When suburban residents drive through townships in South Africa, they are likely on a blind tour because they do not read community newspapers. Considering that community stories rarely pop up on Google, it is understandable for non-residents to be oblivious to the goings on in the townships.
That is the work of algorithms – silent, invisible, and utterly unaccountable. In the same way, algorithms have systematically strangled South African brands, media houses, and reputations for years. Online search engines are not neutral tools. They never were.
They are active agents of reputational distortion based on a Western-biased hierarchical order that causes real damage to less favoured nations like South Africa.
The great South African media heist The Competition Commission’s Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry, published in November 2025 after 24 months of evidence gathering, confirmed what many of us have suspected for years.
Google’s algorithm distorts competition between news media organisations because it over-represents global news media in South Africa for search and top stories and under represents vernacular and community media. The commission found that this algorithmic bias has materially contributed to the erosion of media in South Africa.
Pause and think about that. An American technology company’s code – written in Silicon Valley, tested in California, deployed without a single thought for isiZulu or Afrikaans or Sepedi – has been actively undermining South African journalism for more than a decade.
Daily newspapers’ print sales dropped by 66% between 2018 and 2023. Print advertising income for three major publishers fell by 38% in 2018. Broadcasters experienced a 47% decrease since 2016.
And what did Google do? It appropriated news content from these declining media sites without compensation, resulting in less traffic for publishers, a situation exacerbated by AI summaries. Google has now agreed to pay R688 million to South African media houses. How this money will be shared is a story for another day.
Shame on the hands that created this anomaly, and the eyes that saw it happening and looked away for years. The Durban florist who cried on TikTok
If you thought supporting local was as simple as typing a business name into Google and clicking the first link, Roxane Gordon’s story published in a local newspaper is revealing. Just before Valentine’s Day this year, the florist, who runs Flowers on Kensington in Durban North with her mother, posted a tearful TikTok video that went viral.
The reason? Customers searching for her online were being redirected to NetFlorist, a much larger competitor. Customers weren’t choosing NetFlorist. They were being guided there by Google’s paid advertising algorithms. The sponsored links at the top of search results weren’t there because they were the best option – they were there because they paid for a spot.
For a small flower business, Valentine’s Day orders fund rent, staff salaries, supplier payments, and deliveries. Losing even a fraction of possible sales to algorithm-driven redirection can make or break a business. This is not a story about one florist. This is a story about every small business in South Africa trying to compete in a digital economy where the rules are written by the people who sell the advertising.
Facebook doesn’t understand you And then there is Meta. The Competition Commission found that Meta’s algorithms have deprioritised news content, reducing organic reach and referral traffic for local publishers. Facebook’s algorithms do not understand most South African languages. As a result, content creators can post fake news and be paid for it, without consequences.
The Limpopo Mirror has almost 62,000 followers on Facebook, but the platform shows posts to fewer than 3% of these. The decision to show a post to a Facebook user depends entirely on Facebook’s algorithms. This is not mistake but a business model. Engagement pays. Quality journalism does not.
The global warning South Africa must heed If you think this is only a South African problem, think again. Look at Cracker Barrel. The American restaurant chain changed its logo, and within hours social media exploded. Research by Cyabra found that 21% of the profiles in the conversation were fake. Their content reached over 4.4 million views.
The stock dropped 10.5% within days, eliminating roughly $100 million in market value.
Almost half of the outrage was manufactured. But the damage was real. Now consider the rise of black hat Generative Engine Optimisation. In one experiment, researchers created a fictional person with no online footprint.
They published false and damaging claims across a handful of third-party sites. Within weeks, some AI models began citing those pages and surfacing the negative narrative. A single paid press release can hijack ChatGPT’s results, Perplexity’s answers, and Google’s AI Overviews.
And then there is Robby Starbuck. A Conservative activist sued Google after its AI generated at least 22 false statements about him—portraying him as a serial sexual abuser, a financial exploiter, and a “shooter”. Inexplicably, Google’s chatbots produced false news articles that were never written and attributed them to real journalists.
A Delaware court has ruled that the defamation suit can proceed. If Google’s AI can do this to an American activist with resources and lawyers, what protection against possible reputational damage is there for a vulnerable small business owner in Soweto?
The South African vulnerability When it comes to algorithm bias, South Africa is uniquely vulnerable with its 11 official languages. The algorithms that decide what to prioritise, at most, understand perhaps two of the languages.
South Africa has a vibrant small business sector, but the platforms that control digital visibility favour those who pay, and not necessarily those who deserve.
South Africa has a proud journalistic tradition, but the technology that distributes news prefers foreign content over local stories.
In that regard, it is commendable that the Competition Commission has taken important steps to redress the imbalance.
The commission has not only secured a R688 million media support package from Google, but it has also demanded that Google introduce new user tools to prioritise local news sources. It has recommended that Meta and X stop deprioritising South African news media posts with links. But these acts in themselves are a Band-Aid on a bleeding wound. The underlying problem is algorithmic, and it is global. A call to action
South Africa cannot afford to be passive. South African regulators must go further. They must demand transparency in how algorithms work. They must require that platforms be accountable where their systems have caused reputational damage. They must ensure that South African languages are not afterthoughts in global code. And we, as South Africans, must stop treating algorithms as neutral. They are not.
The next time you search for something on Google, ask yourself: is this really the best result, or is this just the result that paid the most to be seen? When you read a news story online, ask yourself: is this true, or is the content just what the algorithm wants you to believe?
Janine Hills is a pioneering leader in corporate South Africa, celebrated for her visionary approach to business strategy, reputation, crisis management, and ethical governance. With a career marked by transformative influence, she has established herself as a trusted advisor, thought leader and catalyst for change across Africa and the global stage