0:00 >> The Word-Smiths: Everyone, good afternoon so I just started trimming so it should be fitting, right about now to YouTube. One school, he joins back. It starts. But look at all.
2:06 >> The Word-Smiths: So we have og now, I think mansa can coordinate the The room since she's chef around. I'm kind of one. What's your answer? >> Francisca Fuah: Yeah. Hi. Good afternoon, everybody. I hope I'm heads, so it's not. Hi. >> The Word-Smiths: Yes, romance. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Um sorry, hi everyone. Can you kindly give us a minutes. The chef around to we're trying to get in touch with her guys. Dr. Z Just kind of give us a minute please. And if you still can get in touch we'll just like shuffle some judges, please.
4:09 Okay, sorry for the delay on, Dr. Zay is joining now. So immediately she joins we can just start up kick off. Um also can we all kindly put on our cameras at least some specialty speakers? And the chairs precisely and yeah, thank you all so much. Let's have fun. >> Francisca Fuah: Hi. everybody. I don't know. You are my commerce going through about. Okay, I can just thankful for a bit. Hey.
4:59 Hi. That's my camera is on. Welcome to the first round of the Masters. Well, do you 2025 a month on turn? The first panel Um, I think the second chair can also go ahead and introduce themselves and then the panels will identities themselves. so,
5:53 >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Rosie. Can you please introduce yourself as the chef around? I mean panel to as well as the Panels for Boots Panel, 1 and Panel 2. >> Zainab Olaitan: Um, sorry I might I'm be careful the second panel right. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Yes, please. You are. >> Zainab Olaitan: And this is the second panel. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: So, both panels would listening together then at the end of the Round. We are going to put each panel into different breakout rooms. Where you now have your deliberations. >> Zainab Olaitan: So, how do we get to know the speakers in the second panel? >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: So, it's still the same speakers. So the >> Zainab Olaitan: oh,
6:40 >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Once set of speakers, but then that's so judges also pan. >> Zainab Olaitan: Okay, okay. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: The first time and what's panel was to give there this weekend for the same speeches. >> Zainab Olaitan: Thank you. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Can you please introduce yourself please. So we can just you know and >> Zainab Olaitan: My name is Zainab good. I mean it's morning has a good morning everyone. My name is Zainab and I'm glad to be here. And I'm the judge for the second panel or the check. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Thank you, Dr. Z on Let's have the panelists for the first annual introduce themselves. So we
7:26 have quadrats. Let's go ahead. >> Francisca Fuah: So that's and all of the >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Please answer. >> Francisca Fuah: Hi. So if you're on panel one, can you please introduce us all? So we can know that you're here. Now, listen >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Masa sorry, just because there is not a lot of time. Can we just go ahead and When it's time for the breakouts. We just, I mean, I think the most important is that the chairs have introduced so we can just move forward from there. >> Abisola Fayinka: Yeah, and we can start. I'm here, I'm too and I'm on planet one.
8:47 >> Nzube Nwaokoro: Sorry guys. Are you ready to start? Am I audible? Okay. oh, Sweet. I'm trying to find my debate keeper up on this phone. I don't know where it is. Just one sec. I hope I have seven minutes of speech. Okay, it's It's a striving started. Hey. Okay, cool.
9:37 I think before we start, probably just a few cute things to say, it's an absolute honor to be Here today. obviously I'll do is such an integral part of our lives. It's been a journey of multiple years and super proud of all the work that the guys have put into the shift for this. Yes. Would. Would kick off earlier with the Masters around. Now, I'll stop my speech in a few minutes. Okay. I will be looking at the Chats. If anyone wants to ask be always but feel free to just unmute yourself and And give me a shout.
10:27 Alright, let's start the speech in three. Two, three, one. Panel. We think that social media specifically in the way it's been constructed as a platform. it's, it's probably Gonna start again. Rustiness. Okay. Rustiness. All right, let's do this so panel. We think that social media in the way that
11:12 it's been used specifically involves an oxidation between intimate content public content, authentic content. But in many instances, content are just six over commercialization. And what this looks like specifically is in the way. it's been intended to be used, and we consume to drive rich to drive consumption and in many instances to drive commercial. Outcomes. This is why we've seen the rise of Social Media influencers. We've seen the right of the rise of celebrity ship. in social media and specifically within politics, we think that there is a massive incentive for politicians to engage with the space to pursue the political outcomes. And this looks in many ways like personally branding themselves and social media. But also
11:57 agenda setting with English spaces in the information that is put out there and the contents through which they sick to engage the followers, either those bought on to the ideals, or those who they're trying to convert, what is very specific in the idea of personal branding. And one that we engage with from OG is the neutral in which There is a self-production of the details of these politicians and their politics that in many instances conflicts, either, the sanctity of the ideal of the politics itself. But also, in many instances, some personal motives that they seek to pursue. We think that as a conflation in which that content is being put out that we almost conceived specifically because that's the nature of personal
