Dealing with Social Media

Given the double-edged sword that this has become, self-regulation by the platforms is the best option

Salman Khan is famous: he has delivered a series of films grossing . 100 crore-plus. He has a namesake, equally famous, though amongst a different circle of admirers. The latter has set up the eponymous Khan Academy, a website, which Forbes has called "the most influential teaching organisation on the planet." With over 2,410 videos and 129 modules (mainly maths), it has been visited by 63 million people. 
Less widely known, especially to those over 30 years, is Ray William Johnson, the originator of the most-subscribed video channel on YouTube. It has over 5.6 million subscribers and has garnered, incredibly, almost two billion video views. A bigger celebrity, US President Barack Obama, uses Twitter, and his tweets have as many as 18 million followers. Clearly, the reach of the new media is massive — and rapidly growing. For many youngsters, social media is the major means of communication. Little wonder, then, that more and more businesses are using Twitter, Facebook and You-Tube to supplement other media in their marketing efforts to reach the young. Recognising the commercial potential, advertising agencies have set up separate digital media groups, recruiters too are using social media as an important tool for outreach. 
Many companies are yet at the rudimentary step of websites, little realising that those who have not yet begun to use the new media are in danger of being left behind. 
Though social media penetration in India is limited, amongst urban youth, its power — in conjunction with SMS and MMS — was seen recently, through the widespread and instantaneous dissemination of rumours, threats and doctored images. These messages and images ignited passions and spread panic, leading to some violent incidents and a mass exodus from Bangalore. The upheaval caused by the messages and images led the government to impose constraints on the number of SMSs and MMSs that a person could send (first, only five a day, then raised to 20; the limit has now been withdrawn). 
Instructions were issued to block or take down some pages and websites. Given the consequences of dissemination of morphed pictures, particularly in a surcharged environment, many considered some restrictions as reasonable. However, the reported order to take down spoof sites of Prime Minister's Office gave a different turn. It seemed the government was taking cover of 'lawand-order' issues to stifle satire and comment against it. 
The disturbing trend towards censorship — denied, of course, by the government — is exemplified by the demand to remove cartoons from textbooks, the arrest in Kolkata of a professor for creating a satirical cartoon and the removal of some Twitter handles. 
Such politically-motivated moves impinge on freedom of expression and cannot be seen as 'reasonable restrictions'. In a diverse society with politically-created and inflamed sensitivities, there will always be groups that find something or the other offensive. 
On which side — banning the book or curbing rioters and rabble rousers — the heavy hand of law descends, defines the space for freedom. In some instances, this is not an easy decision. In recent years, cities have been held to ransom by motley groups of organised protesters who, generally for political ends, have often indulged in violence. Such groups have succeeded in getting bans imposed on books, art and movies, thanks to weak-kneed governments. Too few have spoken up for freedom. 
Yet, we need to recognise a genuine problem. The new media empowers everyone with access to a computer, or even a mobile phone, to become a 'broadcaster' of content and potentially reach millions, almost instantaneously. 
    While there are the likes of Khan Academy, the scope to spread lies and rumour, aided by technologies that enable morphing of photographs, is as large as the potential to reach out with education or entertainment. Mobilising people through the new media can be done easily, for good or bad. Invasion of privacy and defamation can be done on an unprecedented scale, and recourse is difficult to impossible. 
Clearly, some degree of regulation — as differentiated from censorship or control — may be desirable. The best approach would be self-regulation by the platform providers. A model, News Broadcasting Standards Authority, exists for TV, and it has successfully established its credibility and utility. It is time for the platform providers to set up something similar: an autonomous and empowered group to set standards, handle complaints and recommend removal of objectionable content. 
Asecond — and less desirable — approach is a governmentmandated but independent body, composed solely of respected non-officials. It needs to be akin to the Film Censorship Board, though 'censorship' is clearly a red rag, rather than the 'autonomous' regulators for other sectors. The worst approach is the present one in which the government, acting as both prosecutor and judge, makes decisions in an opaque and arbitrary manner. 
The new media has attracted great attention for its extensive reach and ability to mobilise, especially after the Arab Spring and, in India, the scaremongering and threats following the Assam violence. Yet, technology is not the only means of quick or distorted communication. The uncensorable power of word of mouth — and its ability to spread information or rumour extensively and quickly — is often overlooked. Over three decades ago, it was largely rumours of enforced sterilisation — communicated by word of mouth at a time of media censorship — that brought down a government. As they mull censorship of social media, this is something that the power-that-be may like to keep in mind.

KIRAN KARNIK STRATEGY & POLICY ANALYST