Search results

Purpose – This chapter demonstrates the power that Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft (or the “GAFAM”) exercise over platforms within society, highlights the alt-right’s use of GAFAM sites and services as a platform for hate, and examines GAFAM’s establishment and use of hate content moderation apparatuses to de-platform alt-right users and delete hate content. Approach – Drawing upon a political economy of communications approach, this chapter demonstrates GAFAM’s power in society. It also undertakes a reading of GAFAM “terms of service agreements” and “community guidelines” documents to identify GAFAM hate content moderation apparatuses. Findings – GAFAM are among the most powerful platforms in the world, and their content moderation apparatuses are empowered by the US government’s cyber-libertarian approach to Internet law and regulation. GAFAM are defining hate speech, deciding what’s to be done about it, and censoring it. Value – This chapter probes GAFAM’s hate content moderation apparatuses for Internet platforms, and shows how GAFAM enable and constrain the alt-right’s hate speech on their platforms. It also reflexively assesses the politics of empowering GAFAM to de-platform the alt-right.

This paper aims to assess the role of archives in documenting African National Congress Women’s League (ANCWL) records on the liberation struggle of South Africa from 1960 to 1990 with a view to recommending the best method of collection and preservation of archival materials.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews with purposively selected employees of the African National Congress (ANC), the Nelson Mandela Foundation centre of memory, the national heritage and cultural studies at the University of Fort Hare, the National Archives of South Africa and provincial archives of South Africa. Interview data were augmented through content analysis of ANC documents such as policies, websites and annual reports.

The study found a gap of documentation of the role of archives in documenting ANCWL’s contribution to the liberation of South Africa. The National Archives of South Africa did not play a meaningful role to document the history of African National Women’s League in the liberation struggle of South Africa. There was also a lack of coordination of community archives that keep ANCWL archives materials. There is a need to embark on oral history and bilateral relations with overseas archival institutions to repatriate ANCWL archives to South Africa. Furthermore, contemporary history records about the ANCWL records need to be listed, arranged and described and made available to the public.

The research is limited to the role played by the National Archives of South Africa and community archives such as the ANC archives, the Mayibuye Centre archives based at the University of Western Cape in documenting ANC and ANCWL and contemporary issues that impact the development of ANCWL records created from 1960 to 1990.

The findings are expected to be instrumental to document the history of women’s struggle for democracy in South Africa. The ANCWL collection may contribute to social cohesion to enable society to understand the role of ANCWL during the struggle for democracy in South Africa. While the literature on women’s archives is limited, there is still much research that needs to be conducted. Increasing the body of research will strengthen understanding of the role of the National Archives of South Africa and community archives on documenting women’s liberation struggle in South Africa.

The document of women’s history would enrich the archival collection. This means that records with historical, cultural and social significance will be permanently preserved by archives.

The research appears to be the first of its kind to assess the documentation on the role of archives on documenting ANCWL. The archival heritage of women’s struggle for democracy forms part of the national archival heritage of South Africa as they bridge the gap of undocumented history of South Africa.

When questioning the relationship between media, development, and democracy, especially in the ill-defined “Global South,” it’s important to go beyond the commonly held meta-narratives that frame these concepts as common sense. In a quest to investigate alternative characterizations of these terms, this chapter uses Ghanaian political economist Lord Mawuko-Yevugah’s (2014) theoretical framework of “developmentality” to explain how development has been used as an ideological instrument to promote the Western liberal media model in the “Global South.” Using a case study of Malawi, which is heavily dependent on foreign aid from the same countries who have defined and promoted this liberal media model aboard, raises important questions about a media model that is characterized by high objectivity and political neutrality on one side, but subjects countries to high levels of competition and free market principles on the other. By outlining the temporal sequence of events that have unfolded since the arrival of missionary media in the 1800s, the presence of international donors and the rise in non-governmental organizations, this chapter reveals how certain ideologies and practices have been legitimized through development to preserve the unequal balance of power between the “Global South” and their former colonial powers.