post, we’ll explore how to backtest strategies across various asset classes, including indices, stocks, oil, and gold. According to this website, each market has unique characteristics, and backtesting requires careful consideration to ensure the results are meaningful and applicable.

Basics of Backtesting

Before diving into specifics for each asset class, let’s outline the fundamental steps in backtesting:

Data Collection: Acquire historical data for the asset you’re interested in. This could include price data, volume, and other relevant indicators.

Strategy Development: Define your trading rules. This could be based on technical indicators, fundamental analysis, or a combination of both.

Simulation: Apply your strategy to the historical data. This step simulates how your strategy would have performed in the past.

Analysis: Evaluate the results using key performance metrics like return, risk, drawdown, and Sharpe ratio.

Optimization: Adjust your strategy parameters to improve performance, but beware of overfitting.

Now, let’s look at specific strategies for indices, stocks, oil, and gold.

Backtesting Strategies for Indices

Indices like the S&P 500 or NASDAQ represent a broad market segment, making them less volatile than individual stocks but still offering significant opportunities.

Mean Reversion

This strategy assumes that prices will revert to their mean over time. For indices, this could involve buying when the index is significantly below its moving average and selling when it’s above.

Trend Following

Identify the overall direction of the index and trade in that direction. A simple moving average crossover system (e.g., a 50-day moving average crossing above a 200-day moving average) is a common trend-following approach.

Seasonality

Some indices exhibit seasonal patterns. For example, the “Sell in May and Go Away” strategy suggests that stock indices underperform in the summer months. Backtesting this over several years can reveal if the pattern holds true.

Key Considerations:

Market Regimes: Indices can behave differently during bull and bear markets. Backtesting should consider these different conditions.

Leverage: Indices are often traded with leverage, which amplifies both gains and losses. Incorporate this into your backtesting model.

Backtesting Strategies for Stocks

Stocks are influenced by a wide range of factors, from company fundamentals to broader market conditions. This complexity offers diverse strategy possibilities.

Earnings Announcements

Many traders develop strategies around earnings announcements, expecting significant price movements. Backtesting could involve buying before the earnings release and selling shortly after.

Momentum

This strategy involves buying stocks that have shown strong performance over a specific period and selling those that have underperformed. The idea is that winners tend to keep winning.

Dividend Capture

This strategy seeks to capture dividend payments by buying a stock before its ex-dividend date and selling it afterward. Backtesting can determine the potential return after accounting for taxes and transaction costs.

Key Considerations:

Corporate Actions: Stock splits, dividends, and buybacks can impact stock prices. Ensure your data accounts for these events.

Liquidity: Stocks with low liquidity can skew backtesting results. It’s essential to consider the impact of liquidity when executing trades.

Backtesting Strategies for Oil

Oil is a highly volatile commodity, influenced by geopolitical events, supply and demand dynamics, and macroeconomic factors. Backtesting strategies for oil require careful consideration of these variables.

Supply and Demand Indicators

Strategies could be based on indicators such as inventory reports from the EIA (Energy Information Administration). For example, a strategy might involve buying oil when inventories drop more than expected.

Geopolitical Events

Oil prices are sensitive to geopolitical events. Backtesting a strategy that trades based on historical events (e.g., Middle East tensions) can provide insights into potential risks and rewards.

Technical Analysis

Given oil’s volatility, technical indicators like Bollinger Bands or Relative Strength Index (RSI) can be useful. A strategy might involve buying when the price hits the lower Bollinger Band and selling at the upper band.

Key Considerations:

Data Frequency: Oil trading often requires intraday data for accurate backtesting due to its high volatility.

Macro Factors: Incorporate macroeconomic indicators, such as interest rates and global economic growth, into your strategy testing.

Backtesting Strategies for Gold

Gold is often viewed as a safe-haven asset, attracting investors during times of uncertainty. Its price is influenced by factors like inflation, currency fluctuations, and interest rates.