12:45 branding and we will show you how we think that that has in many ways And let's worse outcomes and politically which ultimately is why we would be regreted. Um, one thing we absolutely must concede is everything that majority of the world today are on social media. We saw in the news that the average American youths would rather consume their news from Tiktok than from CNN and what this show specifically is that there's been a massive move away from traditional means the media to social media. So we're not gonna say, hey everyone get off social media because we think that it's still some utility in that, but we'll show specifically as an alternative even though we don't need to count the model. A more efficacious use of social media to actually school outcomes
13:32 and through institutional usage and would engage a little bit in in the later ends the speech. So let's debate. We think a few things are pertinents in how social media consumption plays out and specifically it is through impression farming, and what this means is that in many instances, the nature of how people consume social media material is very fleety, The average person spends two seconds on an average tweets moves on to the next piece of information. More importantly, is that to attract consumption. There has to be an oversessionalization of the content without that, right? And this, we've seen many, many pervasive ways I don't use of catchy Lawrence's or, you know, misrepresentation of facts, just to make sure that people blow up the content. Because ultimately, the objective is to be the personal
14:21 brand, more important. It's a push down and agenda that You know, Contentiously could be pervasive but more importantly, in the interest of the political and side of the spectrum. As such. but the third evasive outcome or, you know, nature of this is that we think in many instances this has windowed the level of debates and political discuss that ideally would happen and would significantly introspect these ideals and and and conversations. And we see that play out in many ways specifically, even in social media with the rise of cancel culture and deep platforming. And a lot of, you know, Max that we think. And, in many ways, negates, the degree of introspection that we think
15:09 needs to happen in politics and specifically, in the ideologies that are so agenda setting, as as I've been discussed Flimsically on Social Media. Why do we regret the rise? So, The big things in here that we think need to be tied to the idea of personal branding. So really place sets this debate. The first problem we think is that we send out the debate around called personal which in many ways, hampers, the degree of sanity that we would ideally achieve in debates and this is how we plays out. In the profligation of personal brands, alongside political discuss, a lot of
15:55 the times. What happens? Because the narrative is always self produced you have personal imputes. That conflicts political discussions so we can take you know the very over essentialized issue around Charles Kirk, for example, right, in many ways. there's been a polarization on if Charles Kirk was great as a father because he had a wife and two beautiful kids who are now left without the father. But at the same time, if his ideals were too far, right, reaching and could be shamed and called out, we think that we need an, I didn't put into political debates, one that does not exist within the parameters of individual self-produced details, that in many ways conflict The sanctity of the narrative of the message that
16:40 needs to go out there. Now, it's important to understand that. of course, the politics is not exist in the vacuum, right? And we also don't want politics that exist in the echo chambers. And in many ways politics into sex with our lives, what we think it is really important that There's there's a level of separation between how that message is produced and consumed that we don't actually in this world. Still go for it. >> Terkpertey Andrews Terku: yeah, it's been six minutes and all I'm here in is, basically why the existence of influenza politics is bad and not necessarily why? The rise itself is needed specific harms that you want to regret. >> Nzube Nwaokoro: Yeah. So I mean Again I was getting to that so specifically in terms of how the harm is is manifesting. A
17:27 lot of these topic would really impact on. We think we can introspect that in a number of ways. Firstly in the popularization of very aesthetical political ideologies, right? And this looks specifically like the rise of, you know, populism Farah nationalism a lot of the politics that we're seeing is the Europe. For example, with, you know, a very pervasive political groups and hijacking, the political agenda and in social media spaces. And and leading specific, it's wrong outcomes, the wrong, wrong choices, for young and electoral groups, right? We think that more importantly, the world that we're seeing today is one that is so far removed with the younger generations and how they engage the politics. We know this by specifically, the lower what, you know, what are
18:12 turnouts that we are saying in politics today, because there is no longer and, you know, that exhaustive discourse around politics and We would have preferred it to be in traditional means. We regrets proudly og. >> Jibreel Sarayi: 31, Say anything for continue. On. >> Omotayo Jimoh: jerus is your camera is a >> Jibreel Sarayi: Let me have to change you. >> Omotayo Jimoh: It's like, okay, sorry. >> Jibreel Sarayi: I wanted something. That works for
19:01 people. I'll do what works for you. okay, I mean All right. Yep. for some reason, I like when I was seeing the time but now I can see it again. So please can bring it up to help my life. but >> The Word-Smiths: all right, the problem with that is It's going to start the video on YouTube, so if so we can drop timestamps and then you see that on the message pop-up, >> Jibreel Sarayi: Okay, that would be very good. I'll have my life. Earth.
19:50 >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Sorry. Just to confirm, do you want every minute? So should we just indicate your first minute? Six minutes and seven minutes? >> Jibreel Sarayi: 2 4, 6, 7. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: So fast. Okay. >> Jibreel Sarayi: 2 4, 6, 7. Yeah. All right. So, I'm starting. now really All right panel. So we had to very important things from the bee.
