The Tweets Must Stop At What Cost. Democratic Governments & social media companies across the world have stepped up to put control over the kind of content to be published on social media.
In the last few months, India also stepped up with its own set of rules, with the advent of freedom of speech which falls under Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution has its own set of reasonable restrictions for deterring any threat against the nation, the question still lies – Is it enough or too much? The Tweets Must Stop At What Cost.
The threats which loom constantly due to the advent of technology are seen taking a toll on the national security of nations.
The Tweets Must Stop At What Cost
Read these articles also
India in final stages of clearing National Cyber Security Strategy
India-US Relation US assures Export of Vaccine Raw Material
India China Managing the Peaceful rise
Rise of Naya Kashmir: A Dream becoming Reality
India’s Defence Budget 2021: Key Highlights and Way Forward
India-US Relation: Future Challenges for Biden Administration
Recently, the world saw, big democracies like India, Australia, Europe, the US making their attempts to control the kind of content and make sure that social media platforms become “more responsible and more accountable” as social media platforms have now become a technological lifeforce that not only unites, inspires, informs, educates, and delights, but also has the power to maim.
A disturbing trend of misusing the “Freedom of Speech” in democracies are being leveraged to achieve these objectives by state and non-state actors across the world as dissidents and other minorities, who wish to draw strength and comfort interacting with like-minded people to find another without physical impediments of earlier eras when one had to live in the right neighborhood or move to a city and find a correct café like the French Revolution.
Now, people may just need to find the right hashtag for the cause – the Arab Spring in 2011 and the 2011 London Riot are some of the most important examples of how social media can affect the national security of the country.
How Did it Start?
Historian Melvin Kranzberg’s famous dictum stands true today: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral”; he says that these social media platforms also do have non-political functions to become politically relevant when required- it’s harder to curtail, block or censor these large number of users who are eager to tag each other in the latest “doggo gifs”.
It revolves around people, their ability to innovate, and plays with the fear of missing out. History has seen the use of a social media platform used by countries focusing their energies on data and information in democracy, a new technological shift is being seen among dissidents to disrupt governments and public space.
Since the Arab Spring, credit was being given to social media for their effort on information dissemination as the public sphere was closed, controlled, characterized by censorship, and ruled by fear but it was just one year after Facebook ruled out their Arabic version, towards 2010, when things started heating up, firstly, in Tunisia when after decades of rule by Zine Al Abidine Ben Ali was overpowered by just one tool – digital connectivity.
Tunisia was just a start, the political mood in Egypt also started to shift as the ignition of the social movements – Egypt’s Mubarak regime didn’t put any restriction on the social media as they considered it “frivolous” but this is where they missed out.
Governments have to understand that the relationship of the people stems from the formation of public narratives in the public spheres. State and Non-State actors can hide behind cyberspace today allows these actors to extend their power in the social media domain at a scale and complexity which was thought impossible.
Why is it Becoming a Deterrent?
Have you ever noticed that when a person starts searching for something, the advertisement’s immediately started displaying the same result to the questions one searched on the web, this is due to the social media platforms which have been using these controversial advanced targeting capabilities to find an audience.
Who would react to certain kind posts, imagine if such disinformation campaigns exploit these social media platforms architecture, algorithm, and the aid-financed model to make it lucrative to spew false propaganda – can have consequences beyond just one presidential election if we say or viral misinformation which is also part of the ongoing ethnic cleansing campaigns in Myanmar or inciting of mobs?
These are the very same reason why a country like China, never allowed Facebook to establish because they knew that social media platforms don’t succumb to draconian measures to control, censorship, and turning over user information to the government.
But, when it comes to countries like India, Australia, Europe, the US, and other governments which have been advocating for civil liberty across the world, who shall draw the line as to what qualifies as free speech?
Today, technology has enabled both state and non-state actors to misuse the marketplace of ideas and beliefs at the speed of algorithms and this nature has changed the battlefield of war at all levels globally.
If viewed through the lens of ‘hybrid’ warfare, this information warfare is becoming an end unto itself. Information is being used to assert one’s narrative while disrupting, attacking, distorting, and dividing the society, values, and culture of other competing nations.
Recently, a report was being published by The Mediterranean-Asian Investigative Journalists group, which showcased that Turkey and Pakistan are creating joint media strategy for their geopolitical goals in South Asia by recruiting journalists and taking assistance from ISPR (Inter-Service Public Relations), Pakistan, and TRT World (Turkish state-run Television Channel).
Social Media are becoming means through which pressure groups are pushing the agenda across the world as social media knows no morality and can always find a trigger that could provide an instigation to any issue at hand.
Ergo, being a democratic country wherein the judges & lawyers are the autonomous and the only ones who can decide upon what falls under national security and what doesn’t; it is essential to note that there is no better barometer than the Bar for the spine, intellect, and morality of a judge becomes an important component in balancing the technology and national security question.
How are Countries Confronting these Challenges?
Currently, we live in times when the debates on dissent, freedom of speech, privacy, and being under surveillance stand relevant in every sphere of life. As recently, the world witnessed Arab Spring-styled anarchical attempt at US Capitol hill siege in the US or farmer protests storming into the Red Fort in India or Australia’s decision to push regarding Google or the US proposing limiting liability for social media for the spread of disinformation through the SAFE TECH Act; all these instances show that there is an increasing will in the democracies across the globe to balance national security and technology.
But these measures taken by the countries show that the actor sitting behind the screen can win wars before even it begins by weakening the trust in the national institution especially when national consensus is the key to governments getting elected in democracies and trust deficit is something which countries cannot afford.
Social media platforms have been hijacking the way how people think, as it affects liberal democracies as it is high time that there needs to be a framework or regulations which would accommodate tech platforms into democratic power structures to make sure they both co-exist together while one not trying to over-run each other and vice-versa.
Every individual believes that they have freedom of speech but they often forget that it comes with a reasonable restriction – but who should govern and explain what is the reasonable restriction? Social media platforms, corporations, governments, or civil societies? Do tell us about it.