Author: Wesley Diphoko

Leading technology platforms will no longer be the same after the arrest of Pavel Durov the founder of Telegram app, the messaging platform. According to news reports he was arrested for lack of moderating the platform. The app he founded is accused of failure to cooperate with law enforcement over drug trafficking, child sexual content and fraud or crimes committed by users of the platform.

His arrest has sent shockwaves across the technology sector. Some have condemned it as a form of censorship. Although details of this arrest are not completely clear, it signals something that should be of great concern to all in the technology sector.

In the past, technology platforms have been accused of aiding criminal behaviour.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) once reported that it had conducted an investigation into child pornography on Meta-owned Instagram in collaboration with researchers at Stanford and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “Pedophiles have long used the internet, but unlike the forums and file-transfer services that cater to people who have interest in illicit content, Instagram doesn’t merely host these activities. Its algorithms promote them,” the WSJl reported.

In response the Meta owned Instagram responded by saying the company is “continuously exploring ways to actively defend against this behaviour, and we set up an internal task force to investigate these claims and immediately address them.” Meta acknowledged that the company in some cases received reports of child sexual abuse and failed to act on them, citing a software error that prevented them from being processed (which Meta said has since been fixed). In addition, “we provided updated guidance to our content reviewers to more easily identify and remove predatory accounts,” the company representative indicated.

No one was arrested for such crimes that may have occurred within the Meta owned platform.

We know that founders and leaders of some of the leading technology platforms have been hauled in front of the US Congress for terrible things that may have happened on their platforms. So far, all of them have been left unscathed.

This decision by the French law enforcement authorities is significant for the technology industry. Will it set a precedent for dealing with technology platform founders? Who will be next? It is my hope that it won’t lead further arrests as this is probably not the ideal approach to address challenges with issues on technology platforms. If a founder is arrested for something done by users on the platform, what will stop authorities from arresting founders of other websites or apps for something done by users. Would it be fair to arrest the Uber CEO for something done by a driver? What seems to be missing are proper safeguards across platforms. Such a challenge requires new governance systems across the sector. Arresting one founder will not solve the broader online platforms challenge. Such governance systems should operate globally.

The arrest of Pavel Durov should be a matter of great concern for leaders across the world. How will it impact investigative journalism? Will it expose sources that were using it for safety? All of these questions and more should be considered and trigger an industry solution framework to avoid a similar action.

There has never been a better time to establish a governance body to oversee tech platforms as well as terms of reference to manage complex matters of online governance. Telegram is an important platform, it is used for good and some may have used it for bad things. May the arrest of its founder not bring an end to the creation of great platforms that are making a difference in society.

As the Olympics draw to an end, South Africans will forever remember Akane Simbine the most. In him many will celebrate the triumphs and the potential. The moment that almost got him the medal will keep him in memories long after the Olympics 2024. Many will wonder what if he had one small advantage. I wondered, what if he had a super shoe that could have given him an added advantage. We now know that some athletes have used super shoes at least in some races.

Super shoes often include PEBA (polyether block amide) foam, a bouncier, lighter foam with a better energy return. Shoes with PEBA foam blends can sometimes feel like they’re propelling you forward. Leading sport brands have released super shoes.

​​Nike released the first carbon plate shoe, the Vaporfly 4%, in 2017, it was arguably the biggest breakthrough in distance-running technology since the waffle racers that helped launch the brand in the ’70s. With its high foam stacks and a carbon-fiber plate running through the midsole, the Vaporfly promised runners a 4% increase in performance over regular running shoes, reported the New York Times.

Supershoes boast a variety of features designed to lower the energetic cost of running, allowing athletes to go faster and help them endure the strain of a long-distance race.The most crucial feature are foams that are used to construct parts of the sole. These absorb the impact of the foot and return energy from each foot strike back to the runner. Some use other features, like the orange “air pod” in the Nike Alphafly 3 , for an added bounce. These rigid parts and foams are combined with wafer-thin mesh uppers to create shoes that are increasingly ultralight: the Adidas Adizero Adios Pro Evo 1 (top), released in 2023, weighs just 4.9 ounces (measured in the men’s size 9). Lighter shoes also reduce the energy expended with each stride—enabling runners to move at a given pace with less effort. In the sports sector there’s a major debate about the use of super shoes.

