Effective measures

A temporary social media ban was put in place on Sunday night after clashes erupted in Negombo. The move came as a surprise to many, but it was lifted hours later. In Digana and the recent Easter Sunday attacks, social media bans lasted for days. In times of religious tension, a social media ban appears to be an almost automatic response from the Government, and this can have multiple ramifications. 

Do social media bans really work? And do they genuinely stem hate speech? Social media watchers say the Government’s bans have next to no impact, as most people download VPNs that allow them to have access to social media platforms at almost the same level of engagement. The Government has argued that social media bans are necessary to reduce the spread of misinformation and fake news during crisis times. They also contend that social media bans can also contain, at least for some time, the spread of hate speech. In the case of Digana, extremist groups were initially using social media, especially Facebook, to organise their attacks, and the Government insisted that shutting down social media was essential to containing the situation. 

After multiple social media bans, mainstream media is getting used to the disruption this creates. But given that a large part of their readership has shifted to social media platforms, especially Twitter, to stay informed and engaged, the line between traditional media and mainstream media is blurred almost to the point of non-existence. This means that social media is an intrinsic part of disseminating information, especially in a crisis. 

Despite being criticised as being outmoded, traditional or mainstream media, where it is professionally applied, have the responsibility to verify information and produce balanced news reports of events taking place on the ground and naming the responsible parties. Obviously this does not happen across all conventional media outlets in Sri Lanka, but there are still a few that do work very hard to present facts to their readers or viewers.  

Therefore, the continued importance of traditional media cannot be denied, especially given that social media still remains a space that is not governed by verification, impartiality, and balance. Social media platforms also complicate the dissemination of information by creating echo chambers, where people can choose to interact only with people who hold similar views. This has led to divisions between different communities becoming deeper, and the space for discussions to shrink. The phenomenon has been labelled as “confirmation identity” by experts, which means that people will walk away from a conversation believing more of what they believe, rather than consider an opposite view. This has made building moderate discourse much more difficult. 

Social media is far from perfect, but there is no doubt that it has become an intrinsic part of everyone’s lives. People use social media, particularly WhatsApp, to check on family and friends and exchange information, which is vital during an emergency. Not being able to have access to social media can create more panic. Extremist organisations are also extremely competent at adapting themselves to social media bans. This means that at a practical level, the Government has to spearhead well-implemented legislation against hate speech, sources of illegal funding, and spread of extremist ideologies across all religions, to minimise tensions in the real work that may have be reflected in social media.