Social media forms part of daily life. Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok, people use social media to document their lives. However, the ease of access to these platforms allows others to exploit them for less innocent purposes.

The rapid ascendency of the Taliban has been coupled with their exploitation of social media outlets. For this reason, platforms are making decisions on how to control social media posts.

The situation

Beginning in May 2021, the Taliban swept across Afghanistan, overrunning provincial capitals. The takeover was complete on August 15 when Kabul fell to the Taliban.

As the Taliban looks to tighten its grip on power, the group is using social media to its advantage. Facebook is reacting to this by introducing measures to prevent its platform from being inappropriately exploited. To prevent the Taliban from targeting people, Facebook has removed the feature that allows users to search someone’s Friends list. With this feature enabled, the Taliban could track their opponents.

Facebook has also introduced a one-click tool that allows people in Afghanistan to instantly lock down their accounts. Once locked, no one can download or share a profile photo. Likewise, timeline posts cannot be seen.

This is not the first time that Facebook has taken action against the Taliban. Facebook banned the Taliban from operating on its platform, following the US Sanctions Policy established by Bill Clinton in 1999. Any account that has links to the Taliban or is operated by or on behalf of the Taliban will be removed.

Following the fall of Kabul, Facebook confirmed that any Taliban-related content is banned. As a result of the Taliban coming to power in Afghanistan, Facebook has set up a team of Afghan experts to monitor any content related to Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Facebook has a secret list of ‘designated hate organisations’. The Taliban is on this list. A statement from Facebook clarified their actions against the Taliban:

‘The Taliban is sanctioned as a terrorist organisation under US law and they are banned from Facebook and Instagram under our dangerous organisation policies. This means we remove accounts maintained by or on behalf of the Taliban and prohibit praise, support and representation of them. We also have a dedicated team of regional experts helping to identify and alert us to emerging issues on the platform. Regardless of who holds power, we will take the appropriate action against accounts and content that breaks our rules.’

Facebook-owned companies are following the parent firm’s example. The messaging app WhatsApp shut down a complaint’s hotline that the Taliban set up after the fall of Kabul. Afghans could use the hotline to report incidents of violence and other issues to the Taliban.

By comparison, YouTube was slow to rebuke the Taliban. It was the last major network to come out against the Taliban. YouTube is now applying US sanctions policies to videos posted on the platform. As a result, YouTube is removing any video owned or operated by the Taliban.

So far, Twitter has not instituted a blanket ban on the Taliban. The company has a policy on content inciting violence. If posts violate Twitter’s policy, it is removed by the site administrators. Twitter has also said it wants to safeguard humanitarian workers, journalists, news media organisations and human rights activists in Afghanistan.

Why does this matter?

The present incarnation of the Taliban is not the same as the version first seen in the early 2000s. The group is organised and able to use the tools at their disposal to build political momentum. Social media is a large part of this.

Whether it is Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or private messaging apps WhatsApp and Telegram, the Taliban can disseminate propaganda. The messaging apps especially create forums that form echo chambers for Taliban beliefs.

What is more, the group operate within the guidelines of social media sites. Whilst the platforms are taking steps to restrict the Taliban from operating on their platforms, its ability to follow the guidelines complicates the process of muting them.

Experts are voicing their concern over the Taliban’s social media proficiency. Writing in the New York Times, Richard Stengel, who led the Obama administration’s efforts to counter Russian disinformation and combat ISIS propaganda, stated that, whilst effective, the Taliban’s skills are still clumsy. Stengel believes that the Taliban will only become more skilled as they tighten their grip on power.

Pushback?

Unsurprisingly, the Taliban has criticised the actions of Facebook. It views Facebook’s restrictions on the Taliban as hypocritical. Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said that Facebook promoted freedom of speech. Yet, it does not allow the Taliban to post or have accounts.

The issue of freedom of speech on social media has become more polarised since the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. Twitter permanently banned Donald Trump for his role in inciting a riot. Facebook suspended Trump’s account for two years.

American conservatives are now questioning why Trump was permanently banned whilst leading Taliban figures have not. Analysts cited by the Washington Post suggested that Trump had regularly violated Twitter’s rules. The Taliban is yet to do this.

Moving forward, social media outlets have to tread carefully. By removing certain figures and groups, the sites must accept that they will receive criticisms from people claiming to be defending the freedom of speech. However, the people’s safety is the priority. If that means social media restrictions, then so be it.

About the Author: James Hingley

James Hingley is a contributing Features Writer with extensive expertise in International Relations, Politics and Culture.