Inflation Hedging

Backtest a strategy that buys gold when inflation indicators rise. Historically, gold has been a hedge against inflation, and this strategy could capitalize on that relationship.

Currency Correlations

Gold often moves inversely with the US dollar. A strategy might involve buying gold when the dollar weakens and selling when it strengthens.

Interest Rates

Gold tends to perform well in low-interest-rate environments. A strategy could involve monitoring central bank announcements and trading based on interest rate expectations.

Key Considerations:

Safe-Haven Flows: Gold often spikes during financial crises. Backtesting should consider how gold reacts during periods of extreme market stress.

Carry Costs: Holding gold involves costs (e.g., storage, insurance). These should be factored into the backtesting model.

Conclusion

Backtesting is a powerful tool that allows traders to validate their strategies across different asset classes before risking real money. Whether trading indices, stocks, oil, or gold, it’s essential to understand the unique characteristics of each market and incorporate them into your backtesting framework.

Remember, while backtesting can provide valuable insights, it’s not a crystal ball. Past performance is not always indicative of future results. Use backtesting as one of many tools in your trading toolbox, continually refining your approach as market conditions evolve.

The post Backtesting Strategies for Indices, Stocks, Oil, and Gold first appeared on Technext.

The post Backtesting Strategies for Indices, Stocks, Oil, and Gold appeared first on Vuka News.

Visit Immediate Elevation Platform

At first look, Immediate Elevation is an efficient trading platform that can help traders of all levels of expertise in conducting profitable trading transactions. Nonetheless, there are many factors of the trading system that we need to examine closely before deciding on whether the platform is worth using or not. This includes the working principle of the trading platform, how you can open an account on Immediate Elevation, the prime features of the trading platform, the pros and cons of the system, and so much more.

In this Immediate Elevation review, we will be discussing all these aspects of the system in detail, so read till the end. 

Immediate Elevation Facts Table

Trading platform nameImmediate ElevationTrading platform typeWeb-based trading platformVerification YesRegistration processOn the website of the trading platformFee for registrationNoneMinimum deposit€250Profit withdrawal24 hoursPayment systemBank transfer, debit/credit card payment, PayPal, Skrill, Neteller, and so onAssets supportedCryptocurrencies, forex, stocks, and commoditiesProsIntuitive websiteUnparalleled securityProvides reliable assistanceSuitable for new traders24/7 customer support teamQuick registration processEasy withdrawalActive all timeConsDoes not have a mobile appOfficial websiteClick Here

What Is Immediate Elevation?

Immediate Elevation is an automated trading platform that was created to promote a streamlined trading experience. The trading platform is made for people who want to make use of modern technologies such as AI to make profitable trading decisions. The system is a safe one that has features that make your trading experience a profitable and seamless one along with minimizing the risk of loss when trading. 

The trading platform is made for both new and experienced traders which means if you are a person who is new to trading or a person who has years of experience in the trading system, both can use the system efficiently without any troubles. Immediate Elevation has a simple working principle and has two modes of mechanism; they are automated and manual mode. 

Click Here To Start Trading With Immediate Elevation

How Does Immediate Elevation Work?

From what we have discussed so far, you must have received a short overview of Immediate Elevation. Let’s now get into the working principle of the system and how it assists people in making profitable trading decisions.

As mentioned before, Immediate Elevation is a trading platform that has been developed using modern technologies like AI which helps with the trading process. The technologies incorporated into the trading platform study the crypto trading market to provide you with real-time analysis of everything happening and predict future values of cryptocurrencies that are interested in trading which helps to decide the best entry and exit points. Along with this, the trading platform also offers its customers chartings and tools that make trading a simple process. 

The Immediate Elevation trading platform is made for both new and experienced traders and has two modes of trading which a customer can choose from as per their experience level and trading preference. The two modes are automated and manual mode. In automated trading, customers have to log into their trading account which is the only thing that they have to do as the trading platform does all the trading work for the customers. In manual mode, the trading platform allows you to trade with it by making use of the trading assistance that the system provides. 

