Social Media Tying a Knotty Web

The story began late last year when Kapil Sibal, the Indian Minister of Communications and Information Technology, said that social networking sites should pre-screen offensive content before it gets published and shared but, “he didn’t imply that the internet should be censored”. He said that he serves to protect the democratic freedom of speech and expression but asked people to think twice before putting “offensive and objectionable material” online. In the recent NASSCOM Leadership Summit held in Mumbai, Sibal ensured that no Indian Government would ever censor social media so long as it complies by the laws of the land.

Amidst the confusion in his press statements and great public suspicion and doubt over his intent, Sibal only just ended up becoming the butt of all hashtag jokes on Twitter. At a time where maps, traffic information, helpline numbers and news are becoming increasingly crowd sourced online, his ‘concern’ became a concern for a major setback for the growth of Internet in India. And this concern has already turned into a reality with Twitter and Google announcing the censorship of localized content and Facebook taking down many pages considered ‘offensive’ to India’s political and religious leadership.

With Indians always being treated with the ‘monkey with dynamite’ attitude when it comes to western technology and tools, it makes sense why Sibal’s comments didn’t win any favour although there was some level of truth and generality to it. And, at least in theory, the Government is meant to work and introduce changes in our best interests (and not the most contemptuous).

Take the installation of Timeline in the month of December 2011 for Facebook users. Installing timeline on your profile, you can add detailed information about your past and present life like a new pet, tattoo or piercing, language, diet or quitting a habit, all of which a lot of us anyway did as a part of a regular humdrum on Facebook.

Facebook took several months to set up the Timeline system but gave users only 7 days to sort through the load of personal information, whether to display for posterity (or not) on the timeline. It was autocratic and sudden, even if we knew it was coming and not any less worrying than your landlord giving you a two-week’s notice period.

The only saving grace is the option that users have whether or not to publish their timeline. And given the only recently introduced changes in the newsfeed publication making it more alike Twitter with second to second updates on user activities like Twitter (and Twitter displaying ‘Top Stories’ like Facebook. Seems like they’re scratching each others’ backs), not many are going to welcome another change back into their profile. Plus, the idea of knowing that all your history can now be picked up in a ‘Timeline’ is easily an intimidating thought.

The counter argument to this is that one does have a great degree of control over information and content on their respective Facebook profiles. Only most users couldn’t be bothered to check and sieve through the privacy settings and the many alternatives it provides i.e. selective sharing of information and content with friends, family, acquaintances, co-workers etc. Hence, legally Facebook isn’t responsible.

Another recent and continuing instance is of the nuisance of video/app/picture links that have been identified as spam yet not flagged or reported ‘enough times’ in order to avoid its continuous virality. While the thousands tweeted ‘retweet’ worthy satirical lines with the hashtag #KapilSibalisanidiot and the many who shared their anguish in their status updates or those funny cartoons, if more than half of the lot would have also flagged ‘what that father caught his daughter doing’ or that ‘boob slip’ video, we would have measured up to the responsibility we claim to possess in due for our freedom and rights.

With both sides of the arguments being as valid and strong, it really comes down to the age old debate of exposure versus what we make of it. It directly affects the technological innovation and creativity of our society and nation, not to mention the brazen violation of the democratic freedom of expression, if a central monitoring agency filters and controls content.

The beneficiary, i.e. supposedly us, will have to become their own free willed individuals who take ‘agency’ to think in the greater good of society or community in connection with their personal interests, not withstanding the latter alone.

However, neither our Government nor social media enterprises have given the free willed and responsible agent in us enough chance with rules being levied on us in the most undemocratic of ways when both are of the people, by the people and for the people.

Irritated, confused or lost about what content on ‘social media’ should or will be deemed ‘offensive’, ‘unlawful’ or the likes, express your ideas of the same on Don’t Outrage, India.  

OR

Participate in the debate, ‘Will localized content censorship will reduce the chances of social media revolutions for democracy and social change?’