In early July, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York ruled that President Donald Trump was violating the Constitution by blocking people on his Twitter account. In effect, the verdict would indicate to us that public officials can’t block people on their social media accounts.
Reporting the verdict, the New York Times commentated that the decision had implications in how freedom of expression applied to those in office. A deeper reiteration was that the US President’s social media page counts as public space, just as a speech in a town hall would. In perspective, this should be regarded as a landmark judgement with implications for any democracy, including India. Partly because it happened halfway around the world, the Indian media only took cursory notice.
Social media is a raging debate for the dichotomy it presents—can it uphold free speech as well as be a private platform? Consider this: If the Indian Prime Minister were to block a person from his/her social media account, should it be a prerogative, or should that amount to asking a dissenter to exit a townhall speech? Or is it tantamount to a violation that is even bigger in consequence?
EFFECTS OF PUBLIC SPHERE
The public sphere is a crowd-sourcing of ideas and critique from the public. Its recorded history began in the late 18th century when journalists became a bridge between the public and the monarchic and authoritarian legislatures. It was a compromised form of public debate and, occasionally, expression of protest.
Renowned communication scholar Christian Fuchs grew interested in social media’s power as public sphere. In 2016, he wrote that social media enabled the convergence of cognition, communication, cooperation into an integrated form of sociality. For example, on Facebook, an individual creates multimedia content on the cognitive level, publishes it so that others can comment (the communicative level), and allows others to manipulate and remix the content, so that new content with multiple authorship can emerge.
When we view social media as a modern public sphere, we can better interpret the US verdict. For one, both social media and public sphere are a great combination of individual and collective consciousness. Second, it has a peer-to-peer influencing effect. And third, social media has a snowballing effect, where diverse and eclectic perspectives keep adding to the original thought, enriching, sharpening and emboldening it further.
THE NEW STREET FOR STREET PROTEST
It’s hard to see it immediately, but the practice of protest is far more widespread today than ever before because organising is much easier, thanks to the technology of social media. With rapid adoption and viral diffusion, it has also melted the barriers of geography. In the early-to-mid period of this decade, the Arab Spring and the post-Ferguson (“Black Lives Matter”) protests were “blended”—where a social media campaign gathered support and led to the more visible street protests. In 2017, an estimated 2 lakh people protested on Marina Beach in Chennai against a court order that ruled against a traditional festival, Jallikkattu, a form of bull fight.
Street protests will continue to organise themselves around social media. But meanwhile, social media itself has become a platform for protest.
SLACTIVISM, A CONVENIENT ASSUMPTION
But is social media expression merely ritualistic? Observers are often sceptical of social media expression, because it is sometimes felt that web communication has played a central role in identity construction through expressive, rather than instrumental, form of communication. Often, expressions of indignation on social media are dismissed as “slacktivism”. The expression is seen as having more relevance than the functionality.
That’s a convenient assumption for lawmakers and policymakers. Resultantly, the powers that be receive public social media expressions as such—mere blurt-outs rather than meaningful discourse for change, distractions rather than constructions. Social media is an interface between individual and collective expression. Ironically, only the voices of those who already wield political or other influence are taken with any seriousness at all. Such voices both attract hordes of followers but don’t pay enough attention to them.
This means the big opportunity for social media to be a “democratiser” would get lost as we polarise ourselves around the conventional leader-follower structure. That is why it is easy for political figures to shut up the voice that doesn’t count—literally. There is a dire need for social media to evolve as a serious platform for expression-for-influence and not expression-for-expression’s-sake. But who is in charge of the taking-seriously department?
Our ministers and other public officials routinely block people from their social media accounts. Will that change? I suppose it depends on whether lawmakers huddle together to recognise social media as a legitimate channel of public discourse—a society in itself that is diverse and yet united, personal yet officially relevant. Additionally, social media itself has created influencers and leaders. Should they be treated as public figures?
The day of social media laws cannot be far. Already, users recognise Twitter as more public and influential than, say, Facebook or Instagram, which are regarded to be more personal. LinkedIn users routinely rebuke political messaging on that platform, distinguishing it as a networking space for professionals. Regardless of these distinctions, our personal lives are in the public domain. Social media has beautifully exposed every hue of the public and the underbelly of its thought and (especially) feeling. Blocking a person on social media would mean blocking a unique perspective. As the leaders of a democracy, can our lawmakers and policymakers afford to do that?
Shashidhar Nanjundaiah is a communication educator and Chief Storytelling Officer in a Bengaluru-headquartered multinational company. His recent research has observed the production and behaviour of media in the age of social media. He has edited newspapers and magazines, built and led media institutes of repute.