20:36 And one, the biggest, the biggest thing perhaps that zubi, describes us where the use of social media and things that were generally not good, social media, even outside like politics. Well then in now it is down to politics. It's very mentioned, things around the cost personality and we're addressed all of that. and how even works for us, on our side of the house. But one thing, we all we need to get rights. Well, we need to start with studied, with is what we're even fighting, or what the alternative is. Which didn't tell us, well, what we find, very, very important. Also in our case is, what's activism political campaign. All of these things, I've always been like and why we think what we have right now is something that works on the Absolutely don't regret it. We had before. Now as always been some form of
21:23 Middleman politics, some form of it's giving politics, scarcity, politics. Where the person was was leading the police, the politics or was running for a position. Always leading the activism is being made to these cast, literally, and then we get to know little things that the pitch to us or that they tell us about this person, or the ideas that this person is pushing at sports. I think that's the biggest thing that we're trying to fight and that's something that's we think is regrettable and absolutely love the world that we have at the moment. I mean, because I have arms arms but very fine with the good that comes from it. Second the second context, I think is very important. Also in these debates is around influence influencing itself at the concepts and the mix of things that come into inflation
22:08 to even make it any form of inference in itself. And the component of these that are very important. Also and are transferably. good to politics in our world. Think the first part is active participation. direct participation of the party that is involved. This means that if I won't lead in the political activism or Lawrence for a political pose or whatever it is, the face has to be. The voice has to be there. Your person has to be there if they're doing it in person the organizing You also have to be the impressive and speaking but those pictures or representatives use all of those things that we've had in previous times. The second part to eat also is audience alignment and this is very important, Nobody influences, just by like putting up videos on your popular more makes you popular. Is the fact that you're able to get the feedback and it goes both ways. so you give and
22:54 people also give you back The feedback, typically comes to, it's coming positive or it's coming negative, it's positive and people try to f*** with you. Well if it's the negative, the enemies that we will retire. Don't buy what you see and that's one person like in what we have at the moment, which means that you can't jump down stuff and people and then expect them to just buy it. So it is feedback loop that tells them that guy. What is the person is saying? She's why not buying it? Or What what this person is saying is good and we also buy that I think that's the context. That's also very, very important in our world. thirdly and perhaps the most importantly in this, these debate is how We think personal branding, which is something that was very big into this case. We think was not branding is literally inevitable and it's something that's always existed in different ways evenly, traditional politics, even in World War in what we had as
23:42 less just describe it as traditional markets in the word before, I think the need for personal branding has always been there, for example, a lot of people. Put, I mean, puts him becoming president. I love you knew Obama for the All-rape physically. No, not many people, literally wanted to know. Like these are all like politics. I mean it's political starts when he was the demo Democrats but not so much Christian is scrutiny into his own ideologies. When people just Like the aura and the voted for the aura with. We saw things like this who are like JFK when it was spoke about how it was like useful and they wanted something like that. Also happened in Nigeria, we saw it. It's good looking at, I think before him, people are always wanted to know more about people that are representing them, they always wanted to like dig deeper even had paparazzi
24:29 moving around with them. Getting the little information that people wanted to see the difference. In what we have right now is that instead of us, looking for popularity to give us just help us make it so help us make good decision. They are the one that has to literally divorce you to make sure that we hear. It's and we see it and we make good decisions for ourselves and we're happy with them watching. Anything. Basically, I would take that, I >> Omotayo Jimoh: Argue with a, peter will be supported on Twitter before. that's, >> Jibreel Sarayi: Okay, okay. First, did they have already before I get to the points? First one. which,
25:21 and this is also very, very but that we think that too. There are two outcomes and there are two questions that actually needs to be answered here and which the first one is question around, is it possible for people to like create a facade of inferencing where the literally cook up stuff and then they push this kind of propaganda and then when we think it's possible and it's something that happened But then the question has always been for how long are people able to put up facets of influencing facets of all of these things and then get away with it? if you can do it for one, two, three years, it's fine but after a, while of people's direct scrutiny, personal scrutiny, the intellectual scrutiny. It's always get to come out and we are fine. We just kind of question is happening in our world and then getting out. Unlike all the hard traditionally we do all of the design. and people get away with us. For example, it as big as murder as big as dangerous
26:08 things and they are just able to get away with it in our own word. We don't think those kind of things happen. And even if they do, we know that it able to access taking them to prison activities, like that way helps us to s*** or opinion on how these people are. Second one very, very important. Also there gets from us is around with that this idea in it so it's something that can feel Influencer Influencer politics and things like that. I can feel the thing is something that's kind of feel and it has feel for so many people so it doesn't mean like automatic ticket. So maybe winning your position. To becoming whatever you want to be. You can push it and feel you can push it and succeed. So you meet it's an idea with in and of itself. It's something that that's the has like, pros and cons. Find out two things. You get you, you get from us panel. What do we? Don't think that
26:56 this? What do we don't think this does? And first, the thing that access the democratization of being able to run for political posts, being able to be able to engage? The politician is something that is very, very good. We think the reduced by the last barrier to entry which means that people can just people can't, like, build personalities, these people compute, influencership and get into common good for him. I'm dying. The case all of these cases where people with little budgets can go on and defeat traditional marketing and then end up getting to vote for them. Massively, the things that are very very good but on both sides but the distance side to run and engagement side to get feedback. We think we're very happy with both of them. Find out the thing that you guys from us around calls personality. And why I think and and why, and why, you know what
27:43 we think that this is, this is something that was finally response to these kids. So listen around how close So, I mean, Post Kirk, where everyone's time with few people who started wanted it was like propaganda around how old is the very nice father. So really don't need to engage all of these terrible side. We think the feedback that came from that is something that is good. So we had the guys pushing these that, oh, yeah, it's a very good father. We should only see his good side of the body date. Also God's counter attacks from direct people. Normal people actually regular people like you and I giving to the back of Oh guys, we know he's a great father but guys he did x y z and things that are very very bad. We think that feedback loop that exist. Now, what is good or traditionally. If we had if it was in these world it would have been traditional media, pushing propaganda and I hope
28:29 you see Charlie as a great person. We actually wasn't in the best case so panel, are very, very happy to not regrets. Thank you. >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: You then won't say anything or you should just continue. >> The Word-Smiths: You see a time like this for your speech. Let's take note. >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: Okay. Okay. Yeah.
