In considering the merits and demerits of state regulation of the press, one argument proposed is the feeling that as the press has evolved, it has taken on too much power and reached a stage where it feels untouchable. The argument being validated to a large extent by the phone hacking scandals and the constant arrests of News International affiliated journalists. Using this reasoning, the belief is that the powers of the press have to be curbed in order to ensure the past mistakes are not repeated and also to bring to an end the era of self-governance. This explains the viewpoint offered by Holly Weldin when she suggests that “while corporations might fight against the ‘nanny state’ and its restrictions, if the last year or so has taught us anything it is that the media needs a baby sitter, and the baby cannot babysit itself”. [1] By saying such, it underscores the importance of the press being held accountable and responsible for its conduct and behaviour. It can be argued that this allows the press to be checked by the state thus creating an inverse of the status quo where the press are the one checking on the state leading into the principle of checks and balances.

Another viewpoint that could be considered is centred on using the United States as a cautionary tale to the British media. In America, there is no system of regulation whatsoever with journalists not being required to belong to professional bodies or organizations belonging to press councils or complaint commissions. As Mike Farrell states “the absence of these responsibilities and the performance of the media have undermined public support for the First Amendment and for journalists. A seemingly unending list of public opinion surveys has found that the public holds journalists and the press in low regard”[2].  This echoes the view of John C. Merill who stated that “Criticism of the media is crashing in from all sides. Journalism and its practitioners increasingly are being cast as social villains, dispensing superficial, negative and sensational information harmful to the health of society”. [3] Building from this, it is quite logical to suggest that there is need to hold the press to higher standards of conduct to ensure that the role they play to “provide a check on all aspects of public life”[4]is not undermined or trivialized and this can be done by state regulation. This can be interpreted as expressive of a desire to keep the media on their toes in the pursuit of excellence from them. This portrays the press as purveyors of a culture built on an improper set of morals and ethical guidelines who have failed to revel in their role of social responsibility and acting in a measured, balanced and sensible manner in shaping the scope of public opinion. [5]

It is worthy of note that the calls for state regulation of the press are not a new or recent phenomenon. It is something which historically has been commonplace as “at least once every decade since the Second World War, parliamentarians have threatened legislative controls”[6]. This would suggest that there’s a history of unethical behaviour best exemplified by “a stream of complaints about breach of privacy, harassment of individuals and their families, inaccurate reporting and intrusion”[7] amongst the press corps which can only truly be resolved by the politicians stepping up in a bid to curb the powers the press have been able to take upon themselves. This is a mode through which decisive action is taken in order to straighten up the act of the press. This notion can be validated by the conclusion of the report of the Calcutt Committee on Privacy and Related Matters in June 1990 in which the press were essentially placed on probation as they were “given one final chance to prove that voluntary self-regulation can be made to work”. [8]It is safe to say, two decades later, the fact that this is still a bone of contention must surely be viewed as a great indictment on the media and its conduct thus helping further the idea that unless the state steps in to govern and regulate the conduct of the press, it would continue to occupy space in the sphere of public opinion and debate.

A Way Forward- Restructuring the Press Complaints Commission

The diminishing power of the Press Complaints Commission is best exacerbated by the Sarah Cox v The People case where the plaintiff despite gaining an apology through the Commission went on to sue. This was the first time this ever happened and also underlines the viewpoint that the Commission has not done enough to raise journalistic standards. Being proactive, I propose that instead of seeking state regulation of the press, the sensible option would be to restructure the Press Complaints Commission by strengthening it to compensate for the present lack of bite, indecisiveness and powerlessness in ensuring the press is held to account when it falls short. This would draw minimally from the proposed regulation. To successfully achieve this, I recommend that the ambit of the complaints commission be extended beyond mere apology orders to genuine sanctions such as fines and suspensions for press practitioners when they are found to fall short in the moral stakes. In a sense, this would be maintaining the status quo whereby the state influence is minimal but goes a step further by ensuring that the press are well regulated by strengthening the mechanism designed to act as a check and balance. It would also oversee a greater sense of responsibility amongst journalists on the basis that violation of the code of conduct would be punished thus serving as a way of deterring bad journalism. I would also propose that it is run and controlled by a select group of journalists. By doing this, it would help deter any possibilities of a chilling effect on the press conduct knowing that it works on a peer assessed basis thus feeding the notion that they are being judged by their colleagues who from their experiences would have a greater understanding of the intricacies of the journalistic world and are better posited to decide what can be classified under as ethical or unethical conduct.

