Thursday, 12th October 2023

Dear <<First Name>>

I've enjoyed the privilege of engaging with Dr. Frans Cronje for several years, during which time he has consistently been a rational beacon in South Africa's emotional political landscape. Cronje had a knack of offering sobering insights. Even though they angered those in powerful circles, both in Pretoria and corporate boardrooms.

During an interview recorded at his IRR office in February 2018, the then CEO of SA’s leading thinktank surprised me—and our audience—by expressing optimism about the country’s future. The arch-bear on SA reasoned that we’d hit rock bottom and that the end of the Zuma era signaled better days ahead.

Cronje never promised a quick rebound. But in our interview yesterday, the now head of the Social Research Foundation shared compelling data from a recent poll, reinforcing his assessment from five years ago. Back in 2018, there was no chance the ruinous ANC would lose its majority in KwaZulu-Natal or its control of the National Parliament. Now, the former is certain, and the latter a strong possibility.

But it’s the second part of yesterday's interview that demands your urgent attention. Cronje, who has spent considerable time in Israel and has walked inside the West Bank and along the Gaza fence, regards the attacks by Hamas as barbaric. He believes the world is now divided into those who condone evil and those who do not.

Cronje is appalled by the ANC's public endorsement of Hamas, whose members celebrated heinous acts such as beheading dozens of infants. The ruling party’s stance reflects poorly on what is purportedly a Christian nation. It's a far cry from the high moral ground SA once occupied. Mandela must be turning in his grave.

Roll on 2024.

Sterkte.

Alec

Concerns expressed in Tuesday’s newsletter about unintended consequences of the GEPF’s support of ANC social engineering are shared by the pensioners themselves. Here’s a letter to the editor of BizNews received yesterday from Zirk Gous from the Association for the Monitoring and Advocacy of Government Pensions (AMAGP):

The Government Employees Pension Fund revealed on 10 Oct 2023 a transformation policy ‘marking a watershed move for economic transformation in South Africa’.

Economic transformation is a lofty ideal – but it is a political ideal: not pension related

This policy is a brazen violation of the founding Government Employees Pension Law (GEPL): The object of the Fund shall be to provide the pensions and certain other related benefits as determined in this Law to members and pensioners and their beneficiaries.

No matter how the policy is worded, it can never be supporting above object. It is a basic constitutional principle that any state official, no matter how well intended, can only do what the law allows him to do. It is called the principle of legality described by the Constitutional Court as ‘the bedrock of our constitutional dispensation’. And the GEPL does not allow the chairperson of the GEPF Board of Trustees or the Board itself or GEPF senior management to pursue political goals with pension money.

This renders the GEPF transformation Policy unlawful.

It must be stated clearly: each and every member of the GEPF Board of Trustees and senior members of management of the GEPF will be held personally liable for any loss to the GEPF based on this policy.

The approval of the policy in violation of the GEPL also raises the question of whether the members of the GEPF Board of Trustees indeed passes the ‘fit and proper’-test prescribed in legislation for all trustees of pension funds.

Musk’s vision for free speech on X tested by Israel-Hamas war misinformation

The social media platform’s SA-born owner is being criticised for not managing a wave of false or misleading content that’s alarmed the EU and major advertisers

By Hannah Murphy in San Francisco and Daniel Thomas in London for The Financial Times

Misinformation around the Israel-Palestinian conflict sweeping across Elon Musk’s X has prompted fresh scrutiny of the social media platform from European regulators and new concern from global advertisers. 

As the crisis took hold, researchers raced to debunk false or misleading information on the platform formerly known as Twitter. The posts, which have racked up millions of views and shares, include graphic imagery taken out of context, doctored photos and even videos of violent fighting that originated from a video game. 

In a letter addressed to Musk on Tuesday, EU commissioner Thierry Breton wrote that the European Commission had “indications” that the platform was “being used to disseminate illegal content and disinformation” in the wake of Hamas’s attacks against Israel.

Invoking the EU’s Digital Services Act, Breton warned Musk that the company was required to have “proportionate and effective mitigation measures” in place to tackle disinformation. “We have, from qualified sources, reports about potentially illegal content circulating on your service despite flags from relevant authorities,” he added.