Is Immediate Elevation A Scam?

No Immediate Elevation is not a scam

Although it has only been a short time since Immediate Elevation was launched, there have been many speculations about the authenticity of the system. Therefore, to verify this, we have studied the prime features of the platform extensively, examined real customer reviews, and analyzed expert assessments. 

All these aspects can help in determining the efficacy and authenticity of a system and after analyzing all three, we have found that Immediate Elevation is not a scam but a legit trading system. However, since Immediate Elevation is a popular trading platform on the internet, there could be replica websites of the system that are scams. These scam websites are unauthentic, unreliable, and not efficient at all. 

How To Register On Immediate Elevation?

Step 1 – Create an account: First, you will have to create an account on the official website of Immediate Elevation. When you open the website, you will see a registration form for account creation. You have to fill in your name, contact number, and email ID in this form to create an account. After completing the registration process on the website, you will be asked to confirm your email ID before logging into the account. 

Step 2 – Funding your capital: The second step is depositing capital into your Immediate Elevation trading account. As you might know, capital is needed for trading and the minimum amount that you will have to invest for trading with Immediate Elevation is $250. Besides the capital needed for trading, you are not required to spend any money to use the system. On the website of Immediate Elevation, there are multiple payment options available which you can choose for depositing capital. 

Step 3 – Start trading: The final step of getting started with Immediate Elevation is to initiate trading. When you start trading with the system, you will have to choose a mode of function which is either automated or manual mode. Then you may customize the assistance that you need from the trading system depending on your trading needs and experience level. 

Register On Immediate Elevation Platform

Prime Features Of Immediate Elevation

In this section, let us briefly discuss the prime features of Immediate Elevation.

Secure trading experience

A prime feature of Immediate Elevation is that it offers a secure trading experience to its users. The trading platform was developed by integrating robust security features that assure a safe trading experience. Along with this, the trading platform also protects your privacy and any data that you have shared with it. So all of these show that a customer of Immediate Elevation can trade with the system without having to worry about any safety breaches. 

Easy and profitable trading

Immediate Elevation is a trading platform that supports easy and profitable trading. The trading platform was developed using technologies that offer you real-time insights into the crypto trading market and provide tools, resources, and chartings that can help in make profitable trading decisions quickly. The assistance that the trading platform offers also supports seamless trading. 

Customization of assistance

One of the most unique factors of Immediate Elevation is that the system allows its customers to customize the level of assistance that they need from the system. Therefore, a newbie trader can opt for fully automated assistance and an experienced one can adjust the level of assistance that they need based on their trading skills. 

Cryptocurrencies You Can Trade On Immediate Elevation (List)

You can trade numerous cryptocurrencies on Immediate Elevation along with commodities, forex, and stocks. The trading platform supports the trading of all minor and major cryptocurrencies in the market and some of them include the following:

Avalanche (AVAX)

Dogecoin (DOGE)

Bitcoin (BTC)

Ethereum (ETH)

Uniswap (UNI)

Polkadot (DOT)

Shiba Inu (SHIB)

Ripple (XRP)

Solana (SOL)

Binance Coin (BNB)

Cardano (ADA)

Chainlink (LINK)

Countries Where Immediate Elevation Is Legal (List)

Immediate Elevation has been garnering popularity all around the globe ever since it was launched among crypto enthusiasts. A few of the countries where the trading system is well-known are listed below:

Russia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Mexico

Malaysia

Thailand

United Kingdom

Canada

Australia

Sweden

Singapore

Poland

Netherlands

Switzerland

Taiwan

Brazil

Chile

Finland

Hong Kong

Vietnam

Japan

Denmark

Germany

Spain

Belgium 

South Africa

This isn’t the entire list of countries where Immediate Elevation is supported for use. You can check out the rest of the list to know if it is available for use in your country when you register an account on the official website of the trading system. 