Conclusion

My personal opinion is in line with that of Hislop in suggesting that the route of state regulation of the press is a very dangerous one that limits the impact the press can make in fulfilling its role as a check upon the political field. I am reminded of the assertion that “the older British tradition is just that: let truthful speech counter lies, let good newspapers call out shoddy ones (as they did in the phone hacking case). The remedy for unethical journalism is good journalism- not government intervention”. [9] I would argue that this raises a very prominent point. Free speech can be viewed as one of Britain’s greatest contributions to world civilization it would be a shame to see it go because of the poor enforcement of existing laws. In fact, the issue at stake should be the enforcement of those existing laws instead of creating a new one under the guise of it being ‘statutorily underpinned’ and inhibiting the freedom of speech: one of the essential human rights. I also believe that any attempts by the political ruling class to regulate the press effectively serves as a way of exercising control over the press thus allowing politicians become an authority unto themselves. Whilst that could come as an overly negative assertion, I have no shadow of doubt that this would be the inevitable end result after the law undergoes its natural evolutionary process. As is wont to happen, allowing this form of state regulation can be seen as the laying of foundations of a society which over the next century where the power of the press as check on the ruling class would be severely hamstrung and diminished suggesting that the democratic principles which we cherish and want to see protected would be effectively thrown to the dustbin. I buy wholeheartedly into the debate that politicians should be the ones respectful of the press and not the other way and anything that could undermine or negate this should be discouraged and kept at the barest minimum.

*This is the concluding part of the series.

Part I

Part II

Ian Hislop

The view propagated by Ian Hislop is particularly significant. It suggests that state regulation of the press allows the state to maintain an element of control over the press thus inhibiting and limiting them from reporting the state with the same vigour and fearlessness that is required. To do otherwise would negate the notion of the press as public watchdogs who exist as a “means of defending the country against corrupt government, by publicising the actions of its rulers”.[1] This ties in nicely with the assertion put forward by William Blackstone who argued that “the liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state…..  Every man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiment he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press[2]”.

Hislop’s feeling of wariness to this is further highlighted by drawing a parallel to the predicament in France where the press were hamstrung in their bid to expose the fact that “the minister in charge of raising taxes was paying no taxes”.[3] Building upon that, it foreshadows a dangerous scenario where political interference would be rife in the press which runs the risk of ruining all that is good about it. The Press are a very important part of society in holding the state and politicians to account. They help in ensuring that the rules and regulations governing society are held to the highest standard. By allowing statutory regulation, there is a sensible case being made that this detracts from allowing them flourish in their role of pursuing news that would interest the public in gauging the usefulness and merits of those tasked with the role of governing society.  This is the argument proposed by Adrian Jeakings in stating that “a free press cannot be free if it’s dependent on and accountable to a regulatory body recognized by the state”.[4] State regulation comes across as a mechanism that weakens the position of the press in fulfilling its obligation to society as an independent barometer of public opinion.  The fear of legitimizing intervention from the political class remains one of the biggest fears of the media community. The New York Times’ captures this fear when it declared, in an editorial analyzing the proposed regulation process suggested by the Leveson inquiry, that “The kind of press regulations proposed by British politicians would do more harm than good because an unfettered press is essential to democracy.” [5] The editorial does not stop there. It goes a step further by highlighting a flaw in the argument of the school proposing state regulation. They point out sensibly that it was “journalists at newspapers like The Guardian and The Times, not the police, who first brought to light the scope and extent of hacking by British tabloids. It would be perverse if regulations enacted in response to this scandal ended up stifling the kind of hard-hitting investigative journalism that brought it to light in the first place”.  Hislop raises a crucial point in suggesting that the main bone of contention should not be the regulation of the media by the state but a more effective system of law enforcement. “Contempt of court is illegal. Phone tapping is illegal, Policemen taking money is illegal. All of these things don’t need a code; we already have laws for them”, he submitted. In essence, the point being made is that instead of regulating the press directly, the relevant laws that apply to errant press operations and behavior should henceforth be tightened and enforced more stringently by the law enforcement authorities.

