Fall of Democracy: The digital way

Social Networking: A web-based platform, that allows users to interact with each other over
various topics as well as reconnect with old acquaintances over the internet.

Social Networking media is a fairly recent platform that came to popularity in the 1990’s with
the launch of websites such as MySpace, Friendster and LinkedIn. Its position as a popular
medium for interaction was solidified with the coming of Facebook in 2004.

Since then there are almost 200 web-sites providing this service with Twitter, Facebook and
Google+ being the front-runners. Technology has always been a boon and a bane. Due to the
growing user-base for such web-sites, keeping a tab on the user-content is a herculean task, to a
point where the only alternative to such a proposition is self-regulation keeping in mind the
inherent constitutional freedom of expression.

The recent events surrounding our country’s Telecom Minister, Mr. Kapil Sibal and his
proposition to pre-screen content on the internet has met with harsh criticism and ridicule.

Mr. Sibal expressed his concerns over the moral fabric of the content of these web-sites
uploaded by their users. He claims that the content is questionable to say the least and is likely
to offend religious sentiments of some communities. The only problem is, Mr. Sibal decided to
cite the remarks against Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh as prime examples of
objectionable content.

Politicians of this country have always been extremely conscious of how they are projected in
front of the masses. And even though some politicians may take their roles as public servants
seriously, past instances prove that the administrational framework of this country is grossly
flawed. It is widely assumed the current government has tried every possible method to curb
the freedom of expression of the citizens of this country in the garb of concerns for national
security. And though the concern and the intention MAY BE genuine, the points for argument
clearly deviate from the issue.

Anti-government sentiments have been prevalent amongst the citizens of this country for a
rather long time and frankly, our patience wears thin. With the world ushering itself to a world
of advancements and better living, we are heading back to the stone-age.

It is obvious our policy-makers do not understand the functionalities of the internet. For
someone to suggest that the data/content be pre-screened before it is uploaded is clearly
asking for a miracle.
Let’s put a few myths to rest at this point. The internet is NOT a conventional media platform. In
other words, it is not “broadcast media”, it is “distributive” media. It is NOT controlled by editors
or copy-desks like traditional media and it is not under any country’s jurisdiction.

Even if a mechanism were to be created, wherein the content could be pre-screened by editors,
the functionality of these websites will be lost as will the convenience that accompanies them,
considering that each message or post would take days to publish.

Fact of the matter is social network platforms have already created guidelines and policies with
regard to obscene or objectionable content, provided they are duly notified. In all cases, the
content can only be scrutinized AFTER it is uploaded.

An opinion is personal. Forcing someone to change that opinion and imposing your will is a
crime according to the constitution of India.

The only solution to this problem is self-regulation. In other words, have the common sense to
report what is grossly objectionable so long as it affects the sanctity of religion or national
sentiments and not as a personal vendetta.

It is a clear case of dictatorship influenced by the policies followed by China, Pakistan and other
such countries. Mr. Sibal has gone to prove that our political body is anything but people-
centric. I can bring up a number of social issues to support my statements but that is irrelevant
at this point.

Our politicians forget, that the right to freedom of expression, keeping in mind the limitations of
this right, holds true in all situations, be it the digital world or the real world. Dictating the
workings of an international service just so as to curb negative publicity against them is doing
more harm than good. Even though we all mutually agree that social networking can pose a
threat to an individual’s privacy and social status, we cannot stop opinions no matter how
objectionable they may be. Quoting derogatory remarks against a political individual in the garb
of concerns for national security is clearly not helping their case. They need to realize that the
best way to stop such negative remarks, is to address the issues and not hide them. But if they
still want to continue with their malpractices, such reactions will continue. In the words of
“Twitter”, if you don’t like, don’t look at it.