In response, Musk wrote on X: “Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports. Please list the violations you allude to on X, so that that [sic] the public can see them. Merci beaucoup.” 

Breton replied: “You are well aware of your users’ — and authorities’— reports on fake content and glorification of violence. Up to you to demonstrate that you walk the talk.”

Musk, a self-declared “free speech absolutist”, has dramatically overhauled the platform he bought last year, shedding much of its workforce, including trust and safety staff, and loosening its moderation policies. 

Misinformation, propaganda and deliberate disinformation campaigns on social media are endemic in a conflict, particularly in the earliest days. There was, for example, a surge in misinformation at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022 across platforms including X, TikTok and Meta.

But experts argue that Musk’s decision to strip back moderation resources, together with certain product changes, have allowed misinformation to proliferate at scale on X in new ways.

“The differences in the platform architecture that Elon Musk has put in place are making it so much harder to assess the credibility of a source,” said Emerson Brooking, senior fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council.

In particular, Brooking pointed to Musk’s decision to open up access to the blue check marks that once denoted verified celebrities, journalists or experts to anyone who pays an $8-a-month subscription. These have made it easier to masquerade as a media outlet or an objective party, he said, while the algorithm now promotes the content of those paying users over that of others. 

Brooking and others also note the consequences of a “creator” programme introduced in July that gives cash to X’s top users through an advertising revenue share. 

“It encourages posting as often as possible, and the claims as salacious as possible because the users are trying to maximise impressions on individual posts,” Brooking said. “I think a number of actors saw the audience and attention that surrounded Russia/Ukraine in 2022 and they want a piece of it.”

According to Arieh Kovler, a Jerusalem-based political analyst and independent researcher, some of the misinformation is first generated on channels on messaging app Telegram before being shared elsewhere. Kovler said most of this content is being shared on to X “in good faith”, with users unable to understand the context due to language barriers, for example. But he added: “Even if you’re being an honest broker, you retweet and get lots of likes . . . if you click delete, maybe it costs you your $500? Will you?”

Other critics have pointed to Musk’s own activity on the platform after he recommended users follow two accounts that have been shown to peddle misinformation, in since-deleted tweets that garnered millions of views. 

“His behaviour on the platform — he sets the tone from the top — he’s saying it’s OK to spread conspiracy theories as he does it himself,” said Kayla Gogarty, research director at left-leaning non-profit Media Matters. “This is the first big test for Musk’s version of X. The platform has failed this test.”

In a post published on X’s safety account on Monday, the platform said it had seen an increase in daily active users in the conflict areas, and 50mn posts related to the Hamas attack. It said it had taken action with regard to “tens of thousands of posts” for sharing graphic media, violent speech and hateful conduct. It said it has also removed several hundred accounts for attempting to manipulate trending topics and was removing newly created Hamas-affiliated accounts.

Linda Yaccarino, X’s chief executive, wrote in an internal memo to staff that the company had “redistributed resources, refocused internal teams and activated more partners externally to address this rapidly evolving situation”. She added that a “cross-company leadership task force” had been convened to work on how to address the crisis.

Still, the conflict risks further alienating advertisers from X, many of whom left the platform last year over a lack of reassurance that their adverts would not run alongside toxic or negative content. Due to the advertiser exodus, revenues were down by 60 per cent in the US, Musk said last month, without specifying a timeframe. 

Several advertising agency executives told the FT that they already did not recommend advertising on the platform, and their position remained unchanged. However, for those who remain, the impact may be chilling. 

“The misinformation on X and lack of control is further damaging X’s credibility,” said Sir Martin Sorrell, boss at digital marketing agency S4 Capital, adding that chief marketing officers were increasingly concerned. 

“Musk’s unpredictable behaviour and polarising political views have meant that it’s been a platform to avoid for a good while now,” one advertising agency executive said. “That, coupled with the alleged misinformation circulating on it regarding the situation in Israel and Gaza, I would say it’s never been a more damaging place for brands to show up.”

Brooking said he had observed largely financially rather than ideologically driven users seizing on X’s weaknesses. But, he warned: “As time passes, more terrorist messengers and war propagandists will see the regime Musk has put in place as an opportunity to exploit.”

Additional reporting by Andy Bounds and Henry Foy in Brussels