29:22 Thank you very much, guys. Particularly Okay cool. I'm not saying take who since 2023 yet now and I don't think he's looking since then very good to see. So, I'll just start in. As I start some three, two, three, two one. So panel like all of the hands of Social media sensitization and socialization things that you can obviously get on the ground, meaning the cult of personality, the skewing of like narratives etc. These are like things you can get on the ground, but like the
30:09 topic of today's debate, is where these harms are a lot more accessibility and the a lot more prone to actually happen. And that's like the problem that we have into this debate. This is the pain, right? Where are you more? Like because the idea of influencing the self is what we need to interrogate here. Where are you more likely to have things like disinformation people growing, like cult of personalities, etc, and using them as a great, like, you know, governance like the political base, for whatever Attend that, be it, right. Be wrong for whatever agenda and not necessarily and having like the list of accountability to like the people that they have other than on social media, we think on social media. It's a lot more accessibility on that particular side and that's not like all of the things right here. position into the
30:56 distribute and I'll give you like a couple of us, a couple of examples 2015, for example, it was very confident, it was very convenient for Buhari to just keep like the you know, tractional debates that we used to have amongst like all of the participants. Right was very convenient for him to like skip the debate because at the particular point in time, he had grown, like a large cult of personality following and get this. He had the court of personality following even before right. Because 2023 in 2017, he had around, he had like millions of vote in 2011 as well. He had like a lot of votes where even his supporters like he won the particular election and it culminated into election violence in the North. So topic
31:41 here is not the court of personality. But the topic here is that even with the court of personality at every point in that particular election, when he continuity when the Continental, and when the Internet was in the team, he was >> Jibreel Sarayi: The. >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: always going to those copy debates because that was like an avenue to actually interact with people to question his ideas to actually talk to people. Right? but when it became very very Of the end that he had like the Court of Personality rolling on social media in 2015, when he had like the entire social media running the team for him. He felt very, very confident and was like, You know, screw the debate. I'm not going if you want to do the debate, go there and it's still ended up winning the election, right? That particular narrative, where people can actually forgo all of the traditional political settings, things like attending rallies
32:29 communicating with people on the ground developing grassroots movement etc. the actual people on the ground, get to actually interact like their political leaders. The fact that there is a rise in the absence of those particular things because so, because people can organize social media for impacts for political impact is something that we actually do regret into this world. Secondly, I know more importantly is on social media, like the idea of influencing itself like you need to actually get this the idea of influencing itself. Change on, you know, portraying, you know, false stuff, or reducing the realistic, potency of things to actually gain white support. That's why you have people eating like foods on social media just to gain so many followers. That's why I have people creating travel content, you know, you don't even like traveling, but like
33:14 the credit anyways because it gives them like that particular following on social media. Why is this particularly important? It means positions can actually sell very false narratives to like the people on social media because people are less likely to actually do all of the background checks, etc. You know, that they do, if you like people that we met, you know, one to one basis. Allow give you very good example. The lead out the far right, movement, for example, in Germany Afd is the lesbian woman who is married to like is Sri Lankan, immigrant that lives in Suites Island, right? So it's actually very very crazy that someone who has all of these you know Abu things in the right thing movement can actually, you know, still be like a very big figure within the right within the right Even with all of those. More. A lot
34:04 of people don't know that because this particular woman has created like an iconography for herself on social media where she's always talking about, like immigration, barn, on social media, talking about these talking about that and nobody who cares about the fact that she's trying to live in a contradictory life, right? So nobody questions all of those because the idea is that she's influencing people on social media and nobody really cares about about all of those things. >> Jibreel Sarayi: I, >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: And techniques. >> Terkpertey Andrews Terku: Yeah, I don't think that somebody's standing in the middle of 30,000 people. seen Buhari far awareness teach fuse any form of personalized interaction compared to when the person comments on Buhar is post on social media at best. You can see it's the same distance. I'm not sure how you get any meaningful interaction
34:50 on your side just because they go for runs. >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: Oh, like that's the thing here, is about reducing harms if people keep opting out of those particular traditional ways of reaching out like the people we think it is harmful and those harms are accessibility by the fact that is the rise in. iconography debut around social media. That's the point here, right? So we don't necessarily need to have people because we are proud to actually defend traditional transitional ways of which not the people here, because when you limited to just things like raisies, which is where you have like three hundred people, what we have in mind here, we're talking about, like things like, how old is the talking about meeting? You know, specific groups, specific groups. Okay. meeting the killers today. Meeting the mechanics. Today, I'm doing all of those things to be all of these things are reducing your
35:36 world where we heavily rely on like social media, iconography. And that's what the world looks like. In today's debate, people are literally winning elections without necessarily going to all of these without necessarily, going through all of these things. Like they don't even have to like, reach out like like people and literally winning elections without even like their own who basically knowing that. And the only reason why is that they can reach us, like, the people of social media, and they can govern us both social media, and they can't portray a lot of, you know, lies on social media. I'm not necessarily you know the more realistic things that we need them to actually do every one. >> Jibreel Sarayi: this this double ice examples that you use the wet things that would have just been described as scandals. The CNN of folks would have just helped to glaze over
36:21 electricity years ago, but now, you know them about you, you know, this is so just defend that >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: Yeah, but it's still it's still balls down to the point that I'm talking about The only reason why you can get away with that is because social media exists to help whitewash. All of those things. Like people get paid millions. So actually control the social media of politicians. When Andrew Como, for example, lost the primaries to sohramanian and was like, Oh, I'm still running in this particular election. He came back and started trying to like using Genesee Lingu, so actually start interacting with people on Twitter and Tiktok and everywhere people call these b******* immediately. And like, Bro, you don't speak like this it's not necessarily because I'm home, just open like a can't be, he had, he had the Twitter account all of his lives, but trying to like governance like
37:08 his political position using like Jay Z lingo, all of those things he came out very very thick right at the particular point in time but like that's just one example, a lot of examples exists where people actually do for for all of these tactics for all of these gimmicks and this is the points. where we regret that particular eyes into the in today's debate. But but this is the thing. Would I even need to like, like an alternative here, right? You just need to actually tell you why, the rice has been very very impactful in a very negative manner on the ground. Like, people are not even like people, I know more interested in the personality, right? Of the politicians, rather and the actual content of like the policies, right? Like policy debates, don't even happen that much anymore. Most of what
37:53 you get right now. Our police creating trains, right? The great trends, like they say, Oh, what we're doing today, is this particular hashtag, This is what we want to train to be, but not necessarily like Kind of policy, the content of the policy. It's a very very small part of like the larger, you know, political the larger political and the larger political campaign. I like that they actually doing because they're a lot more interested in the clicks in the likes in the retreats and the kind of like iconography that you build this in itself is very, very harmful, right? So even in the world where all the iconography things, all of these candles, etc, existing the reward. We prefer that because they are still most likely hinge on the purpose of like School movements itself, like they're still hinge on what they want to do itself. I'm not necessarily trying to like create like trends on social media where a
38:41 lot of people actually buy into and they're not necessarily caring about like the actual content of like their political movement anymore. And this is why we went to this video here.