Immediate Elevation User Reviews And Testimonials

Looking at the majority of customer reviews that were shared on various online discussion forums like Reddit and Quora it is quite evident that the trading platform is an efficient one. This is because the majority of the customers who have used the system have said that it has helped them greatly in making profits easily.

Immediate Elevation has achieved an impressive average rating of 4.6 out of 5, highlighting its strong presence in the crypto platform space.

Both new and experienced traders who have traded with the platform were able to earn profits with the assistance of the system. In these customer reviews, it is mentioned that the trading platform has features that make trading an easy task which includes portfolio management and allowing simultaneous trading. 

Try Immediate Elevation For Free

Immediate Elevation Pros And Cons

Before we conclude this review of Immediate Elevation, let’s take a glance at the pros and cons of the trading system.

Pros

Immediate Elevation is a trading platform that can be used by both new and skilled crypto traders

The trading platform was developed by integrating modern technologies into it

Immediate Elevation has robust security measures and protects your privacy when you are using it

The trading platform manages your trading activities and keeps an account of your transactions

The trading platform has a user-friendly interface and an easy-to-navigate website

The minimum capital that you have to invest for trading with the platform is only $250

Immediate Elevation is a free-of-cost platform that does not charge you any hidden fee

The system is compatible for use in smartphones, laptops, desktops, and tablets

You are allowed to trade multiple cryptocurrencies at the same time

Cons

At the moment, the Immediate Elevation trading platform does not have a mobile application

Immediate Elevation Final Thoughts

In this Immediate Elevation review, we have explored every important aspect of the trading system which we will now summarize before we wrap up.

Immediate Elevation is an automated trading platform that was made using the latest technologies to help people make profitable trading decisions. The trading platform offers its customers real-time assistance and resources that can aid in finding profitable trading opportunities. Immediate Elevation makes trading an easy and simple process by working efficiently for both new and experienced traders.

The trading platform has two modes of working and they are automated and manual mode. Customers can choose a mode of working as per their requirements and experience level. The traders of Immediate Elevation are allowed to customize the level of assistance they require.

General feedback from the majority of its customers suggests that it is an efficient system that people can rely on. So if you are interested in the system, you can start to trade with it by registering an account on its website and depositing a capital of $250. 

Start Trading With Immediate Elevation For Free

Immediate Elevation – FAQs

Am I allowed to withdraw profits at any time I want?

Yes, you are allowed to withdraw profits at any time you want. 

What’s the minimum capital requirement?

The minimum capital requirement is $250. 

Do I have to provide any documents for creating an account on Immediate Elevation?

No, you don’t have to provide any documents to create an account on Immediate Elevation.

Can teenagers use Immediate Elevation?

No, people below the age of 18 are not eligible for using Immediate Elevation.

Does Immediate Elevation allow the trading of multiple cryptocurrencies at the same time?

One of the main features of Immediate Elevation is that it allows the trading of multiple cryptocurrencies at the same time. 

Visit Immediate Elevation Platform

The post Immediate Elevation Review 2024: Scam or Legit Trading Platform? – User Feedback! first appeared on Technext.

The post Immediate Elevation Review 2024: Scam or Legit Trading Platform? – User Feedback! appeared first on Vuka News.

The council was unveiled at a #SaferTogether summit held by the company in Nairobi, Kenya. At the event, content creators from the region, government representatives, strategic partners and media representatives hosted a night of games, drinks, conversations and networking. It also featured TikTok’s announcement of an expansion of its #SaferTogether community education campaign.

Speaking at the launch, Fortune Mgwili-Sibanda, Director of Government Relations & Public Policy for Sub-Saharan Africa noted that the announcement of the new council emphasises TikTok’s commitment to creating a safer space for all using an inclusive and collaborative approach.

“The community empowerment campaign highlights the importance of safety being a shared responsibility. With the additional layer that the Safety Advisory Council presents, we believe that safety can be achieved, collectively”, he added.

