Global tech giants such as Google, TikTok, Meta (formerly Facebook), and others are unlikely to comply with laws that impose restrictions on their operations

• MP De Silva’s critique underscores the potential damage this bill could inflict on both investment prospects and freedom of expression in Sri Lanka
• MP Harsha de Silva’s critique is grounded in the potential ramifications of this bill

In a fiery speech delivered in Parliament recently, MP Harsha de Silva, Chair of the Committee on Public Finance, passionately criticised the Sri Lankan Government’s latest move—the introduction of the online safety bill. MP Harsha minced no words, calling it an “archaic and draconian piece of legislation” that violates fundamental principles and represents a significant overreach by the government. MP De Silva’s critique underscores the potential damage this bill could inflict on both investment prospects and freedom of expression in Sri Lanka.

At the heart of MP De Silva’s criticism lies in the bill’s creation of a commission appointed by the President, which would be tasked with determining the veracity of online content. De Silva rightfully questions the credibility of such a commission when the government itself has been accused of misleading the public, including misrepresenting its financial reserves to the tune of billions when they were merely in the millions. How can a government notorious for disseminating misinformation claim the moral high ground in discerning truth from falsehood?

It’s worth noting that tech companies already have their own community guidelines in place and are vigilant in ensuring their platforms are free from hate speech, harassment, and other forms of harmful content. Therefore, the government’s heavy-handed intervention seems unnecessary and counterproductive

MP Harsha de Silva’s critique is grounded in the potential ramifications of this bill. MP De Silva points out that global tech giants such as Google, TikTok, Meta (formerly Facebook), and others are unlikely to comply with laws that impose restrictions on their operations and force them to police content based on arbitrary judgments. This begs the question: can a financially troubled country with an authoritarian regime realistically dictate terms to some of the world’s largest tech companies?

The online safety bill, according to MP De Silva, “imposes unfair obligations on platforms to police content over and above what is necessary” and lacks foresight in considering future technological advancements, such as AI and its role in verifying authenticity. He raises a valid concern that these restrictive laws could drive these major tech players away from Sri Lanka, thereby contradicting the government’s apparent desire to attract foreign investment.
As MP De Silva articulates, “On one hand, you want them to come and invest, and on the other, you’re bringing legislation to curb their operations. This is a major contradiction.” It is a contradiction that could have far-reaching implications for Sri Lanka’s economic growth and technological progress.

MP De Silva points out that global tech giants such as Google, TikTok, Meta (formerly Facebook), and others are unlikely to comply with laws that impose restrictions on their operations and force them to police content based on arbitrary judgments. This begs the question: can a financially troubled country with an authoritarian regime realistically dictate terms to some of the world’s largest tech companies?

MP De Silva’s feedback on the speech highlights the fundamental importance of the right to express views freely—a cornerstone of any democratic society. The government committee’s power to determine the veracity of content and force platforms to remove it is an affront to this fundamental freedom. It is essential to recognise that a government-appointed committee cannot effectively discern truth from falsehood in an era where information flows across borders at the speed of light.

Furthermore, MP De Silva’s astute observation about the regressive nature of the bill rings true. In an age where technology continues to advance rapidly, the future of communication and content moderation will heavily rely on artificial intelligence and sophisticated algorithms. Imposing archaic legislation that doesn’t account for these advancements is not only backward-looking, but also hinders Sri Lanka’s potential to adapt to the evolving digital landscape.

It’s worth noting that tech companies already have their own community guidelines in place and are vigilant in ensuring their platforms are free from hate speech, harassment, and other forms of harmful content. Therefore, the government’s heavy-handed intervention seems unnecessary and counterproductive.

In conclusion, MP De Silva’s scathing critique of the online safety bill underscores the significant concerns surrounding this proposed legislation. It not only threatens to deter foreign investment, but also jeopardises freedom of expression and the country’s ability to embrace future technological advancements. Sri Lanka must carefully reconsider the consequences of such an overreaching law and seek a balanced approach that respects both the rights of its citizens and the needs of its digital economy. In an increasingly interconnected world, it is vital to navigate these challenges with wisdom and foresight, rather than resorting to draconian measures that stifle progress and liberty.