There is also an argument that by legitimizing state regulation in the United Kingdom, cognizance is lost of her role as a world super power that must be in the vanguard of setting best practices globally. Setting such a dangerous precedent as state regulation is to encourage other countries with weaker democratic traditions and institutions to embrace punitive measures to suppress all forms of opposition or resistance.  This can be exemplified by alluding to the climate in Turkey where up to 76 journalists and editors have been jailed on the basis of violating an anti-terror law “so mistily drawn that almost any reporting of what is said or done can be termed incitement and land you behind bars.”[6]  If the United Kingdom decided to toe the line of state regulation, it has to keep in mind the role it plays on a global scale and recognize that it cannot be viewed as being privy to limiting the press. By virtue of this status, what is required is a degree of pro activeness, not reactiveness which this intention of shackling the press comes across as; in setting the trends that the rest of the world follows.

Another argument proposed by opponents of state regulation is the sense that any attempts at censoring or managing the activities of the media would result in a chilling effect on freedom of speech. This was the fear of Times Editor, James Harding when he appeared at the Leveson inquiry. The crux of his argument being that by opening the door to state regulation of the press, there would be the risk of inhibiting free speech, that hallmark of democratic and liberal societies.  The argument is that by creating a state regulated press, there would be an increased fear and reluctance for people to exercise their rights to freedom of speech.  This would contradict Article 19 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights that enshrines the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”   Lord MacDonald, the former Director of Public Prosecutions goes further by arguing that “the risk of statutory regulation is not only  that it may have a chilling effect, it may encourage deference. I don’t think we want a deferential press any more than we want a censored press”[7]. Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education with a journalistic background echoes George Orwell when he states “By definition, freedom of speech doesn’t mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time”[8]. This plays to the notion that state regulation would make a puppet out of the press and limit its powers in asking questions that need to be asked, subsequently portraying it as awestruck by the political ruling class. This view is further accentuated by the remarks of Fraser Nelson, Editor of the Spectator that “Already I as an editor am getting MP’s and Ministers calling me up to order that I discipline writers who displease them or take articles down in a way that they wouldn’t have even a year ago. The feeling is going around amongst politicians that now, finally, they are going to be able to get their say in how the press behave in Britain and it’s not a good step for British liberty”[9]. This highlights the dangers that loom should state regulation of the press come to life. The assertion that “a noisy, raucous press is good for democracy and so good for Britain” [10] is apt as it once again conforms to the principle of holding the State and powerful people to account. State regulation of the press disallows this and it should serve as a reminder as to why any attempts to exercise undue influence or control over the modus operandi of the press should be disallowed.   I agree with this notion that provided the press fulfil the basic requirement that “whilst being free to be partisan, it must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”,[11] any other form of regulation is unnecessary. The state should be scared of the press and not the other way conforming to Thomas Jefferson’s view that “the only security of all is in a free press”.  [12]

*This is the second of a three part series.

Part III

Part I

“If the state regulates the press, then the press no longer regulates the state.”

