Social media re-ally came into its own during the recent floods in Chennai. With all other means of communication and access swallowed by the waters, it’s whatever Internet connectivity that managed to trickle through allowing people to send messages and posts that brought them help and support. Twitter particularly was a lifeline for rescue work and for organising essential resources needed.
Unwittingly, the disaster provided a bit of a relief from the vicious trolling and intolerant squabbling that has become endemic on social network. In fact, it’s this dark side of free speech that has been in the news in more than one country of late. It isn’t just India that’s been trying to walk the tightrope between being free to voice and restricting the growing hordes of the “radicalised”. There’s a new word in social media’s lexicon for you.
Those who believe all is fair in free speech want an all-or-none approach. But recently, there’s been no escaping the fact that terrorists are using social networks pretty much out in the open for the active promotion of terrorism. In the US, President Obama just appealed to Silicon Valley companies to help enforce restrictions on militants’ use of social media to plan and execute violence. That, perforce, means all speech can’t be free.
In Nigeria, the government is trying to go to another extreme. It’s drafted a bill to stop “frivolous petitions” on social media and a sentence of seven years or $25,000 for anyone who intentionally spreads false information that could threaten the security of the country or that incites people to go against the government. In other words anything that could cause a “law and order situation”. Any government institute or department cannot be targeted by electronic communication.
Citizens and human rights organisations are campaigning against the draft of such a bill with a NoToSocialMediaBill hashtag. If it were to be passed, such a bill gives complete and sweeping power to the authorities to put away anyone who says anything they don’t like. Of course, China, Turkey and many other countries particularly in the Middle East have clamped down on social media and communication whenever it has suited the government to do so.
In France, after the horrific attacks in Paris, there is a proposal to block public and shared Wi-Fi networks during a state of emergency. This includes Tor, which is a network of servers maintained by volunteers used by journalists, whistleblowers and those who need privacy as well as by terrorists and cybercriminals.
In India, we’ve come pretty close to taking many of these measures in a patchy way. Sometimes allowing complete freedom of speech even if it involves threats of violence, and at other times shutting down cellular Internet connectivity at times when there may be protests or the possibility of gathering for riots. We’ve seen shocking actions such as the Mumbai police swooping down on two little girls who didn’t mind their tongues in a Facebook post or take-down requests when posts malign a political leader. Attempts to formally snoop on communication have also made headlines.
Obviously, no countries have managed to find the perfect balance, except for those that don’t have very much trouble in the first place. Finland comes to mind. But every country is going to have to struggle to find exactly that — granting freedom while now allowing freedom to be taken for granted by those who will abuse it.
(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 28-12-2015)
BW Reporters
Mala Bhargava has been writing on technology well before the advent of internet in Indians and before CDs made their way into computers. Mala writes on technology, social media, startups and fitness. A trained psychologist, she claims that her understanding of psychology helps her understand the human side of technology.
