“The controversy over freedom of speech and of the press is at bottom a controversy of the desirability, or otherwise, of telling lies. What is really at issue is the right to report contemporary events truthfully, or as truthfully as is consistent with the ignorance, bias and self-deception from which every observer necessarily suffers.”
- George Orwell
Taylor’s University senior lecturer Benjamin Loh in wanting the government to control free speech by controlling “cyber troopers” said something rather ridiculous.
He said if this problem (cyber trooping) is not addressed, “it’s going to reach a point where it’s impossible to unite the society.”
First off, it is not the job of the government to unite society. Fidelity to the country’s laws and the democratic process is what unites a society.
Erosion of public institutions and the rule of law turn societies into other models of government, which destroys societies’ ability to pursue economic, social and religious freedom.
Yes, disinformation destabilises cohesion and fuels partisanship but this is something that democratic societies have always had to grapple with because the purveyors of such disinformation do so in the service of political agendas.
Here in Malaysia where our rights and freedoms are under siege, the last thing we need is more restrictions on the way we speak and think.
Cyber trooper is a meaningless term anyway or at least not the most damaging when it comes to how we view each other.
In the Malaysiakini comment section, for example, the term is applied to any opinion you disagree with. Even nuanced opinions of Pakatan Harapan are deemed cyber trooping and anyone who offers an opinion that goes against the groupthink is either a BN supporter or out to destroy Harapan.
Under the cover of anonymity, commenters spread lies, disinformation and racist tropes and they are probably not even paid. One could make the argument that they are more dangerous – from a societal standpoint – than paid actors.
Does this mean we need the government to censor these people or penalise Malaysiakini or any other social media sites for that matter?
Remember when Maryam Lee was viciously attacked for her role in the UndiRosak movement?
Empower (an NGO) summed up the situation: “Instead of demonstrating maturity when engaging in the discourse, many supporters of the opposition resorted to unwarranted sexist, misogynist and extremist harassment against Maryam, and targeted their attacks solely at body shaming and (at) her identity as a young woman.
“Many of these attackers have accessed, taken and used her pictures without Maryam’s knowledge and consent. They further manipulated and/or morphed her photographic images into sexually explicit ones.
“These images are accompanied by extremely demeaning and sexualised insults and name-calling.”
False information
Furthermore, what kind of cockamamie methodology was used in this study presented by Loh at this closed-door forum? With 131 “suspicious” accounts monitored? Really, what was suspicious about them and since the term used was “paid political actor”, who paid them and where is the proof they were paid?
The study further breaks down the ethnic and gender composition of these accounts, which just further narratives of racial animus and does nothing to address the problem of the flow of disinformation.
Yes, there are paid actors who disseminate false information and something like the PDRM-linked troll farm should be investigated but what causes the most damage are the algorithms used by social media sites spreading disinformation.
Furthermore, the use of troll farms by political operatives has a global impact and the furtherance of narratives that destabilises societal cohesion but states need to constructively engage with social media companies to find an equilibrium.
The problem is that when it benefits the state, social media companies are useful to spread propaganda.
This is why everywhere in the world, the growing tension created by the spread of misinformation is difficult to grasp or find a solution for because the connective tissue between the state and propaganda are social media platforms.
All this goes beyond just cyber trooping and involves questions of censorship and how we should be very sceptical of the way the state defines certain freedom.
Keep in mind that Harapan, the so-called progressive force in this country, was mulling controlling the comment sections of social media platforms by making the operators liable for comments by partisans.
This is the kind of "biting the hand that feeds you" policy that demonstrates that before coming into power, toxic partisanships were ignored but when the reality of maintaining order when in power, the political elites suddenly realised how damaging partisanship was for society.
The reality is that toxic material, and this includes lies and “fake news,” are intentionally passed around by partisans, even though they know the veracity is suspect.
The same reasoning applies to comments in the comment sections. Anonymity, oftentimes, brings out the worst in people. In fact, there are subscribers who make toxic posts on news stories, and generally behave as if the comment section is theirs to reinforce party dogma.
Cyber troopers are merely a convenient scapegoat for the reality that partisan politics and its Manichean Weltanschauung are making the political landscape in this country (and elsewhere) toxic and as long as people have the ability to transmit their ideas through social media they would either do that responsibly or irresponsibly.
Political leaders could set an example but why would they?
Always remember that this partisanship benefits them until it doesn't. - Mkini
S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum - “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.