A dilemma facing the Taliban..the only invader who will not leave Afghanistan

Over the past few days, everyone witnessed the entry of Taliban forces into Kabul, and then videos documenting the events from there, and the media and analysts competed to talk about the economic, military and even social aspects that will result from the Taliban's return to power.

Independent video

Social media published pictures and videos of Taliban fighters after they entered Kabul, and one of these videos was of a group of fighters inside a palace eating a victory feast.

The strange thing in the video is that most of those present carry mobile phones and use them extensively. This use that we see in our daily lives seems to have reached these fighters.

The surprising aspect of this is the knowledge that these fighters, who confronted the American army and drove it out of their lands with weapons that are almost primitive when compared to the weapons of their enemy, use the same technology as their enemy and may have the same need and attachment to it.

Taliban after technology

When the first attack by US forces on Afghanistan in the early 2000s, specifically in 2001, the world had not witnessed such innovations as the mobile phone and social media, and we do not know how the Taliban fighter used to spend his time in something other than fighting or preparing for it.

But the videos that spread from Kabul after the last entry show that these fighters have the same passion and attachment to posting videos as any user related to technology and its aftermath.

The media has recently been buzzing about the incident of closing some communication platforms, some of the accounts created by the movement to communicate with citizens in Kabul, including a hotline on WhatsApp to receive complaints and report incidents.

This incident makes us certain that the adoption of consumer technology is a decision taken at the leadership level in the movement and is not limited to individuals, which raises many questions, and here we will not talk about the legal aspect of adoption and it is not the focus of the conversation, but we are talking about the human, social and even the organizational and political aspect .

The fact that the Taliban uses American products and technologies is a problem not only for the Taliban movement, but rather the problem of their enemies in the first place.

The Americans came out, and their technologies did not come out

Once the Taliban regained power in Afghanistan, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other big internet companies faced an uncomfortable situation, what should they do about the online accounts the Taliban began using to spread their message and prove their legitimacy?

The choice is whether online companies recognize the Taliban as the official government of Afghanistan or isolate it because of the group's history of violence and repression—as classified by the United States—a dilemma that international governments themselves are trying to solve.

One new way to win Afghans' trust from the Taliban is to appear as a legitimate government on social media, and internet companies are trying to figure out how to deal with it.

Internet companies and networking sites are trying to figure out how to deal with the Taliban (Reuters)

Facebook has for years banned Taliban-related accounts as part of its three-tiered policy of "dangerous organizations" and the company said this week it would continue to remove Taliban accounts and posts that support the group.

This includes a helpline for Afghan citizens on WhatsApp, which is ironically owned by Facebook.

The Taliban is now in control of a country and has driven out the armies of several countries, but they are not allowed to create a WhatsApp group.

YouTube said it would also delete accounts it believed were operated by the movement.

Twitter does not have a blanket ban, but it did tell CNN that any posts or videos must comply with rules banning what it considers hate speech or incitement to violence.

Pro-Taliban accounts and social media posts that appeared despite the ban were found, including a Facebook page that called itself a grocery store but posted pro-Taliban messages in recent days.

These US Internet companies are guided by the laws of their country of origin and those of the countries in which they operate, and they draw their cues from the international community.

But in the end, these are private companies that have to make their own decisions as they have done on several previous occasions.

It was Facebook, YouTube and Twitter that decided in January that former US President Donald Trump's words could encourage more violence if posted on their sites.

And Twitter had to make a choice when the government of India ordered it to erase what the country's leadership saw as subversive rhetoric and which others believed was fundamental freedom of expression in democracy.

Facebook also chose not to interfere when Myanmar military personnel turned the social network into a tool for ethnic cleansing.

In each case, unelected technical executives in the United States had to make decisions that resonated with citizens and elected leaders.

And unlike governments, internet companies face virtually no accountability to the public if people disagree with their decisions.

And citizens can't vote for Mark Zuckerberg to kick him off Facebook.

There is a long and often ugly history of American corporations influencing what happens away from the United States to protect their interests.

Media tycoons helped start wars and elect their favorite candidates.

It seems that the position of Facebook, YouTube and other American Internet companies is not much different from them.

Their products have become so widely used that their effect is not actually an option.

So they should act as diplomats whether they like it or not.

The only remaining invader in Afghanistan

Perhaps Afghanistan will not face new military invaders in the coming years after it has proven that it is the "graveyard of invaders", but the technology invented by the invaders still remains in Afghanistan and it is not imagined that it will leave.

But the important question: Will this new invader be on the side of the Afghan people and the Taliban movement, or will it be the back door to more invaders and greedy outsiders?