Members of the Sub-Saharan Africa Safety Advisory Council include:

Prof Guy Berger, Rhodes University (South Africa)

Dennis Coffie, Content creator (Ghana)

Peter Cunliffe-Jones, University of Westminster Visiting Research Fellow (UK)

Aisha Dabo, Co-Founder and coordinator of AfricTivistes (Senegal)

Lillian Kariuki, Founder and Executive Director of Watoto Watch Network (Kenya)

Dr Akinola Olojo, Expert on preventing and countering violent extremism (Nigeria)

Prof Medhane Tadesse, Policy academic on peace and security issues (Ethiopia)

Berhan Taye, Independent Researcher (Ethiopia)

Functions of the TikTok Safety Advisory Council

Since 2020, TikTok has established nine regional Safety Advisory Councils alongside the U.S. Content Advisory Council, each composed of experts in areas such as youth safety, free expression, and hate speech. These councils play a vital role in shaping TikTok’s policies, product features, and safety processes, ensuring the platform remains responsive to evolving challenges.

The newly launched Sub-Saharan Africa Safety Advisory Council will further this effort by bringing together local experts who will collaborate with TikTok to develop forward-looking policies and address regional safety concerns. Their input will help TikTok manage current issues and anticipate future challenges, reinforcing the platform’s commitment to user safety and fostering a positive online environment.

In a chat with me, Fortune explained that the council membership is for at least a year, but the members will achieve more impact if they serve for longer periods. “We are hoping that they will serve for a long time, and we will keep updating the council to reflect more diversity and replace those who can’t continue. But this sort of thing works better if they are with us for the long haul,“ he added.

He told me that the engagement will not be paid but the council members will be rewarded for their time: “Obviously, we will compensate them for their time, but that is the most important thing right now. The most important thing is the contribution they are bringing to Tiktok.”

The council will meet with TikTok’s global leadership team once every quarter to suggest guidelines and discuss its observations. Beyond this, there will also be numerous informal engagements. According to Fortune, TikTok’s topmost desire is innovative ideas and candour:

“We don’t want panellists who are always going to tell us that TikTok is cool. We want people who will challenge us and tell us areas where we can improve. We want ideas that are not only relevant for today. We want stakeholders who will help us to start thinking about future challenges”, he explained.

At the core of the council’s tasks is helping TikTok to fine-tune its Community Guidelines by providing suggestions that fit the African cultural nuances and social realities. These recommendations if globally applicable will help users across the globe better engage with the platform.

“Alongside the other 9 councils, it doesn’t matter if a suggestion comes from a regional council from South America or Africa, as long as this applies to global challenges around online safety, they will be incorporated across the board”, he explained.

This is not the only forum that TikTok has created to solicit input from stakeholders. Recall that 4 months ago, TikTok launched its Global Youth Council, a group of 15 dynamic teenagers aged between 15 and 18 representing diverse communities and countries, including the US, UK, Brazil, Indonesia, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, and Morocco that will provide insights from the teenagers’ perspective.

“These are some of the many layers of engagement where we are taking input from stakeholders to improve how we moderate our platform”, Fortune concluded.

Stakeholders’ engagement in Kenya

By partnering with key stakeholders, including policymakers, members of the academia, NGOs, and community leaders, TikTok aims to foster a collaborative approach to ensuring a secure and positive platform environment.

Earlier this year, TikTok announced the official partnership with the African Union Commission’s Women, Gender, and Youth Directorate (WGYD) at the inaugural TikTok Safer Internet Summit in Ghana. This partnership will help deliver digital literacy programmes across Africa.

In the same vein, the launch of its Safety Advisory Council for Sub-Sahara Africa in Nairobi was attended by representatives of the Kenyan government. These include Ms Mary Kerema, Secretary of ICT, e-Government and Digital Economy at the Kenyan Ministry of Information and Raymond Ochieng, the Secretary of Youth Development, State Department for Youth Affairs at the Kenyan Ministry of Youth Affairs, Creative Economy and Sports.