 - Ian Hislop at the Leveson Inquiry

Introduction

Over the last couple of years, there has been a strong air of condemnation and criticism of press content and conduct. The general opinion being that these press institutions have been poorly regulated and allowed to become an institution unto themselves; doing as they pleased without any fear of repercussions.  This spirit is encapsulated by the practice within the press world of phone hacking, which generally involved the illegal interception of phone calls of prominent figures in a bid to access their voicemail. This particularly reached its head when the news came out that the phone of murdered school girl, Milly Dowler had been hacked, allowing voice messages to be recorded and raising false hopes within her family that she may have been alive.

That particular case served as inspiration David Cameron’s decision to initiate the Lord Leveson-led public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethical behaviour of the British press. To paint a better picture of the accusations the press were subjected to, it is worth noting that  there were also a wide number of  legal proceedings instigated by prominent celebrities’ such as Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller, Gordon Taylor, Steve Coogan and Andy Gray against the press. This scandal also brought about the demise of the News International-controlled ‘News of the World’ which was viewed as the main proponent of the phone hacking culture. It was in light of these revelations and climate that the school of thought suggesting state regulation of the press received some sympathetic attention. This provides a brief snapshot of the reasoning proffered by those favoring press regulations.

The Proposed Regulation

As the movement for the bill designed in response to the Leveson findings has gathered momentum, its intricacies are placed under the spotlight. The model sets out to create and implement a form of independent regulation with statutory basis. Its intention is to be enshrined using the royal charter method which simply is a formal document issued by a monarch with intentions to grant a body or authority the jurisdiction to carry out whatever role it is briefed. The proposed regulation would be able to instigate fines and would also have enough clout to demand corrections coupled with the ability to influence where the corrections can be published when newspapers and websites are found to have breached the terms governing their conduct. This would also instigate the advent of exemplary damages in court. It would allow for the widening of the scope of liability to bloggers and social media accounts by extension. As it is, it has expectedly been widely condemned and rejected by most of the press houses.

*This is the first of a three part series.

Part II

Part III

Why should someone wake in the morning and put up a property listing for a self-contained room in Yaba and request for a tenant willing to pay 240,000 for a year? It just doesn’t make sense.

I got an email a few days ago from ToLet.com.ng. They’re basically a Nigerian website that allows you look through listed properties and book an inspection so you can decide to rent or buy or whatever you do with property. Ignoring the fact that they sent me an email and I’ve never heard about them, they pretty much do the same thing as other Nigerian property websites (seriously guys, there’s such a thing as sending an email with a paragraph and saying “Hi, we sell/rent out property online”).

Back to the matter. Open. I’ve always wondered why Nigerians pay rent annually. Not just annually, I’ve also wondered why people have to pay rent for two years and forever more. If I die within two years, the landlord will just rent it to someone else. Tufia.

We pay for DSTV monthly, postpaid telco subscribers pay monthly, we pay for our desktop and mobile internet plans monthly. Most importantly, we get paid/pay salaries monthly. So why should someone wake in the morning and put up a property listing for a self-contained room in Yaba and request for a tenant willing to pay 240,000 for a year? It just doesn’t make sense.

If you’ve done this or you’re doing this, not only are you quite the greedy fellow, you’re also encouraging stealing. Yes, you’re part of the reason Lagos is such an expensive city to live in. Ah.

Now let’s look at the average Yaba demographic. I lived there for seven years. There’s an awfully large number of UNILAG students. Why should a student pay for what-isn’t-a-flat for an entire year? There are holidays within the school year, no?

So for all those Nigerian startups out there that are trying so hard to ‘disrupt’ the Real Estate industry, how about you allow me pay rent monthly via your website. As far as I’ve seen, all the websites basically do what a real estate agent does, they just seem to be larger aggregates of property. Like the old way of doing things, the user still has to visit the location physically, inspect, and most of all, the user has to pay an annual fee. Please, how is that different?

No, you’re not allowed to blame the estate agents. They’re not set in stone. They can be bypassed.

Online shopping and delivery service Jumia (formely Kasuwa and Sabunta) is already failing at deliveries barely 6 months since its launch. Here’s the story of a disgruntled customer who doesn’t wish to be named. Let’s call him “John”.

