Daily Times

The privacy versus security debate has got valid and cogent arguments on both sides. The dilemma is that on one hand it should only be the governments having an access to the digital communication of its citizens and on the other hand, like so much else, least government regulation is welcome here. The principles of necessity and proportionality shall be the touchstones for the government regulations to protect the citizens against false rumors without compromising free speech on the pretext of security. The anonymity on the social media has made the digital space very dangerous, no doubt, making this tool not threatening only but out-rightly explosive, but at the same time, it has been a very effective and efficient medium in the hands of civil liberties campaigners for highlighting rights abuses.

The witnesses of the rights abuses and the fact finders both face risks in committing to truth but the anonymity afforded by the social media allows such persons to report the rights abuses and bringing such incidents on record. But on the same hand we, unfortunately, do not see any sustained social media campaigns or consistent attempts at keeping a rights issue alive, except for sporadic attempts or for few causes occasionally. Individual attempts do not count as a campaign.

Besides lurking threat of forceful and aggressive silencing of rights advocates, those raising their voices against injustices employing this medium cannot be absolved for their inability to responsibly maintain the momentum

Whenever it was asked that why the meaningful debates do not sustain on the electronic or the print media, the usual answer (and definitely with a lot of truth in it) had been that the consumers had to be fed on variety to keep them engaged. Secondly, when so many news are competing for attention, a news item cannot be focused for long (again duration of this long is shortening by the day). Besides lurking threat of forceful and aggressive silencing of rights advocates, those raising their voices against injustices employing this medium cannot be absolved for their inability to responsibly maintain the momentum. More often than not, all the efforts for supporting a victim of rights abuse end with making a theme trending Twitter hashtag for a day and then it is heard of no more.

In environments like ours where the digital rights of the users are not fully established yet and we come across attempts at state regulations of the free speech on the digital forums and similarly the civil liberties campaigners reporting violent disapproval by the ultraorthodox elements (sadly enough trolling by organized groups has become a normal) too is not uncommon, social media could have been the forum for bringing a positive change and advancing towards a progressive society. We have seen one such event recently, in which excluding of a minority from a National Commission led to outrage and cry of foul play by the conscientious citizens. But this reproach of the official behavior was visible on the social media largely, on the print media to a limited extent only and virtually no mention on the electronic media of this discrimination. It has not been a month since but now even the social media has taken to new stories.

Digital platforms allow the rights activists for saying out loudly and clearly what the mainstream media does not risk to say. News consumers have traditionally been blamed of the shortening attention spans and fickleness by the media managers and owners but one wonders that now what stops the campaigners to stay focused instead of vying for maximum number of subscribers? Can it be ascribed to the rights’ bloggers own distractibility too? It remains to these campaigners to devise ways of engaging the attention of the consumers as social media is a no cost channel and the only cost is of the time and the ingenuity of the sender of the message.

The author is a gender and human rights specialist