39:27 >> Jibreel Sarayi: I, >> Tonye AYAFA: Okay. Oh, just confirm, can everyone hear me? I'm out of the pool. Just like, put the thumbs up. Yeah, it doesn't. Okay, so before I started from select a few short words, so like shout out to the Lto guys for like this particular platform. I also want to see something very important. Yeah. And it's that. I'm a less trash. Like seriously, it's like aggressively overrated and like we need to be better followers as life choices. Yeah. >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: Just shut up. Shut up, man. >> Abisola Fayinka: Properties debates, please. >> Tonye AYAFA: Ice. It's my long time. Are you guys about this? Level is Rusty Overrated. Even if it is a job for this round, I'll try another 20.
40:16 It's a malice who already did. So I would be starting in three. two, one. So the thing about everything that Casa says, the topic says is that it's actually logically true like things. Like, for example, like if you go to social media, you could have people make like a lot of bad campaigns. You have bad actors. take place. But notice this, right? Is that I know. Is that way significantly much worse in ministry media? Like all the evaluations on all the interrogations that people forget subjected to now, under social media would have never happened. Previously, as long as I tried enough money to pay off skin and folks, you will win almost every election and this was pretty much what elections had been for the longest time elections in almost, every person in the world had become a money game. The person with the biggest money to pay out to media would almost always win. So there was
41:04 a great time incentive to not even engage with people. I will engage engage at the bedrooms level than to actually school. So for example, we talk about debates for example, like the last four or five presidential debates in us having completely. So poor engagement, some people throwing insults at each other, bad compensations horrible. Even discussion about policy, guess what policy discussions are often times. Very very staged. You come. You've paid for sitting time on its particular show and then when you hop on the particular show after you've paid for sitting time they ask you about the best parts of your policy. Life. And they would then engage with the entire problem with this ecosystem. here is very simple, is that it was one that aggressively benefited and profited the rich which created
41:49 the login ecosystem that we have now, why? Because at the point in time, where the person with the most money could buy out the most media companies, you get most of the velocity in the most favorable times. I'm probably even favorable debates. You consistently find yourself in a situation where you are building momentum and going forward, then winning the elections, then became who had the most money, which is why I love these became so influential, so powerful. I'm so great. I define what pol Like in many places. In. So at the end of the day, the old society, the old mainstream media that these guys seem to defend just created an ecosystem that were trying to break away from why social media and the rise of like social media iconography, just significantly better than this world. Is that virality is on the monocularized? I think it's still possible to do things like ads and spend a lot of money to become popular. But
42:37 two things. What is that? If you are also just funny also just appealing also, just great at speaking to people's issues. You still just as the holy become viral, notice that? That is not. That's not exist in their comparative because you could also be great at speaking to lose issues. You go talk to door, but guess what? Even if you spoke to every 10 people, a hundred people, every day in the population of over a million people trying to get you to get votes from. You probably just go by 100,000 even if Thousand days to plan. So your objectively kind of screwed, but on the flip side in this world, but you have social media iconography, it's very easy to pick up the page, it's very easy to become a lot more popular, a bunch, a million routes can happen and are and all of the sudden your entire district moves, you are they know what you're talking about that. You know what you stand for. It's really not that hard to understand why this is the
43:23 problem If you can only get that kind of publicity to spending millions of money and that's kind of money that you probably can't have when you're starting off in politics. Subjectively Just worse. I think this is intuitive stuff at this point, but let's move the step further, right? The next thing. That's great about social media iconography is that it aggressively dependent on consistency because social media has a very large record often times because people are taking screenshots of your previous tweets. Oftentimes, because you've been treating for like years and then doing the entire scrub is just really hard. Even your old suits are considered to track and easy to locate. This is the same thing for almost everyone. Yeah you have the reason why this is important is that when politicians are inconsistent in previous world or just the most societies, Is really hard to
44:10 track this except you can start going to newspapers taking pictures and trying to spread all of this. It's significantly easier when you can just scroll down see what the tweet about and see where the twist change. and obviously find out the ways. People are being contradictory. The great example is countries is for politicians with regards to Israel and how the includes the particular system, right? And the genocide in Palestine most countries. Almost politicians were streamers are pretty much up until 2024. Until late 2024 It's very easy to pick up. Those particular traits, call them out and call them accountable when the changes particular decision. When is now election time, it's a lot harder to do this. When you can't have those particular systems in place, try all. Thank you.
