Our social media dilemma
Iimmediately after the Sri Lanka bombings, the government moved to suspend access to social media because of concerns about the inaccuracy of the information being spread. The move highlights the dilemmas we face in a world that Facebook supremo Mark Zuckerberg wants to make ‘‘more open and connected’’. A murky world in which information can be spread instantly, sometimes without any basis in fact.
In a time of great turmoil and disaster we frequently turn to social media to connect with family members, to find out what’s going on. But how do we balance that with the growing realisation that such access in some social media sites plays a big part in creating and co-ordinating that turmoil and disaster.
Governments around the world, including New Zealand’s, are grappling with that issue and many others right now: how to create a more cohesive, connected community without the many echo chambers of evil trying to burn it all down? Does the tolerance of free speech on numerous open channels actually allow the spreading of intolerance, hate and violence? And is it acceptable to limit the former in the interests of suppressing the latter – even temporarily?
In the wake of the Christchurch attacks, New Zealand, Australia and other nations have threatened more regulation and control against Facebook, YouTube, Google and other tech giants. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has sought the support of other world leaders; her Australian counterpart Scott Morrison has been similarly forthright in his criticism.
Neither, however, has been willing to go as far
as Sri Lanka. It has blocked access to such sites out of concern that ‘‘false news reports’’ spread through social media could incite more violence.
On the one hand, it seems like a sensible move to lower the temperature of hostility and claim some semblance of order, even if it has hampered families trying to find loved ones. And Sri Lanka made a similar move last year, after an attack on Muslims by Buddhists.
But in doing this, Sri Lanka has joined a small number of countries that have moved to suppress social media for a variety of reasons, including the censorship of free speech and political opposition.
Nations such as China, Iran and North Korea have their foot permanently on the pipeline of information, allowing only that which shows their regimes in a good light.
It is fair and right, in such terrible circumstances, to allow some leeway for Sri Lanka, just as we saw sense in our frontline police officers carrying arms while the terror alert was at high. And supported the Government in restricting access to the alleged gunman’s video and manifesto.
But limiting the greater good of free speech, even at the risk of its nasty, hateful equivalent, is a dangerous path to head down, even for the most reasonable of nations. It can undermine the democracy that social media, for the most part, honours so well. In Sri Lanka it has been credited with a key role in helping the nation recover from 26 years of civil war.
And it plays into the hands of a small band of evil malcontents keen to undermine the interests and freedoms of the majority. That we cannot allow.
Limiting the greater good of free speech, even at the risk of its nasty, hateful equivalent, is a dangerous path to head down, even for the most reasonable of nations.