Social Media in Sudan: A Tool of Mobilisation and a Machine of Polarisation
Dr Ismail Satti
Introduction
Since the outbreak of protests in Sudan in December 2018—and even before that—social media platforms have played a central role in the Sudanese public sphere. They have gone far beyond their traditional function as communication channels, becoming dynamic spaces for political mobilisation and shaping public opinion.
And although I do not claim neutrality regarding the devastating war ravaging our homeland, I address in this article—through a scientific analytical lens—the manner in which these platforms have contributed to deepening divisions within our local and regional communities, taking the Sudanese context as a case study.
From Containing Polarisation to Deepening It: The Transformation of Platforms in Sudan
The phenomenon of limited activism evolving into large-scale collective movements did not suddenly emerge at the end of 2018. Its roots go back to 2013, with the gradual spread of platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp in Sudan. During this formative phase, scattered efforts—locally and regionally—began to evolve into organised activities, paving the way for the mass mobilisation that preceded the fall of the Al-Inqaz regime.
The Peak of Unity (2018–2019)
During this period, mobilisation through social media reached its zenith. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X) became unified spaces calling for change. Hashtags such as #Millioniyya_December and #Just_Fall mobilised broad audiences that transcended ideological affiliations in the presence of a clear “common enemy.”
Algorithms amplified this momentum, creating an unprecedented surge in collective activity.
The Phase of Division (Post-2019)
With the disappearance of the common enemy after the regime’s fall, social media shifted from tools of unification to instruments of fragmentation. Conflicts arose between advocates of radical change, and disputes emerged over the state’s identity and the legitimacy of governance. Algorithms recalibrated themselves to reinforce narrow identities and extremist discourse at the expense of a shared national interest.
Mechanisms of Digital Polarisation: Algorithmic Filtering, Echo Chambers and Virtual Fragmentation
• Algorithmic Filtering
This is the primary driver of polarisation. Algorithms automatically filter and rank the content displayed to users based on their previous data and online behaviour. Through tracking searches, likes, and time spent on each post, algorithms create a personalised digital bubble designed to make the user experience more engaging. Though useful for saving time, this mechanism becomes dangerous when it hides content that contradicts the user’s views—laying the groundwork for systematic intellectual isolation.
• Echo Chambers
Echo chambers represent the second stage of digital polarisation. The digital bubble becomes a closed virtual environment where users are exposed only to opinions that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. Algorithms fortify these chambers by amplifying agreeable content, producing:
Amplification of existing convictions and framing them as “absolute truth”
Deepening polarisation and widening gaps between opposing views
Intellectual isolation that demonises dissenting opinions
• Digital Fragmentation
This is the natural culmination of the process. Echo chambers turn into isolated islands where individuals interact only with like-minded people within their bubbles. Interaction between groups with differing convictions becomes minimal or non-existent.
Thus, society fractures into closed entities lacking common ground. Shared dialogue weakens, and polarisation grows. The result is a fragmented society where people inhabit parallel “realities.”
This occurred in Sudan during the revolutionary period (2018–2019), when society split between supporters and opponents of the uprising. The divide worsened after the war began in April 2023, as virtual islands hardened into antagonistic camps, such as:
Civilian vs Military
Islamist vs Secular
Supporters of the army until the defeat of the RSF vs Opponents of the war who see it as catastrophic
The result: an environment where shared dialogue and unified facts become nearly impossible, deepening misunderstanding among segments of society.
Consequences of Algorithmic Filtering, Echo Chambers and Virtual Fragmentation
These mechanisms have fractured the Sudanese digital sphere, producing dangerous phenomena that fuel polarisation and intensify divisions:
• Amplification of extremist discourse: Algorithms favour emotional, sensational content, boosting its reach.
• Sectarian language: Terms like “Islamists,” “Secularists,” “Gahattha,” and “Fulul” become insults rather than political categories.
• Conspiracy theories: Widespread accusations of treason destroy rational dialogue.
• Information warfare: Spreading false news to defame public figures and manipulate public opinion.
• Fake and ideological accounts: Coordinated networks (“troll armies”) push unified narratives and attack dissenters, creating the illusion of mass support.
• Dual portrayal of institutions:
In one sphere, the army is portrayed as the guardian of legitimacy.
In another, as an Islamist tool blocking the revolution.
Conversely, the RSF is depicted either as a defender of the revolution or as a criminal militia that betrayed the state.
• Resurrection of ideological conflict: Exaggeration of Islamist–secular divides, even when identity is not central.
Thus, social media in Sudan has not merely mirrored polarisation—it has actively deepened and expanded it, creating isolated virtual worlds and spreading extremism and misinformation. More dangerously, this project of division now threatens to generate structural societal fragmentation, rooted in tribal and ethnic identity polarisation that could reshape Sudan for decades.
Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any future effort to rebuild the social fabric and create a national dialogue that transcends screen-bound divides.
Pathways to Possible Solutions: From the Individual to the Platform to the State
To confront these challenges, practical solutions emerge at two key levels: social media platform responsibility and national/institutional measures.
1. Responsibility of Individuals and Society (Intellectual Immunity)
• Media literacy: Teaching people to identify fake news, verify sources, and understand algorithmic echo chambers.
• Self-discipline: Verifying information before sharing and resisting provocative emotional content.
• Real human connection: Building genuine communication with those holding different views to dismantle stereotypes.
2. Responsibility of Social Media Platforms (Ethical Duty)
• Algorithmic transparency: Public pressure on companies like Meta (Facebook) and Twitter to reveal how algorithms amplify extremist content.
• Fact-checking: Strengthening independent verification partnerships to curb misinformation.
• Promotion of moderate content: Altering algorithms to favour balanced analytical material over sensational posts.
• Multimedia dialogue spaces: Curated forums—virtual, radio, TV, and in-person—bringing opposing voices together to model respectful dialogue.
3. Responsibility of the State and Institutions (Legislative and National Framework)
• Direct national dialogue: Creating genuine forums that unite political and social entities under the goal of “Saving Sudan.”
• Smart regulatory laws: Legislating against hate speech while protecting freedom of expression.
• Support for independent media: Strengthening professional outlets that provide balanced analysis and investigative reporting as alternatives to the digital noise.
The Greatest Challenge: Political Will and National Consensus
Many actors benefit from polarisation—on the ground and online—because it serves as a powerful mobilisation tool. Therefore, any real solution requires:
Recognition by all sides that they are part of the problem
Sacrificing narrow mobilisation gains for broader national interests
A neutral and trusted mediator—domestic or international—capable of lowering tensions
Conclusion
The real solution begins with a fundamental realisation: the “opponent” is not absolute evil, and “truth” is not the monopoly of a single group. While social media platforms play a significant role, the essence of the solution lies in human will—the willingness to break the cycle of hatred.
Rebuilding lost trust does not happen through Facebook posts, but through concrete steps on the ground, direct dialogue, and a genuine abandonment of polarising rhetoric.
And God is the ultimate guide, and He shows the way.
Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=8820