In my childhood during the early 1950s, I have fond memories of the “Andabera-karaya” (tom-tom beater) who would beat his drum at the street corner, announcing important events. Additionally, during the Sunday fair, the “Kavikolakaraya” would captivate us with his recitations of true stories in verse, which he would then offer for a mere five cents. [my granddaughter once asked, “Seeya…, what is five cents?”] These stories often revealed dramatic tales, such as the village headman’s scandalous affair with the mudalali’s wife, which led to a dramatic confrontation, or the tale of Selesthina’s daughter, Leelawathi, who eloped with the village gangster, Winnie, on a captivating moonlit night. These storytellers played a unique and cherished role as communicators in our lives during that simpler time.

While the above two openly communicated their stories, there was another type of correspondent who operated covertly – the “Kelepaththarakaraya,” the anonymous writer who used pen and paper to slander someone. His writings would often be found pasted on a wall at the top of the lane’s tea boutique. Interestingly, research suggests that the “kavikolakaraya” tradition is a remnant of this “Kelepaththarakaraya,” where storytelling evolved from written scandals to oral narratives.

Regulating social media platforms raise concerns about potential impacts on freedom of expression. Despite stated objectives such as promoting digital security, curbing online misinformation, upholding media ethics, and enhancing online safety, there is apprehension that these efforts might inadvertently facilitate surveillance and restrict freedom of expression. It’s worth noting that successive governments have made attempts to control main stream media that they perceive as unfavourable in the past as well. The Government recently gazetted a new Online Safety Bill. The Bill aims to establish an Online Safety Commission and includes provisions to prohibit certain fictitious statements in online communication. It also seeks to prevent the misuse of online and inauthentic accounts for prohibited purposes, identify and declare online locations used for such purposes, and address the financing and support of false statements in communication.The advent of digital technology, coupled with the rise of social media and online communication, has brought about unprecedented changes in how we work, socialize, access information, and even perceive the world around us. It has ushered in an era of convenience and connectivity, but it has also introduced new challenges related to privacy, cybersecurity, and the management of digital information. 

The emergence of internet and social media has brought about a profound transformation in the 21st-century. Social media platforms have emerged as the primary means for people to communicate, access information, and share content. A few dominant platforms wield significant influence over users’ content exposure, often infringing on their privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information through various behaviours. Regulators have an array of tools available to address these issues. This article explores potential instruments and offers recommendations to contribute to the ongoing discussion on this matter.

Given the extensive influence of these platforms on our daily lives, it’s natural for them to evoke fears and concerns. In recent times, much attention has been directed towards content moderation challenges and finding ways to prevent or penalize issues like copyright violations, the spread of terrorist content, the proliferation of hate speech, and the dissemination of misinformation on social media platforms. Hate speech’ lacks a universal definition but is addressed differently by various social media platforms. For instance, Facebook defines it as a “direct attack on people based on protected characteristics,” including race, ethnicity, and more, involving violent or dehumanizing speech. In contrast, Twitter, which calls it ‘hateful conduct,’ prohibits promoting violence or threats based on factors like race and gender and disallows accounts primarily inciting harm based on these characteristics.

The lack of transparency and clarity surrounding the legislation and policies related to digital security is a matter of concern. The absence of public consultation during the drafting of these laws and policies is deeply troubling. This includes the media, youth and women’s groups, human rights defenders, and civil society organizations. Civil society groups had concerns about the vague definitions in the law, the lack of progress in public consultations, and the risk of misuse to target government critics. 

While social media has brought numerous achievements, it has also introduced threats to the social fabric. It has become a conduit for spreading misinformation, hate speech, and the exploitation of user-generated data for personalized political and commercial advertising. Fake news often employs emotional appeals to maximize production and distribution. Social media platforms pose significant privacy risks due to extensive data collection. Users are vulnerable to identity theft, scams. Privacy settings and occasional data leaks expose information. Scammers use social engineering tactics to deceive users, compromising trust and connections. Balancing privacy with law enforcement needs is an ongoing debate. Addressing these concerns requires user education, robust settings, platform responsibility, and regulatory measures to protect personal data.

Governments worldwide have initiated regulatory actions on social media. India, USA, Bahrain, Germany, Brazil, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and others have implemented various forms of oversight. Giant social media companies have achieved significant market dominance, granting them substantial control over the content users encounter daily. These systems increase legal complexity for social media companies, leaving individual users with limited or no recourse for addressing hasty content removal and offering no guarantee for protecting their freedoms.
The new Bill appears to draw inspiration from Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), but there are notable differences between the two. There are instances where the proposed law overlap with actions that can already be addressed under existing legislation. 

A period of public input, allows stakeholders to provide feedback on potential concerns, including its impact on various human rights.The Bill goes further by addressing false statements related to contempt of court, rioting, cheating, and inciting breaches of peace, including inciting mutiny or causing public fear. It also introduces cyber safety provisions against harassing ‘private information’ disclosure. Vague definitions of ‘false statement’ as ‘known or believed by its maker to be incorrect,’ ‘false or misleading’, ‘wounding religious emotions’ and ‘violating the peace’ needs further scrutiny. The Bill establishes the Commission on online safety, lacks clarity on appeal mechanisms against Commission notices, a significant gap in accountability.
Notably, the Bill’s offenses overlap with existing laws, such as the PTA, the Penal Code criminalizing words intending to hurt religious feelings, and the ICCPR Act prohibiting promotion of hatred based on nationality, race, or religion. A balanced and cautious approach is essential to harness its advantages while minimizing its potential drawbacks including the role of political authority in media control, is essential. This balance should prioritize fundamental values like freedom of expression, privacy, and access to information while also addressing concerns related to misinformation, online harm, and digital security. In conclusion, while social media has benefits, it challenges real-life interactions and productivity. Balancing online and offline engagement is vital for meaningful relationships and productivity.
Is Social Media a remnant of Scurrilous Document [kelepaththara]?--o tempora! o mores!

[email protected]