When the streets become too dangerous, dissent often migrates online
Originally published on Global Voices
A telecom company in Niger. Image via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).
This post is part of Global Voices’ September 2026 Spotlight series, “Protest in Democracy.” With this Spotlight, we seek to explore the many forms of protest, the tactics states use to delegitimize and suppress them, and the complex relationship between protest and democracy. You can support this coverage by donating here.
Room to protest is narrowing across much of the African continent, as governments lean on arrests, curfews, and internet blackouts to blunt dissent. When the streets become too dangerous, dissent often migrates online — which is exactly where telecommunications companies enter the picture, deciding, often under government pressure, whether a phone call gets through or a message reaches its recipient. This piece looks at how that power has been used, and at the accountability telcos have too often avoided.
Sitting on either side of the Congo River, Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Brazzaville, in the Republic of Congo, are like sisters. The communities living along the Congo have more in common than the differences implied by a colonial border suggest. Here, revolution, the desire for freedom, protest and the subsequent government crackdowns are intricately intertwined.
In these cities, and across the African continent, young people are not content with the status quo. From Cape Town all the way up to Cairo, young people have been leading protests for their right to a better future. Flying in the face of ageing leaders and despots comfortable in their power.
To smother these uprisings, governments have been turning to internet shutdowns, with the #Keepiton coalition reporting around 100 internet shutdowns across the continent between 2016 and 2025. In DRC, the protests, the internet shutdowns and ensuing chaos and violence during former President Kabila’s turbulent reign and subsequent clinging to power between 2001 and 2019 have been documented. In Congo Brassaville, the internet connection was throttled during the 2026 presidential election, as in the 2021 election before it.
In addition, the telco provider MTN may have enabled human rights violations by allowing the General Directorate of Presidential Security (DGSP) to use its official messaging service to encourage people to share information on dissidents with the DGSP, which has conducted extrajudicial killings in the past. Beyond these countries, telecommunications companies including Airtel, Tigo, MTN, and Vodacom have been implicated in network shutdowns or sharing users’ personal data with governments throughout Africa and the Middle East.
Telecommunications companies invest significantly in the infrastructure that they own, operate and control as the foundation of modern communications. As Internet Service Providers, these companies control network and information traffic flows that shape how we experience the internet. As gatekeepers, they can also control whether we can experience the internet or make a phone call that might be the difference between life and death.
This power also comes with the responsibility to protect users’ human rights. However, this is a responsibility that telcos neglect if they implement government demands to shut down the network, or when they share users’ data with the government.
To make matters more complicated, telcos such as MTN and Vodacom have documented relationships with members of African governments, most notably former President Kabila in DRC and President Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa. In addition, there is very little available information about the spectrum and licensing agreements that telecommunications companies have made with governments.
This lack of transparency is compounded by intricate and confusing ownership structures that make it difficult to understand who is responsible and accountable for decisions that fall short on human rights. These relationships, combined with a sector-wide lack of transparency, cast doubt on the responsibility of telcos when they are complicit in human rights violations. In an environment of authoritarian regimes, dictatorships, and corruption, a seemingly close relationship with the government blurs the independence of the companies and calls into question whether they are putting users’ human rights or the demands of the government first.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom from arbitrary detention. As members of the UN Global Compact, both MTN and Vodacom are tasked with supporting and respecting the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights while ensuring that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
However, both companies have implemented network shutdowns and shared users’ personal information across Africa, often during times of unrest and protest. They are not alone in this regard. The #Keepiton campaign also notes Safaricom and Zain’s role in strangling the internet connection during protests. Being unable to communicate can have serious implications for protestors. But beyond activists, there are numerous human rights risks and violations that shutdowns facilitate, such as the inability to make life-saving phone calls to hospitals or law enforcement.
We can and should demand better. Alongside those who risk their safety on the frontlines to protest for their rights, people can work to drive changes in company behaviour.
Recent research on telcos, including MTN, and Vodacom’s parent company, Vodafone, show a worrying trend. Companies are becoming less transparent exactly when we need them to step up on human rights. Organisations are pushing back and demanding accountability from these and other tech companies. This type of work brings people and organisations together to use research to inform their protests, campaigns, advocacy, and litigation. Doing so, we protest against the harmful business models and the business-as-usual approach that puts profits above people.
Change through this line of protest, while slow, is still possible. Holding companies accountable as a form of protest has led to a civil case filed against Telenor Norway. Forcing the company to account for its role in the deaths of people who dared to stand up to the military junta in Myanmar. In the United States, as a member of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, we supported the fight against national immigration policy and won.
Demanding that companies enforce their commitments to human rights is a form of protest. Holding tech companies accountable and demanding increased transparency from companies is a form of protest. Along the Congo River and beyond, we stand with those who are fighting for their human rights. Even if they shut the network down, we will continue to record telecom’s policies and practices. Because we’ve seen time and time again that when governments treat the truth as up for debate, even recording the facts is a form of protest.
Ranking Digital Rights promotes freedom of expression and privacy on the internet by creating global standards and incentives for companies to respect and protect users’ rights. We work with people and organizations globally to hold tech companies accountable for their policies and practices that put the human rights fundamental to our dignity and democracy at risk.
