Social media has become a theatre for violence and intimidation, particularly where gang affiliation is concerned.
Social media has become a theatre for violence and intimidation, particularly where gang affiliation is concerned. Members of these digital gangs assert power, dominance and street credibility through livestreams, posts and viral videos.
The ephemeral nature of platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp and TikTok — often described as “digital cocaine” creates an addictive pull for passive users. For some, that pull is not towards connection, but toward chaos, where co-opted gang culture seduces users into a cyberring of violence and intimidation.
According to Derica Lambrechts, in the study Online Geographies of Gang Content on TikTok, published last year, there is limited research on the proliferation of gang activity in digital spaces, particularly in South Africa. Yet, platforms are being exploited to glorify territorial dominance and criminal achievements. This is not unique to the South African context. In the US, similar phenomena are referred to as “cyberbanging”.
Disturbingly, this digital baiting has real-world consequences. There have been multiple incidents where online disputes have spilled over into physical assaults. Influencers, commentators and ordinary users have been attacked for voicing controversial opinions. Digital violence is no longer virtual — it spills into everyday life. This type of cyberviolence has evolved and proliferated to harmful behaviours and exploitation, breeding grounds for gangs.
A 2021 global review by the K4D Helpdesk reveals that between 16% and 58% of users, particularly women and girls, have experienced some form of online discrimination and intimidation, with Facebook commonly reported as the top platform for abuse. The same report highlights that many perpetrators are known to victims, with motivations rooted in power, control and cultural domination. These are not isolated acts of trolling — they are calculated performances of dominance.
We must then ask: “What role does technology play in amplifying gang culture?” Social media, once hailed as a tool for connection, is now weaponised for rivalry and intimidation. Does it glorify gangsterism?
Gang-related activity is a symptom of inequality. It flourishes in under-resourced communities facing unemployment, poor education, water scarcity and limited electricity. These conditions are not only exacerbated by gangsterism — they are fertile ground for its growth.
While technology promises progress, it can deepen social divides when access is not paired with education. If digital literacy remains out of reach, especially in disadvantaged areas, the digital space becomes a breeding ground for exposure — not expression. Rivalries thrive. Threats go viral.
What this reveals is that gangsterism no longer hides in alleys or on street corners. It is broadcast in real time via timelines and live streams. If left unchecked, these platforms risk being hijacked by those who use them not to connect, but to control.
Philosopher Pak-Hang Wong refers to these figures as “malignant actors” — individuals who exploit digital tools to assert power and gain “street credibility”. They often cloak their violence in cultural loyalty and tradition, creating moral camouflage for manipulation.
In this context, deference to culture becomes a loophole legitimising control while disguising harm. Technology becomes both the battleground and the weapon.
Although the issue may seem local, it calls for a broader ethical lens — digital equity. In South Africa, Ubuntu ethics offers a counter-narrative to digital alienation by emphasising communal interdependence. Yet Western liberal traditions, which centre on autonomy, often overlook the structural inequalities these communities face. The question, then, is: “What kind of ethical framework can protect the rights of digital users?”
Looking globally, a human rights approach offers an equitable foundation. It affirms that dignity, participation and non-discrimination are universal principles that must extend to digital environments. These include the right to digital safety and the right to algorithmic dignity, where no one should be subjected to harm, exclusion or erasure.
But ethical frameworks need implementation. South Africa’s Government AI Policy outlines a strategy under section 6.1: Talent and Capacity Development, which includes:
- Integrating AI into school curricula;
- Offering specialised training programmes; and
- Fostering academic-industry collaboration.
These reforms aim to cultivate AI literacy from the ground up. But unless ethical practices are prioritised, particularly in communities vulnerable to gang exploitation, policy alone will fall short.
Technology is not neutral — it reflects the values of its users and mirrors the society in which it exists. To confront cyberviolence, we must address both its surface use and its underlying ethical roots — roots that too often reflect a world of gangsterism and intimidation.
South Africa’s ethical AI vision is an important step. But without addressing inequality, we risk turning AI into just another tool for control.
So, the question remains — are we empowering communities to navigate the digital age, or abandoning them to the algorithmic battlegrounds of social media?
Nasreen Watson is completing a master’s with a focus on ethics of artificial intelligence in education and digital literacy in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Johannesburg.