UPDATE: We have been reached by a Jumia staff member who has offered to speak to John and fix the problems. That’s great.

John ordered a laptop from Jumia’s website and paid via his debit card. The laptop was delivered 5 weeks after the promised delivery date. When John eventually opened the laptop, he found out it was running Linux as opposed to the Windows 7 description on the website. The laptop also had a smaller hard drive space than what was displayed.

John, like any other customer, assumed it was a mistake and reached Jumia customer care. Jumia then promised to pick the laptop up and install Windows 7 for him. This sounds great right? No. Not really. Jumia then went ahead and informed John that his hard drive will not be upgraded.

He was also told he’ll get the replacement on Monday September 24th. It’s September 27th as I draft this and John still hasn’t gotten the laptop he ordered for.

So I’ve got a few questions for Jumia.

1. Did John not pay for a larger storage space than that which he got?

2. Why does Jumia keep displaying things it doesn’t have or can’t get on time? They put up an iPhone 5 ad this morning and we can be very sure they don’t have it.

3. Does Jumia understand the legal implications of its actions?

Jumia’s actions and poor service (if they continue to act in this manner), will drastically reduce the confidence of Nigerians in e-commerce services and hinder the progress of businesses who only display products they already have.

Jumia clearly cannot be “Nigeria’s Amazon” or “Africa’s Amazon” if they keep up this attitude.

Have you ordered or purchased anything from Jumia? Please let us know about your experience in the comments section.

Earlier today, I was on Linda Ikeji’s Blog and I saw a post about a site called Konga.com that offered “baby, beauty & personal care retailing in Nigeria.” I was impressed because barely three months ago, I came across something similar.

As a student in the US living on campus without a car, going to the grocery store can be a pain, especially in between school work and trying to work around campus shuttle schedules. So, when I found Soap.com, I literally had this play in my head. It was and has been such a lifesaver, I just have to order what I want and it comes to me in a day or two. Simple and perfect!

I thought about how cool it would be if we had something similar in Nigeria, but when I thought ‘similar’, I didn’t think Konga.com-type similar. Everything on the site is pretty much from Soap.com’s layout, and I was more furious than impressed when I saw it. Everything right down to the font, the logo, the individual product pages etc.

It took me a lot to actually write this post because I really don’t want to get on the bad side of anyone. Plus, they aren’t the first to copy the layout of another site. Rocket Internet is notorious for using the concept and design of other major sites to create localized versions. Their Nigerian version of Zappos, Sabunta was caught copying code from Fab.com.

I really am a great fan of innovation, and I don’t mind taking a concept and creating something based off it. But, I don’t think it’s cool when you completely take what someone else has created and stamp another brand name on it. Below are some comparison pictures.

What do you guys think? Am I taking this too personal? I’d really like to hear your thoughts, sound off in the comments below.

UPDATE: They have since revamped everything. Layout is still slightly similar.

“On March 11th, 2011, The world was introduced to friday. A “song” by 13 year old artist Rebecca Black, which addressed some of the deepest issues affecting teenagers of today; Deciding what seat to sit on in the car, the relationship between thursday, friday, saturday and sunday, and Fun! Fun! Fun! Fun! It was a Ghastly, auto tuned attempt at music, getting creepy when a grown ass man started rapping about driving past school buses, But it was one of those catchy tunes that never quite leaves your head.

88 million viewers hated it. With just cause of course. It was an awful song, But at a point, some of the comments on the videos youtube page got me really disturbed. Some one wrote “Terrible singer, I hope you cut yourself and die” another “Hope you cut yourself and get skinny so you’ll become pretty”.. This was a 13 year old girl.

This post isn’t about Rebecca Black. God no. Its about a trend that’s been part and parcel of the internet since it became the phenomenon it has. Hate and spite being spewed from behind the comfort of online anonymity.

