Censorship of social media looming?

Horrifying and gratuitous as the recent riots across England were, they may have given rise to something that could arguably prove more damaging if it comes to pass.

The news that British Prime Minister David Cameron had flirted with the idea of social media censorship controls immediately after the riots is perhaps more disturbing than the death and destruction the riots wreaked – and could affect a number of people worldwide if the idea were to catch on.

It is rather disturbing that a liberal, western nation would even consider curbing free speech and personal liberty, the more so when the contemplated crackdown missed the point altogether. It is also reminiscent of the early 19th century when dissent was blamed by some politicians on the printing press and newly discovered communication tools at the cost of ignoring underlying issues.

The authorities would be better served examining the root causes of the riots and its implications for British society since shooting the messenger and ignoring the message being conveyed cannot possibly help anyone. But this article is not about the socio-economic causes of the recent riots nor does it attempt to analyse what modern-day Britain has come to stand for. We are concerned instead with the temptation among authoritarian states and even Western democracies to try and regain control through censorship as they face new threats from the rise of the Internet and social media.

The information war, as it were, appears to be only just beginning. Technological advances have made it harder for those in power to control events and conceal secrets, but that has prompted a fightback by the State. The stakes are obviously high in this tussle. If social media and the Internet were to be somehow controlled, it could usher in an age of censorship, surveillance and oppression. On the other hand, this protracted struggle could result in a global democracy with the people in power, and not just nominally either.

The information revolution has begun to undermine those in authority and has also managed to empower a number of groups and individuals. This is changing the global balance of power as these ‘communities’ take to the streets (or ‘virtual’ information highways), be it to try and overthrow their leaders as has been happening during the ongoing Arab spring or simply rally support for their causes. Sadly, it has also been used to organise flash mobs to loot stores, incite trouble and indulge in wanton destruction. Having said that, the actions of a misguided few (hundred) should not be used to tar a whole new medium of communication. Better regulation might help but this should not degenerate into (blanket) censorship.

As governments draw up strategies for cyberspace, taking into consideration not just politics and crime but even the risk of terrorist attacks on critical infrastructure, they have to grapple with fundamental questions about the power and limits of the state. China, in particular, has attempted to control and even clamp down on Internet access through a massive ‘firewall’ and a sophisticated network of filters, censors and internal monitoring. Most other states, on the other hand, have settled for a largely unfettered, globalised Internet.

However, the reality is more layered and complex than this and there is more to it than meets the eye. For instance, despite Western rhetoric on free speech and criticism of countries that have tried to limit it like Hosni Mubarak’s abortive attempt to shut down Egypt’s Internet earlier this year, the US itself and its allies swiftly moved to block the spread of classified US State Department cables through WikiLeaks. They may not have succeeded fully but Julian Assange’s organisation was certainly left strapped for cash and had to scale down its operations. And Cameron’s flirtation with the idea of social media controls less than a year later would suggest that clamping down on free speech and on mediums of expression is not the preserve of authoritarian states.

Attempts to control what people say and even turn off the Internet/ social media could backfire and jeopardise the legitimacy of governments, fuel fresh unrest and make it difficult to gather intelligence and information. The British Prime Minister’s threats to temporarily block social networking sites during the unrest and the decision of British courts to impose harsh sentences on those accused of inciting riots could have disturbing worldwide implications if other states follow suit or cite the British example to crack down harshly on the Internet and free speech.

Perhaps none too surprisingly, the People’s Daily, seen as a mouthpiece for China’s Communist Party, hailed Cameron’s move and sought to detect a kindred spirit. In an editorial, the People’s Daily said: “Media in the US and Britain used to criticise developing countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the management of the Internet.”

But not everyone is so sure. The British Prime Minister’s suggested social media curbs prompted a barrage of criticism and the sentencing of two young men to four years in prison for attempting to incite riots on Facebook was seen by some as an overreaction. In any case, the global economic crisis is being seen as fuelling unrest among youth worldwide, many of whom are underpaid or unemployed. Trying to limit their Internet and social media access might only make things worse just as Egypt’s Internet shutdown brought more people onto the streets and hastened Mubarak’s ouster.

With even China’s micro-bloggers increasingly finding ways around controls to discuss taboo topics online, some doubt if the authorities have either the know-how or enough censors to keep track of what is being accessed over – and posted on – the Internet all day, every day.

Even so, it appears quite likely that there will be increased confrontation between governments of all hues on the one side, and individual bloggers and hackers as well as the giant multinationals who actually control much of the Internet traffic on the other. Already, Google in particular has had high-profile disputes with authorities in China, Egypt and elsewhere. Other big firms have also been involved in similar tussles.

So what is the way forward? Should people and firms have unfettered access to the Internet and social media and be free to post anything they wish? Should there be regulation of the Internet and how much? And most crucially, who decides how much is enough? Should there be an attempt to put the Internet genie back in the bottle or is it now more powerful than everything else, governments included? Or are we making too much of the whole thing and will it sort itself out? Do let us know what you think at vikas@khaleejtimes.com