brand logo

The backlash to the social media ban

06 Apr 2022

  • Seen as a step to curtail freedoms, bypassed nonetheless by tech-savvy youth protesters
BY Sumudu Chamara  Since the beginning of the protests, the Government made various attempts, some of which were futile, to control protests, and one such step aimed at dealing with rapidly growing protests was the temporary ban on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, Viber and TikTok.  The ban on social media commenced at night last Saturday (2), and amidst public opposition and criticism against the move, it was ended on the evening of Sunday (3).  Effectiveness of the social media ban  Even though banning social media platforms and mobile communication apps to restrict the public voice was seen during the tenure of former President Maithripala Sirisena following the 2019 Easter Sunday attacks, this time, the biggest question was not the ban, but how effective it was to curtail public opinions.  Despite the ban, the people continued to use the said platforms and apps using freely available Virtual Private Network (VPN) services, and expressed disapproval of the Government’s move to ban social media platforms.  Tweeting in this regard, former State Minister of Digital Technology Namal Rajapaksa, who held the said state ministerial portfolio when the ban was in effect, had raised concerns about the ineffectiveness of the ban.  “I will never condone the blocking of social media. The availability of VPN services, just like I am using now, makes such bans completely useless. I urge the authorities to think more progressively and to reconsider this decision,” his Tweet dated 3 April, read. This ban attracted the criticism of several prominent bodies such as the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL), and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL). Speaking to The Morning, HRCSL Commissioner Dr. Nimal Karunasiri had stated that the social media ban violates the right to free speech and information. He had further stated that the ban must not continue, and that the HRCSL wants the Government to immediately revoke the decision to impose the ban. Meanwhile, the BASL called on the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) to immediately withdraw the ban on social media which is said to have been purportedly imposed on the advice of the Defence Ministry.  “Social media is a vital aspect of the freedom of expression of the people – as important as the traditional media such as the radio, television, and print media. The ban on social media is the modern day equivalent of closing down a television channel or newspaper.  “This ban has clearly been imposed to thwart the fundamental right of the people of Sri Lanka to express, including engage in speech and publication, which is unacceptable. The ban also has the effect of stifling the thought process of the people, which is protected under Article 10 of the Constitution which guarantees to the people the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, a right which is not restricted by any provision of the Constitution,” the BASL said. The PUCSL also requested the TRCSL to restore all social media platforms as the ban makes it difficult for the PUCSL to inform electricity consumers of impending power cuts.  Protesters’ response  The biggest opposition, however, came from the people, mostly protesters, who use social media to discuss and organise protests using social media platforms and mobile communication apps. Several protesters The Morning spoke to explained their concerns regarding the ban. In this regard, A.R. Udaya Anuradha, a 30-year-old protester, said that the ban imposed on social media platforms actually strengthened protests and the opposition against the present regime, instead of discouraging it.  He stressed that the temporary ban on social media and mobile communication apps did not change anything, and that if it changed anything at all, that was the public’s perception about the Government’s confidence. In addition, he opined that the Government’s move was a clear sign that the Government was scared of the people’s strength to the extent that it resorted to unethical means to suppress the people’s freedom of expression.  He added: “As soon as the people started uniting to carry out islandwide protests on 3 April, the Government declared an islandwide curfew, and with no notice or official statement, blocked a number of social media platforms and mobile communication apps commonly used by the people to communicate about their future actions for around 15 hours.  “Everyone I know immediately downloaded VPN services, and started organising their protests as usual, expressing more opposition against the Government, especially the President. They have forgotten that we are living in an era of technology, and that most protesters are young people who have a good knowledge about modern technology. They cannot be defeated by traditional acts of oppression, such as curfews, and the Government is therefore, messing with the wrong generation.” Another protester, Gayani Sandamali Nanayakkara, a 27-year-old private sector worker, also expressed similar sentiments. She said that in an era of technology, what the Government should do is directing the people to use social media more wisely, if the Government feels that modern technology including social media platforms are being misused, instead of banning such. “This is an anti-democratic, anti-people, and anti-dissent move,” she opined. She further said: “This is not the first time that the present Government has attempted to curtail the freedom of expression and speech, especially on online platforms. There are several politicians who have openly advocated against allowing the people to express their opinions freely, and in this context, we cannot avoid this move being viewed by the social media users as a sign of a deliberate and well planned act of oppression.  “However, the Government could not control anything. People still installed VPN services and used the online services that the Government thought it had successfully banned, and still went ahead with their plans to hold protests all around the island despite the curfew.” She further opined that she hopes that the Government has now realised that the imposition of the ban was an unwise decision, because it certainly further tarnished the Government’s reputation, if it still has any. Channa*, meanwhile, expressed severe opposition to oppressive acts against dissent, which can be attributed to the ban on social media and mobile communication apps.  “We should not be surprised at all. Heads of the incumbent Government have a history of oppressing those going against it. I think that this ban is nothing compared to what has been alleged to have been committed by them during their Governments in the recent past.” Adding that oppression is unlikely to bring any results in the present context, he explained: “The situation, however, is different now. People are not ready to be silent or silenced, because these protests are based on genuine reasons that actually affect everyday people. “The Government is dealing with almost 20 million protesters, of which only a fraction uses social media platforms or smartphones. When one person is silenced on social media, hundreds of thousands of people are there to find other means of communication. The ban was actually useless.” He further emphasised that controlling the freedom of expression on social media cannot stop protesters, because it is not the influence of social media posts, but a genuine dissent stemming from the prevailing economic situation, that makes people want to take to the streets.  Net neutrality  With regard to the freedom of using social media platforms freely with no influence or restriction from any party, the concept called net neutrality, which emerged around two decades ago, is crucial, and even though it is not a mainstream concept in Sri Lanka, some countries have paid attention to making laws and regulations in line with this concept with a focus on internet users’ rights and freedoms. Net neutrality refers to an open and equal internet for everyone, irrespective of the device, platform, or application that they use and the content they consume. This concept also relates to the idea of internet service providers (ISPs) treating all forms of internet users and data equally, without any forms of restrictions. At the same time, ISPs not providing any party better services or more freedom when using the internet is a fundamental concept that comes under net neutrality.  In many contexts, this concept also advocates against any form of intervention by governments or corporations with regard to laws, regulations, practices, services, and technologies that may affect free and equal access to the internet. Those advocating for net neutrality believe that the internet should remain a free, open, and non-discriminatory space, and that such qualities are essential for a democratic, fair, and useful communication and exchange of knowledge, ideas, ethical practices, and fair competition, among other benefits. The Government’s temporary ban on social media and mobile communication apps has been proven to be ineffective. However, according to protesters and those who expressed concerns about it, it provided a negative message to the people, especially due to the circumstances in which it was imposed. However, modern technology has evolved to the point where such bans can curtail online freedom of expression only to a limited extent, and the freedom of expression still prevails. *Name has been changed on request


More News..