Social Media and its role in lowering the level of public discourse

Social media has become a breeding ground for hate and misinformation, harming the public discourse.
 

The world is on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution. Social media has become a very significant part of our lives and it increasingly continues to occupy a center stage in the way we communicate and how we perceive the world. In a broader sense, it has revolutionized communication, given voice to the unheard and changed the way we organize our societies. But many significant drawbacks of social media have begun to emerge. The most important among them is the spread of misinformation and the open hate mongering on social media.

Misinformation spreads faster
Online dissemination of information and its spread through social media has been shaped in a ruthless ecosystem, one based on advertisement revenue and the ability of the information to seek attention from the users. Hence, a larger emphasis is given to speed and sensationalism than to truth and accuracy. The shifting revenue base from print journalism to online sources made the traditional media system based on balances, fact check and research largely irrelevant. Even the audience relying on their traditional sources had to shift to online sources. Online media is a dog eat dog world: if you are not the first, you do not matter. Over the years a fertile ground was prepared for the spread of misinformation, further enhanced by people to people spread on Facebook, instant messaging apps and video services.

Why does hate prosper?
Sociologists agree that humans have an inherent sense of judging unfairness, a sense which runs strong even in primates, which upon receiving unfair treatment become prone to violence and rage. This makes it even easier to draw the attention of users, gaining far more traction than well balanced and fairly worded stories. The internet has evolved quickly from being primarily the realm of scientists, to cute cat picture databse, then to a click-bait factory and seems to have morphed into its final form of a hate spreading angry monster. Groups centered on common interests have quickly devolved into common hatred. The role of microblogging websites like Twitter cannot be understated in this process, which limit the user to a few words. This sort of microblogging needs more and more extreme and awe striking content to keep growing your reach.

Who decides the truth?
Attempts by social media platforms to moderate online discourse using third party programmes have been met with criticism. There are many aspects to consider. The first of such is the issue of freedom of expression. While the Indian Constitution guarantees free speech in its Article 19(1) a, it is subject to reasonable restrictions like public health, morality and maintenance of law and order in Article 19(2). The fine line between free speech and hate speech has turned blurry under the circumstances, with more and more arguments on both sides and less capacity of the state to deal with them. The second issue is the neutrality of the online moderators themselves, which are frequently accused of bending to one side or the other. The third issue is regarding the right of online platforms to censor speech. Allowing them to be the arbiters of truth gives them too much power. It has been argued that this job must be handled by qualified magistrates. With an overburdedned judicuary, there are hardly any chances of it being done.

Perverse incentives
Most of the online platforms which enjoy a mass appeal seem to have reached a stage of maturity where growth in users only does not assure the investors as it did earlier. Investors need more cash flow to justify the stock prices, which are in many cases directly linked to management remuneration. Since this cash flow is in most cases linked to advertising, these platforms have evolved various schemes to keep the users online for more hours and keep them engaged. There are no incentives to assure that the content being delivered is factually correct, reasonable, does not make unfair and unwarranted accusations on foreigners and minorities. In fact the opposite is true, as more extreme news and conspiracy theories are more likely to attract people. The situation is even worsened in populations with mass illiteracy and unemployment. Post traumatized societies are more likely to shift the blame of their own misfortunes on 'others', which leads to marginalization.

Consequences of the spread.
First is the phenomenon of flash mobs. It could be for something benign like a rally or protest, but many cases it could be for horrendous ends like organized lynching. The ability of mobs to be generated without any sign or warning has overwhelmed the administrative authorities. Since the police system is not trained to handle them, it continues to happen across the globe. Another consequence is the spread of conspiracy theories, blaming a very specific set of people and linking unrelated events to each other. Such an example would be the spread of theories linking the spread of Covid-19 with the death of a Bollywood actor claiming that he had found its cure. These rumours are directly harmful to the efforts by our leaders to inculcate scientific temper in our society. The division of votes in general and assembly elections based on caste, religions, are too exacerbated and further reinforced their online spread. In the long term, their consequences could be far beyond our imagination. They have continued to deepen the cracks in our society, largely unchecked.

Role of the government
With the increasing role of social media in our lives, it has become important to establish public institutions to ensure that it remains free, fair but do not facilitate a discourse which is dangerous for the unity and integrity of our nation. In case of India, this assumes even more importance since most of the online platforms we use have their roots in foreign jurisdictions. These platforms often use the same policies that they use in their country of origin, completely ignoring the relevant laws in India. In this wake increasing burden is being laid on the courts to issue injunctions and notices for many sporadic but often related cases. Since these platforms have become too big to ignore, national laws guiding their use must be established, shaping them to the specific context of India.

Concluding the above points, it can be safely said that online spread of misinformation and hate is a grave threat to humanity, not only in India, but all over the world. Public institutions must intervene to keep them in check, since there are little incentives for private firms to do it themselves. Lastly, the role of the citizens can never be ignored. We must avoid being misled by fake news and make constant efforts to educate those around us. Ultimately the future of the nation is in our hands.