44:56 >> Omotayo Jimoh: Been several instances where Elon musk has tweaked tweeters algorithm to promote his own post and right leaning post as well. >> Tonye AYAFA: okay, I think that's the possibility, but notice this year, they are multiple social medias. All of which don't particularly operate under the same system, but beyond the fact that you're multiple the ability to access viralities to comprisingly better even when these tweaks exists. And that's the thing that's important because if the example you just played out media to not do this, it's not harder to do that or it's a lot more expensive to do that than if you just do a small technique and people will still be able to access that kind of variety either way. So I think even if that possibility does exist the competitive on our side tools towards our cycles, the significantly better. Well actually, I think this is where the greatest we think the politicians and every issue
45:43 that existing politics is because behavior that just wants to get like a lot of attention and a lot of what's really fast. And that means that regardless of whatever format you use those particular systems of money, well, power back and forth on that, I mean to get publicity and we're always exist Where is the? We have the highest impact. Things like activism because especially within Third World countries activism does have a very deep impact in the way. Things are done a lot of foreign countries end up funding, these activism they do a lot of big projects that are impactful in people's lives and these are high state things. But the thing about activism that how to existed prior to this, kind of some Guy cumography is that there is almost no discuss about what's activism is using those. I'm good. So, guys, don't probably and I waited was the society. And drop a woman's
46:33 education activities, for example. Now you probably want to probably great. I love being for this stuff. You have a lot of connections. You're able to reach out to you and I'm raised money. What you do now is the informal like a logist group because in the society that you are in them being able to love the political public pays off a lot more than being able to like get like that kind of publicity, anyway, right? You love me politicians to implement the police That says, Okay, I don't know the, if you don't say your children to school, they're going to get sentence. The prison, the problem is when he said Well country, the real problem is not the fact that parents don't want to send the children to school. The problem is that parents are just two parts and that you're going to school the comparative and discuss that is being means that's constantly being missed here. Is that when you are social media home icon and you have that back and forth, you're able to engage society. When
47:19 you have good intentions and you want to help people watching the same way, activities, usually do, you are probably significantly more like getting better As I know the problem better understand what solutions are to look like I just do the much more sustainable much more better and much more profitable word on that. The circumstances at the point in time where we make creative solutions. So much easier. I'm very proud to be thank you. >> Lawrence Ebosie: I guess. I'm next right? Oh my goodness. The
48:05 opportunity. It's been a while. So hopefully this goes. Have as good as I hope it does. So yeah, here it is. Wait, let me set my timer. Okay. >> Sarayi Taofeeq Afolabi: Very Lawrence. >> Lawrence Ebosie: when I first said There's monopoly, I was really very shocked because I mean, I do know if you had that just a few billionaires when our control media, essentially, you have the light of Mark Zuckerberg, you have to, like, so mosque. And I think what he does is that it gives an illusion that, you know, there is now large participation in democracy. but you see all the benefits that we hear from the opposite side of today's debate
48:51 has been wiped out because one, man, now controls that conversation, right? We've had we've seen investigations in the likes of the US democracy where, you know, certain engagements, where tweaks in the algorithms to favor a set inside and even more. So problematic, because we've seen the owners of these social media, take a stands, whether it's in the far left or it's in the far, right. We think that in that sense it's sort of the sort of deal legitimizes the case of opposition on bringing some sort of engagement and participation, you know all the beautiful things that the pain to us, I think, then itself doesn't exist because of the current status will of, you know, rich people sort of owning these social media platforms. But what we really want to do in closing government, is to really
49:39 distinct case. And it says that what we're not bringing an alternative, right? The debate really should be about reform legacy institutions versus the alternative, which is the rise in political influence, influence, you know, influencers. Like what we want in closing government is to say that, you know, Reformed institutions in the same sense. Predominantly what would save a better case in today's world as opposed to the rights of political influencers in opposition's, case today and our debates we really, you know, flow across three is three core pillars about really, what democracy is what you should look like, And look, what are the ideal principles of democracy? And why we think political doesn't Sort of identify or sort of celebrates these core principles of democracy. I'm assuming that
50:26 we, all agree that this is a democratic sentence setting, rather is the fact that in legacy democratic institution, we have things like grassroot engagements. That's not the talk about this. A little bit though, will be extending the idea of party institution and why it is really very important in democracy but also inclusion and representation which is we've heard from both sides in today's the people really, what does inclusion? I representation mean and in the idea of political influence influencing is that it in the idea in the The police influence in the, we get this actual inclusional representation. Now, we think really makes democratic societies thrive in and of itself. The first, let's go through the bottles. The first thing we hear is more of like virality. That was like, the biggest case from opposition today which was variety but why
51:12 this is really very problematic is because we have cases where innovative self. We've been able to recognize that virality and a good example is the fact that they have been investigations and discoveries revolving around bots accounts or even accounts who have built political influences to be Sponsored but to be state sponsored by maybe like the Russian the Russian government state sponsoring and political influencers, that might not even have or don't be found to not even have any sort of connection to the societies in which the drive and influence. In the first place, it very permanent issue. Is that of immigration? Where in the UK here, there are political bots that have been sponsored. by Russia, by by the state governments in Russia to sort of influence and drive the divert,
51:59 the sorry division within these within these communities because of they have been able to recognize that virality. And so I think this is the arms that we think that reform legacy institution, which is our case should should be the case of democracy. And that's why we're police school influencing, but also like from closing government, we talk about democratic discourse. Like what wow democratic processes are, you know, largely influenced by numbers. The Silver lining really is That's Reformed leg is the institutions create an avenue for binarities to engage in the conversation. Like we all know that when we have like conversations about, you know, certain ideologies, when I, it is things like abortion where I think like, you know, right different types of rights. That the whole point of the democracy is that there's a lot of conversation going on from
52:47 the grassroots through different levels. And even though minorities might not win, the fact that that conversation is happening in the first place is very right, and the fact that even people on different side of the debates can pick a point along the spectrum. It's also something that we want to celebrate within our status school, but that cannot happen with political influencers in the vast majority. Of instance, political investors. I told to pick a hardline, it's either it had right or he had left. They really can't stand in the middle because they build that cold following by telling through extreme. extreme extreme, arguments extreme, popular. Across the spectrum. So at the end of the day, even if there is maybe a political influencers that in this, the certain cases believe that they should tow is
