Collision of Rights and Responsibilities in Social Media
The latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data has pointed to 50,000 cases of cybercrime in social media – a 15% rise from the previous year. Harassment Is Harassment, no matter where it occurs.
That could range from the school playground to corporate offices -all kinds are viewed and treated with contempt. Yet when it migrates online; the rules seem to change. The most important question is: Are cyberbullying victims overly sensitive, or are they simply mocked for not being able to “take a joke”? Such dismissals trivialize the catastrophic mental effects of cyberbullying that have, during extreme cases, led to suicides. These have, however, given birth to a ghastly new term-cyberbullicide.
The murky waters around free speech add to the debate around the intensity of online harassment. Media ever since the intruding websites like Twitter (now X) and Instagram democratized speech has fueled revolts in society harnessing the voices of the marginalized. However, this very freedom has transformed into a megaphone for hate speech, misinformation, and online bullying, which leaves the community completely confused about how to address the equally troubling aspects that arise from online discourse.
Except often it falls under the robes of humor-sarcasm and memes offering their defenders anonymity and thus freedom of handle. The litany is simple to explain away: “It’s just a joke.” For them, however, the effects are anything but laughable. Because of the anonymity extended to them by the internet, trolls are probably more likely to spew vitriol, which they might never utter face-to-face with the intensity of attacks. Some do claim it violates their free speech to call such “pranks” harmful. This places free speech squarely in the line of fire of weaponization as a tactic for inflicting harm.
This debate is very heated now in light of the genocide being committed in Palestine. Social media platform X has been accused of quieting down certain words and hashtags in support of victims, accordingly sending dissenting voices into near silence. Most concerningly, the phrases “Free Palestine” and “Genocide in Gaza” have been shadow-banned or rendered less discoverable, bringing outrage from activists and users worldwide. Critics call acts of censorship such as this a violation of free speech since it is done to protect geopolitical interests and repress the voice of human rights advocates.
Indeed, communities are stepping up, but they horror out their problems. This endeavor to implement stricter laws to make platforms answerable, for the good of the common man, risks being born out of democratic overreach and hence finds itself across the spectrum of entrenchment of free speech. Such restrictions in authoritarian regimes may conveniently become transmogrified weaponry to suppress dissent, causing citizens and critics to navigate a very hazardous line between protection and suppression.
The introduction of artificial intelligence into moderation has only made matters worse. Algorithms have no understanding, for they often fail to distinguish between satire and slander. This has bred distrust of the platforms among users, whose faith in who or what determines the threshold of free speech has set in.
Against this backdrop, the unregulated transformation of intermediaries into a fertile ground for information propagation undermines public trust in both democratic institutions and social media companies. This raises the question: Is there a grey area that embodies neither overreach nor neglect?
The conflict between rights and responsibilities in social media remains unresolved. Free-speech advocates express their fear of creeping censorship, while victims of online harassment call for strong protective policies. This tug-of-war has made it difficult for platforms and governments to define a way forward.
Ultimately, this problem is not merely technical but profoundly moral. How do we enshrine free speech and maintain human dignity and safety? Until society squares itself with this question, the internet shall remain a battleground of competing and conflicting rights and responsibilities.