If you use the internet, you’d know that any site with a comments section, Or a twitter account  can be used to launch the most scathing attacks on a person, usually in the public eye, people sit and troll about how they Hate this or that person, whose job is to be creative, and they wish he would die and insult his person, or family. (Yes its wrong to wish someone would die. Even majela).

But we’re all used to this stuff. Its all a part of the internet. My problem is when People decide that their “asshole-ness” Can be transferred off line and into their real lives. Online, once you sign in your I.d, You become a Professor, connoisseur of Taste in music and fashion, Joke bisector, and an expert on pretty much Everything.  But when you actually start to believe you’re all that, There’s a problem. Today, Being rude is almost default behavior, People put others down just to look cool, and earn laughs, its all well and good on twitter, but when shit MEETS the fan at Rehab, therell be hell to pay.

One More thing. What’s with the tendency of the internet to Ruin everything? Someone tweets a joke, and its Sooooo funny you’re literally rolling on the floor laughing, Then someone retweets it, Then another, Then another, then someone steals It, and people retweet HIM, then someone steals it, and blackberry broadcasts it, then Another one steals it, posts it on facebook, tumblr, his joke blog, and There you have it. The life cycle of a funny joke. Approximately 6 hours.
Or a song. You make a wonderful song, someone makes a nice cover of it, and another, and another, Until we’re all sick of hearing about marvins Room…

Oh well.. Its the internet.”

T

However, we’re cool with talking smack to a bunch of strangers who may be weirdos in real life, but its much weirder when we’re talking to someone who we know with a “shadow account”..

What is a shadow account? You ask me, if you have to ask this question, you’ve carried last.  All the “big boys” have one..

A shadow account is a fake account created by someone in desperate need of attention to further some “secret agenda” of theirs… to the normal eye, they’re just normal tweeters particularly fond of/ loatheful of one person, but to the trained eye, they’re extremely easy to spot..

Why would I want a shadow account?  You’ve carried last again… if you’re an egotistical, attention seeking prick (if you tweet, you probably are) then a shadow account is Perfect for you. Seriously, check out some uses of a shadow account..

To support your argument: you know, cos everyone you’re arguing with is a moron, so you can use your shadow account to back yourself up, and make your point seem more popular than it deserves to be

To attack your critics: coughednutcough Definitely, if you’re an online “big boy” and can’t be seen fighting with your “haters” all the time, you can use a shadow account to defend yourself J

To Promote your shit: if you have a “blog” or youre selling something, you can use your shadow account to talk up your merchandise, wash, wash, wash and wash until people think “hey, someone’s buying it, let me…

To air Opinions you wouldn’t want attributed to you: We all have an inner “politician”… some more than others. You want to say something really hateful about that celebrity but he follows you and you don’t want to get blocked… what do you do? @boycottdbanj

HOW TO HANDLE YOUR SHADOW ACCOUNT.

You can’t just wake up and have a convincing shadow account.. it takes time, guts and brains..

First step:  Give your shadow account street cred. Use the account to attack popular people, like REALLY attack them,  insult them as hard as you can, till someone starts to retweet you just for the fun of it.. or RT reverend run… anything to get attention and followers. You can also google a naked picture and send it to the prettiest girls on your timeline, writing an introductory line, most effectively with bad grammar.. (if you want your shadow account to have a “creepy” rep)

Now you’ve got attention and followers, (even if they’re all disgusted by you, all publicity is good publicity) you can use your shadow account for s variety of gimmicks… You can  make yourself seem hotter than you really are by flirting with yourself.. “ive got a crush on @xxxxx” or “@xxxxxx is sooo hot”… yeah… watch the attention pour in.

you can catapult yourself to the league of “online grandmaster” by adding a  ”GBAM” or “CO-SIGN” to everything your real account types.. Don’t always agree with yourself though… You can make your shadow account more believable, and give it more “street cred” and “character” by having a different opinion sometimes…