53:33 setting points on the spectrum. They really don't have that option because what happens in that case is that they lose that following and that following is something that did you not want to lose in the long run? I'll take it Andrews, brother. >> Terkpertey Andrews Terku: Everything you are describing is basically Fox News and CNN. I'm not sure how that is different from what you are describing about social media polarization. influence, external meddling, in politics. All these things, still exist with traditional media in the AB >> Lawrence Ebosie: I, >> Terkpertey Andrews Terku: of influenza politics. Why is this so unique that you have to regret it? >> Lawrence Ebosie: the good thing is, and if you're listening carefully, is that traditional media, you know, itself is regulated, right? So, there is some sort of not polarization, but there is some sort of diversification in our world, in terms of, like
54:18 popular with TV media, for example, that too many new stations that are currently exist as opposed to one billionaire, really controlling everything without gory my giving a false, hope that there's some sort of participation, I think our world even if not the idea what it's you better than what you have at the end of the day. But just to continue this case is that the assistant influencers that have decided to to, you know, setting points in the spectrum and have gotten, you know, I'd lost their following or not, but I'm not important thing. Really, is that we concede to opposition in some cases where, you know, there might be political inference as actually really want to engage the conversation in the democratic settings, but the point of commercialization still comes even with non-consent. Right? And what do I mean by that? Is that if that
55:05 is that these social media sort of drives, not consensual commensurization and this is where the whole point of says that send sensationalism actually comes into play because this is still an unavoidable risk, the excess where people like Tommy Robinson can be seen as openly, you know, against immigration. But even if that is something that is there to their hearts, the Columbia statistics screenshot of that and then make that send sensational instance, because there are people who are going to profits from the extreme side of that of that debate. This is something that is also a ham um when it comes to having like political influences into the society, so ultimately If you like in the point where the instances where, um, individual in the world of, you know, political influencers, we do not get the sort of the sort
55:50 of >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Time. >> Lawrence Ebosie: engagements that they believe that they would have. We feel like the status quo still should remain. Yeah. Sorry. Okay, that's time up, right? >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Yes, it is. Thank you. See >> Lawrence Ebosie: That went really. >> Rafael Amankwah: All right, it's been a long time. I said Two, three, one.
56:39 See. Am I audible anyway? Okay. All right, so starting my speech in three, two, one. I know what we've had throughout these debates and what goes through? What Andrew's poi has consistently been? Is that what God's side sees is something that's really relates to the existence of social media, and not their iconography of polit. Because whatever harms that these guys point out to us already exist in the Four, like
57:27 the fulcrum of what social media means, meddling in politics. The fact that there is always sensationalism, the fact that there is even the commercialization of it, it's something that exists in politics, but there's something that's the member of government does that. He admits to the regulation that exist in the social media space What that means is that the metric for regret is one that admits that there is a chance for conversation and discussions between the problems that is being pointed out. Understanding the core of these rituals exist on what the metric of this regret should be because we both admit that at any point in time, there is going to be commercialization, sorry there is going to be social media qualities or is going to be the iconography of politics. What parties admits that? What we
58:13 don't agree to and the line that separate us is the rise and this part being. Okay. Let's SOLOMONIZED, let's allow for traditional politics to exist. We don't think that there is an exclusion of like classical politics. Like how old you wanted us to believe? We think that's once they are political voices within that species politicians always have an incentive to go down to that space. The rise of influence of politics, does not exclude that conversation that exist within that frames. then this means that why we regret should only be when the hams are absolute and has no inbuilt motivator mechanisms. And secondly, when there is no room for reasonable regulation to head against the heart, the
58:59 hands are like you point out but like it's very inconsistent because governments already admit that they are existing regulations that kills these hundred points out. But the weights where we win this debate, is that the rise of these iconography and the right of this influencer politics is what correct these harms for example. it is up until this new elections that we got to know that the harms that Trump has been doing in the past years have come out to play because like understanding in recent past Trump only had the power of social media, he could navigate the way he want to. We could even admit that in the past election, Trump won. Because there was some social media machinations, but that wouldn't have come to pass or not having
59:48 that wouldn't have come to a society where we try to solve this issues. If politicians did not admit that, there is a need for us to rise and enter into that sector and enter into like a path where we recognize that influence of politics is really important and hence call for the need for its regularization Because at a point where we don't see that Oh, Influence of politics is not really a big thing in politics. Then we allow for the equity invest to exist and we allow for the select few that know that there is an impact here to always machinate it like and help them win the elections. What then it's in like the burden for us to prove. Is that is a rise one that curves the problems. But secondly, does it omit us from achieving the core tenets of
1:00:35 the mercy? And that's what like remember like the government. Team wants us to be living because now he then goes around to say that. Oh, we missed the part of like engaging discussions, because there is always sensationalism. And regardless of it sensationalism I like exists in both ways Like we can't we can't omit the fact that up only like tribes on sessionalism and this side doesn't allow that. Same for commercialization because we think that there is no exclusion for both sides on both worlds. What we then admit to is that the rice come with some specific harms but whilst that hums is this the rise also calls for necessary, regulations that make sure that they are being haged at a point where we think
1:01:22 that the rice is the only reason why we can care those arms when your world does not exclude. It then we think that it is quite necessary for us to continue the rise because, like, let's get the line. Clay, if we don't regret it, we don't take away these problems because it's not as if God sees that, let's not take away influence of politics because the influence of policies, who exist? Anyway, what I mean is that you can't really attribute the commercialization and the things only to the rise politicians will always have the incentive to go into being sensationalized or like commercializing all boosting your life. >> Nzube Nwaokoro: You know. >> Rafael Amankwah: To get this kind of qualities. Right? What then what they need to prove to us is why the right itself is a once that cause these problems
1:02:08 and that's why we like we differ in this video before before I do we can come in. >> Nzube Nwaokoro: Broth. Do you think we actually more regulation in former politics or through social media? >> Rafael Amankwah: No. See that point of this debate is not about comparing traditional politics or social media qualities because both exists. Currently what we are discussing is that there's a rise of the influence of politics. For your question. Does it also help us regulate the policies that exist in that space more? Because in any case Trump will still go on social media and creates his own equity chamber like true social media. Now, where he has his people that like, he can lie to anyway, but at a point where we don't, Accept that.