Some have argued that they’ve changed the sport. Some claim that it has become hard to compare new records fairly with old ones and that the steady stream of footwear innovation has brought unending speculation over which brand’s shoes are best, and critics say that places too much emphasis on gear at the expense of runners’ ability. The MIT Review has indicated that laboratory research also suggests that some runners get a greater boost from the technology than others, depending on their biomechanics. It also indicates that Ross Tucker, a South African sports scientist and outspoken supershoe critic, has argued that these differences make it effectively impossible to “evaluate performances between different athletes independent of this nagging doubt over what the shoes do.” I believe that athletes should adopt technology to boost their performance. It is one thing to rely on natural abilities when everyone is backed by natural abilities but something elese when others are using technology to gain an advantage. To level the playing field there’s a need to accept the technology reality and to use it to one’s advantage. This is true of life in general. Competition on any aspect of life will fuelled by technology. The more we resist adoption of technology more we will lose by a small margin. It is my hope that going forwar sport will empower athletes with all the tech they need. We all need to find ways of using technology effectively to gain an advantage.

When the Olympics 2024 commenced last week there was one thing missing, the electronic sports (Esports). They are a form of competition that uses video games.

Esports often takes the form of organised, multiplayer video game competitions, particularly between professional players, played individually or as teams

There’s already a community of active Esports players in South Africa and across the world. History was made last week when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to create Olympic Esports Games. The first edition will be held in 2025 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The 142nd IOC Session in Paris endorsed the proposal by the IOC Executive Board (EB) unanimously. For the organisation of the Games, the IOC has partnered with the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Saudi Arabia for 12 years. This comes after an organisation of the Olympic Esports Week in Singapore in 2023. As a result of the success of this event, the IOC President asked the IOC Esports Commission at the 141st IOC Session in Mumbai, India, in October 2023 to study the creation of the Olympic Esports Games. The Commission, under the leadership of IOC Member David Lappartient, devised a project which addresses the interest of the esports community while respecting the Olympic values. This is a good move by IOC leaders which should be embraced by all.

Lately, we’ve seen a backlash against gaming by parents who misunderstood this new trend in sports. While the concern about the negative impact of video games is understandable, little has been done to assist young people to be balanced.

Recently, I have noted that when it comes to the impact of technology on society there’s little scientifically proven information about its impact. It has also been noted that there’s a tendency to focus on negative aspects of its impact. Here’s an example: Recently, academics from the Stellenbosch University have indicated that although there’s a slight yet meaningful positive link between anxiety and depression in adolescents and the time they spent on social media as well as their engagement on different platforms, the jury is still out on whether social media is to blame for the current mental health crisis among young people. In a study published recently in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics, researchers from Cambridge University and Stellenbosch University (SU) cautioned against making reliable conclusions about the relationship between social media use and mental health.

Although this study has not necessarily focused on video games it does illustrate the need to avoid assumptions about new technologies and their impact on societies.

The reality is that anything that we use has negative and positive consequences which highlights the need to advocate for balance. The recent decision by the IOC committee should be considered when deciding the extent to which young people can use mobile phones. It should be considered especially by entities that are planning bans on mobile phones amongst young people. It is my view that instead of a complete ban there’s a need for better managed use of such devices to avoid limiting young people.

As Olympics of the future will include Esports (gaming) the time is now to get all schools to introduce young people to gaming. There’s no doubt in mind there’s a bright future for gamers. In addition to just Esports, there’s a need to also focus on game design and development. A combination of Esports and Game design could be a future career. When we take away devices from young people we may be limiting their chances of widening their horizons. There’s now a need for local sports businesses and organisations to consider the meaning of Esports and how they can also participate. According to Statista, the Esports market worldwide is projected to reach a revenue of US$4.3bn in 2024. This is expected to show an annual growth rate (CAGR 2024-2028) of 7.10%, resulting in a projected market volume of US$5.7bn by 2028. There’s no better time to get involved while avoiding the bad elements of eSports industry.

Computer users recently experienced what could be described as an important warning for the digital world. For some it manifested in the form of a blue screen (also known as Blue Screen of Death) which stopped from working. For some it was cancelled flights and inability to access important information to carry out work. Essentially, the global community experienced what it feels like when systems fail. What happened and what can we learn from the failure of systems?

A cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, a Texas company, that specialises in protecting corporate clients from cyberthreats pushed out an automatic update to its security software on its clients’ machines.