If you’re a paranoid prick (like almost everyone else), you know you have “haters” steady  lurking. You can use your shadow account to get close to them. Mirror their views, laugh at their jokes, find out what the hell they’re saying about you (for those of you saying “is it that serious”?, youll be surprised at how many of your friends are doing this shit)

This post is getting long though… ill keep you informed on the latest trends in online assholery… In the meantime, Lets all get along though…

Last month the internet died…

one minute it was there.. i was skyping with this hottie, she was about to strip for me, the next minute it was gone.. i tried everything,  refresh, refresh, refresh, nothing… ctrl+alt+delete.. nope. hard reset.. nothing.

i remember thinking, how am i going to survive? it was crazy… why the internet? i mean, seriously, take away fax, post offices, public schools, take away eritrea and bosnia… why the internet?

I remember i didnt believe it until i went out to complain to ipnx the Next day. There were traffic jams everywhere.. i got to the office and there were thousands of people there.. i didnt know ipnx had up to a thousand subscribers.. the managers addressed us, and told us it was a global phenomenon.. Thats when i knew we were screwed..

did i mention it was a friday? yeah.. that night i went clubbing.. there were girls sitting down on the chairs in the club, holding their hands up in front of them, making strange motions with their thumbs.. Lagos was a zombie city… what the hell was going on?

i mean there was still electricity, water, and food, but what good was it without the internet? no twitter? Jide killed himself.. no facebook? thats what made me scared.. i’d like to think facebook retards only existed on facebook.. the thought of encountering them in real life? i just cant..

Surprisingly enough, we moved on somewhat.. well not really, but life continued. all in all, only 30,000 Nigerians comitted suicide. Most of them were Yahoo Yahoo boys, then the occasional twitter addict and forex trader..

Life at the office moved on smoothly. I discovered that HALF of the emails that i used to send, or my boss used to send us were absolutely unnecessary. The paper industry was flourishing.. So was the pornography industry. No one prospered like Alaba market though.. in the space of 2 weeks, with the demise of youtube, it became the worlds number one provider of videos, new music (official, studio leaks and naija party remixes)..

its been a month now. im surviving. what i cant stand though is my girlfriend. she speaks so strangely now. i think she had an alien encounter.. yesterday we were talking, and she kept saying “ehlowel” and “ehlemayow”.. she wanted to go to the toilet, but instead of excuse me, she said “beeyaarbee”.. I might have to break up with her… whatever disease she has might be contagious

Did i mention the pornography industry? yeah i did. add the lubricant industry tto the list of thriving businesses.. Apparently, a lot of guys have forgotten how to get a womans details on face to face basis. we all miss Match.com and twitter and facebook and blackberry messenger.  Its terrible. Now we have to buy flowers, and buy cards, and have meaningful conversations with them… who does that?

As sharp guys,  some boys have adapted. yesterday i was at a bar.  i watched a guy walk in. he had “facebook retard” written all over him. oh wait did i mention theres beef between facebook users and former twitter users? yeah. i really hope it doesnt get violent. that would be Genocide. facebook retards outnumber us greatly.. Anyways yeah, so facebook retard walks up to the bar, and orders a drink.. He downs the shot, then walks up to a wall, brings out a sharpie pen and scribbles on it. then he talks to the wall, brings out a picture from his pocket, pins it on the wall, and walks back to the bar. he beelines for this beautiful girl, who sadly, has Facebook retard written all over her too… he stuck a finger out and poked her in her ribs.. i was like “oh my God hes so rude”, but she blushed, whispered something to her friends, who all giggled.. she reached a hand out, and  poked him back, then took his hand and they both walked out of the bar. they went to have sex im sure.

people have been really strange lately.

Oh yeah, i would hate to be a Lawma or Lasaa worker right now.. people cant find enough places to scribble shit. some random zombie wrote some inspirational quote on my car, another person wrote out whats in store for sagittarius on my gate. stop this madness..

im really scared though…

end of pt 1…