1:02:56 Our rights has come to stay, then we don't find reasons to solve the problems that exist within those echo chambers. And that's why up believes that that rises one that's very important. But secondly understand that it is This is also very important for political parties, right? Because when people represent themselves and create iconography for themselves, then we are able to separate the ideologies from the ideology that the political parties mostly stand for. And that is why within the liberal space, we are able to attribute some hush. Hush ideologies of like labor side to Alexander Ocasio to the likes of like people that are different from the mainstream, liberal ideologies that we
1:03:42 origin. Like originally know, right? What that means is a political parties are able to select what kind of like strategy we used to penetrate into the market and that is why it was very important for people to know that we do not win this election by going through the the extreme ideology part of the Liberal Party, but let's stay within the mainstream and this is how the Conservative Party. Where able to align with trumpets. That says that. Let's go by the extreme parts of like being conservative, let's go for being nationalistic because that's what the white wants. The benefits, is that people like able to align more with the person that speaks that message and also to the party. And when the party is willing to let that person go off for another person to come, we
1:04:28 >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Somebody. >> Rafael Amankwah: The party. But we allow for the continuance of political parties. This then means that for democracy to be continued, we need that sort of iconography, where people are responsible and are >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Hi. My. >> Rafael Amankwah: accountable for the ideologies that is done by. So we think that from offside. It is only better for the rights to happen and we are proud to push. >> Feyi Ajayi-Abu: Oh, thank you. >> Rafael Amankwah: Right. These >> Omotayo Jimoh: I guess it's my turn. I'm sorry before you
1:05:17 start my time. I just wanted to say, you know, thank you guys for doing this. I usually give me it to have fun like and you know just relief. times past that I've actually been having fun. I don't know why Raffle is trying to give me high blood pressure. What's what? We're going to see about that. So You guys. Are you guys ready? Okay. All right. So a panel the house. I think that's if there's anything There's been some sort of confusion over what the key comparative in today's debate is, And what the metrics for deciding, who, who wins the destination. So what I'm going to do in my first minute is to understand exactly what debating right and maybe start
1:06:04 with the metrics, right? Because the today's debates is about regretting, a trend that we ultimately think is bad for democratic resilience. So the team that wins is the thing that shows you that on the comparative, right? social media influencing right as a form of politics. If we continue on this trend, this is what's going to happen. That is bad for democratic resilience. That is bad for truth and accountability and scrutiny. That is bad for the quality of governance, we're going to have and that is also bad for access to political power and equality of the playing field, right? So who how do we deter Who is head and and how we how we hear them right now. That is the metric, right? But the
1:06:49 comparative right that we have from government side is to say that is, is not to say that. you know, branding would fall away, right? But branding would not primarily be personal, branding will not primarily be true social media as the tool, write it to be true things like you know, Community engagements. Going back to your constituency finding coalitions within your community. You should based coalitions etc, etc, right? The comparative on the other side of the position is where you have a social media following and that leads to your popularity and your virality. Like I call this, You know, the timings how far you go in governance. Right now the most important question today is
1:07:36 debates is the question about whether or not the things you get in the social media world, right? Also exists in our world. And our word is worse off, right? So what I'm going to do as a directory bottle to what you've heard from Andrews. I mean it's Pos and and Rafael and oh, is to talk about that comparative, right? And I try to do it across several topics, right? So for example based on what um, Lawrence tells you, right, who controls visibility in this world, and if this continues what happens, right? I will controls the ability in this world and the people who tweak the algorithms, you don't even know them you Elon musk because it's very vocal about them. Right there was a reason why it was after the election that we started seeing a lot of good things about Kamala. And a lot
1:08:21 of viral clips about Kamala that we didn't see during the election because the owner of Twitter at the time was very participant. I was not, you know, wasn't very, it wasn't hiding, it was partisan and it wasn't only partisan. He made sure that the algorithms of Twitter really decides who gets to be seen, who gets to be urge and how you hear them, right? So in our world, right? And I'm not running away from the kata factor. I'm running away from from, I'm saying that in our world. Yes, the CNN is Fox News. But, you know, these guys like the details, you know, there's an editorial room, you know, decisions they take and that subject to Lawrence Media laws, right? The subject to even great things, right? And you see that I was saying it is perfect. What you're saying in the world where you would rather have a
1:09:06 detours and Fox news that it was that, you know, this was the world where you just have to pick out the wordings and take Doing whatever. They like you don't even see these things, you don't even know that you're not seeing things, right? We prefer world so we regret it on. That's right. Second thing is audience ownership like and the analytics right? Nobody owns the constituency if you come to my constituency today as a politician and you resonate with the people write, you're able to see real time analysis real time feedback. But the problem with the world of social media and why we cannot allow operations to control. That part of the political discourse is that your your ownership, your your Constituency right? Like the people the public, they're not yours, right? So you can literally have your followers taken away from you. At any time, if the social media
1:09:52 platform, decide decides that you violate something. So, in that sort of what it is regrettable, because we're talking about democratic resilience, we're talking about an institution that you stand the test of PESTICIDESHIP and allow people to be able to express themselves and reach audiences, right? The other thing is to talk about incentives, right? What's incentivizing social media? We know that is engagement, dominated. We know that virality is about you speaking to a core fan base. Your Super Fans, people who will do anything to continue to maintain. That's sort of world is not where we are. We, I mean, like you, for example, if the Fox News is one broadcast to many people at the same time, but no, in the world of social media, what is going to happen. If the influence our qualities
…