Speaking at the event, Ms Mary Kerema lauded TikTok’s approach to community safety and content regulation. According to her, TikTok has done more than just issue guidelines and enforce disciplinary measures when users violate them. They also engage stakeholders to ensure that the community rules are fair and understood:

“First, I applaud them for hosting this summit and launching the council. Second, I find it very unique that TikTok uses partners to educate down to the level of secondary schools. They are also engaging parents to help manage how their kids interact with the platform. No other social media platform has done this”, she explains.

The post TikTok launches Safety Advisory Council for Sub-Saharan Africa in Nairobi first appeared on Technext.

The post TikTok launches Safety Advisory Council for Sub-Saharan Africa in Nairobi appeared first on Vuka News.

The post Bolt for bolt: we can do better! first appeared on Technext.

The post Bolt for bolt: we can do better! appeared first on Vuka News.

Responding to the query, Country Manager, Yahaya Mohammed said the company is aware of the fake ride request incident between some individuals in Nigeria and South Africa. He said the team has successfully taken measures to resolve the issue of fake ride requests affecting its driver-partners, particularly those operating in Nigeria and South Africa. He said the integrity and safety of the platform, both for driver-partners and riders, is of utmost priority.

Thus, the company has investigated the matter and riders who have indulged in those mischievous activities have been blocked on the app.

“Following a thorough investigation and the implementation of enhanced security measures, we have addressed this issue swiftly by restricting inter-country ride requests. Additionally, those responsible for this malicious activity have been identified and held accountable by blocking them from the Bolt app,” the country manager said.

He also thanked the driver-partners for their patience and professionalism during this time and said the company remained dedicated to supporting them in every possible way.

“We understand the impact this situation has had on our driver-partners in Nigeria and South Africa. We are committed to ensuring a safe, reliable, and secure experience for all members of our community,” he said.

How Bolt became a battleground for South Africans and Nigerians

Nigerians and South Africans were at each other’s throats once again. Following the quelling of the battle for the soul of Chidimma Adetshina, the warriors appeared to have found a new battleground for their war of attrition and this new battleground appears to be nowhere else than on the apps of leading ride-hailing companies, Bolt and Uber.

According to information available online, the trend of ordering rides from a different country and sending fake ride orders started in South Africa this morning. The intent is to target Nigerian e-hailing drivers, sending them on false errands to particular pick-up locations only to cancel the rides when the driver gets there.

In some of the screenshots seen online, the South Africans who ordered the fake rides can be seen mocking their Nigerian victims. They made references to the recent saga of the Nigerian-born South African, Chidimma Adetshina who pulled out of the Miss Universe, South African beauty pageant after xenophobic attacks.

The situation is made worse by Nigeria’s current cost of living crisis made worse by a biting fuel scarcity. This means the drivers are losing a lot on such false ride orders.

But Nigerians decided to respond and indeed took it even a notch higher. Not just content with wasting the South African drivers’ effort and fuel, the Nigerian fake riders have decided to waste their time by having actual conversations with them, with real albeit unrealistic locations for the riders.

Imagine telling a driver in Cape Town that you are in the Illorin post office and the driver thinking that is a real place in Cape Town.

One fake Nigerian rider even said he was looking to transport chopped human body parts to which the South African driver agreed to help him transport the dismembered bodies of two people for an improved fee.

At one point, the driver was even advising the Nigerian rider on the best way to package the butchered bodies in a black bag, stating that it is easier that way.

See also: War of rides: Nigerians and South Africans launch fake orders on Bolt and Uber app

The post Bolt blocks inter-country requests over Nigeria vs South Africa row, blocks mischief makers first appeared on Technext.

The post Bolt blocks inter-country requests over Nigeria vs South Africa row, blocks mischief makers appeared first on Vuka News.