The conversation on social media is akin to the conversation on the street. When we walk down the street and come across an accident, we inquire about it with the people we meet. When a mishap occurs, one person might cite over-speeding by the vehicle, another might blame the pedestrian and others might blame the road condition. We form the opinion based on what we hear. All these people whom we met and spoke could be strangers. You would not ask for their identity card before they speak. On social media, there are only IDs. It is a virtual world. IDs, names and profiles are virtual. It could map directly with a person in the real world, the ID could be one of the many profiles of a single person in real world or it could be a group profile of many people. Anonymity is social media's strength.
The cry against 'fake profile' is because we tend to ignore what social media is. The question about accountability on communication through social media should be analyzed in this backdrop. Criminal offences, including defamation, under the Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Penal Code, could be charged against such communication like we do with transactions on conventional media.
But comparing conversation on social media with news and analysis in print media and visual media or in any new media lacks logic. Social media is used by the common man to air his/her opinion. Before the advent of social media, people conveyed their thoughts and shared them with those in the neighborhood, either through the spoken and written word using conventional tools.
Now, technology has given the people a platform where they are more audible. But this benefit is sought to be exploited by the Big Brother, be it in the form of governments or corporates. Technology has provided those in power an option to track the conversation, action and spending by every man. Power is trying to apply censorship to the common man and curtail his right to speak even while it is using technology for surveillance of the common man. This is not to say that a person airing his opinion through social media has no responsibility. Social media has increased our reach and we need to crosscheck facts - as much as we could- before we speak. This is required for our credibility. But those in power try to slap accountability on every word spoken so that they can scare people away from using social media.
How can they expect the common man to ensure factual accuracy even before they think of uttering anything, if the powers-that-be have locked all information? The government should stop false information from spreading by giving out correct information. If the public still believes strangers and rumors rather than their representatives, then we have a much larger issue to sort out. The rate at which technology and digital media grows and the change it is bringing about in our habitat and way of life is rapid. We are finding it difficult to keep pace with it.
The ultra sophisticated digital camera has changed even our village life, for instance. To draw a parallel from everyday life, river-bathing and peeping toms were not so uncommon. But mobile cameras are scaring people away from rivers and canals. Alas, technology is here to stay. Trying to stop that would be as futile as we tried to block tractors and computers.
After teething troubles are over, we would settle down where we would have a new normal, with a new etiquette. We should strive to achieve that faster by educating society. But the Government and those in power resort to undesirable practices using advanced technology to curtail and restrict social media usage. They are accountable, but in order to avoid questions being asked, they try to make us accountable for every word we speak. They go on stage and allege corruption against each other, call each other 'merchant of death' and 'Bharat witch'. But they get restless when the common man, to whom they are accountable, share their doubts and concerns.
(The writer is former adviser to Chief Minister on information technology)