Unfortunately, the update inadvertently contained a bug that forced machines that received it to crash, resulting in the Blue Screen of Death, the screen that appears on a Windows PC when there has been a critical error in the software. Due to this bug and its resulting system crashes, services that rely on these computers were also down across the world. This incident perfectly illustrated what happens when society places its reliance on technology for its operations. It also illustrated the extent to which most businesses rely on dominant technology companies for their functions. This outage was not the result of a flaw in Windows itself. Rather, it was a flaw with Windows security software provided by the independent cybersecurity company CrowdStrike. Because of this, only PCs running the impacted CrowdStrike software were affected, and not every Windows PC across the world. CrowdStrike’s services are used by scores of Fortune 500 companies. These companies will probably evaluate their use of Crowdstrike, a company that was founded in 2011 and now with 8000 employees. If lawmakers are paying attention they will be emboldened to discourage monopolies.

The recent technology outage should inspire society to reflect about the use of technology and how it is used.

In most cases, when new technology is used, very few factor the possibility of outages. As we adopt technology for daily functions, there’s a need to also enable the ability to function manually without impacting productivity when systems fail.

More importantly, there’s a need to assess the impact of potential technology outages. Such an assessment process should pay attention to over reliance on dominant companies. The recent incident has shown that over reliance on a single entity can negatively impact society. This is more important now as we adopt artificial intelligences (AI). It would be a great error for most companies to rely heavily on dominant AI companies. The effects of reliance on a dominant AI company could be disastrous at a point at which AI is highly adopted. The more connected we are the more danger we are likely to have when something goes wrong. None of this should hamper innovation however there’s a need to begin a process of introducing responsible innovation. Now more than ever we should ask ourselves, what could go wrong? Failure to anticipate future negative consequences of using technology will cost us dearly. So far we have not seen much damage with the Crowdstrick incident, in future technology outages may affect our very lives. We should adopt future technology with caution and responsibly.

The South African Communications Ministry for the first time is led by a young person in the form of Solly Malatsi. The youthful factor alone is enough to suggest that there’s change on its way for organisations such as the (1) SABC, (2) SA Post Office and (3) State Information Technology Agency (SITA). He will face tough issues that require maturity and leadership with youthful flair.

He will be faced with the challenge of taking the SABC to the future, something that requires a young leader with imagination. The SABC is a dinosaur that has remained with the same infrastructure that was developed during the old order. In recent years the entity has tried to introduce innovations such as the SABC Plus app however this is not enough to make the national broadcaster relevant for the future. Malatsi will have to turn SABC into a revenue generating digital platform of the future. In media, the SABC is probably one of the future entities with the muscle to create the most powerful digital giant in the African continent by just using technology and startup thinking.

The same can be said about the South African Post Office (Sapo). This critical entity is in ICU currently however it can still survive. A youthful mindset and leadership is exactly what the SA Post Office needs to create the Post Office of the future. This could include the development of a Digital South Africa that enables citizens to interact with government and businesses through the use of apps on their mobile devices. The Post Office could achieve this through the creation of the national app economy to enable access to government services. Malatsi has an opportunity of creating a completely different Post Office by leveraging the current infrastructure for citizens to access digital tools for communications and other critical services.

The digital transformation that can be enabled by the youthful leadership of Malatsi at SABC and the SA Post Office could be made possible by another entity under his wings, the State Information Technology Agency (SITA). The national technology infrastructure is managed by SITA and through it the Minister has the weapon to turn around not just the communication portfolio but the entire country. The databases of the country which could one day enable Artificial Intelligences for health, agriculture and other portfolios are managed by SITA.

This national technology giant (SITA) is the only one that could enable SABC and SA Post Office to become relevant entities in the future.

The Communications ministry under Malatsi can become the catalyst required by South Africa to survive. He must however be careful of touching Telkom which is one of the semi-government entities that is showing signs of survival. The ministry ought to be careful of taking the privatisation approach with entities such as the SABC and the Post Office. These are national assets that need to serve without creating a structure that will restrict access for all. SABC, SA Post Office and SITA can still survive with the right focus on technology and leadership that appreciates innovation.

In addition to SITA as an enabler, Malatsi has a capable technology startup ecosystem in South Africa that he can rely upon to turn around ailing entities that need technology boost. If he does, South Africa will become one of the most innovative countries in the continent by just infusing technology and innovation on current national entities that are in trouble right now. Malatsi can become the face of innovation in government if he focuses on the future.