Sri Lanka and social media

By Jason Lim

The day after the Easter Sunday terrorists bombing that killed over 250 people, the Sri Lankan government shut down popular social media platforms such as Facebook and YouTube for fear of fake news and conspiracy theories that could incite further violence. This was largely met with support and even relief from the international community.

Writing in the New York Times, Kara Swished said, "So when the Sri Lankan government temporarily shut down access to American social media services like Facebook and Google's YouTube after the bombings there on Easter morning, my first thought was 'good.' Good, because it could save lives. Good, because the companies that run these platforms seem incapable of controlling the powerful global tools they have built. Good, because the toxic digital waste of misinformation that floods these platforms has overwhelmed what was once so very good about them. And indeed, by Sunday morning so many false reports about the carnage were already circulating online that the Sri Lankan government worried more violence would follow."

What a difference a few years make.

Remember the Iranian Green Movement during which ― and in subsequent protests since in Iran ― social media was heralded to be the organizing platform upon which the everyday Iranian people would finally compel the mullahs to cater to their needs? How about the Jasmine revolution when social media platforms were heralded as the most powerful tool to empower the people and drive a democratization of governance across the world? It was David's stone against the Goliaths ― despots and dictators ― that would finally give voice to the powerless.

We all know what happened to the early promise of those revolutions. It met the reality of how humans actually behave (not how we hope humans should behave) and dissolved into mostly limbo states that are not exactly better than the circumstances that they had risen up against.

In a way, this tracks the reputational paths of Facebook and other social media platforms of the world. Once the darlings of the world for enabling easy "connections" among the various peoples of the world, social media is now tarred as the amplifying platform for extremist views and conspiracy theories that divide us in dangerous ways rather than connect us in common humanity. This path hit its nadir after the 2016 U.S. presidential elections in which social media platforms, particularly Facebook, was accused of being the primary means of Russian attempts to hack the election process.

In a way, South Korea previewed both the light and dark side of social media way back in early 2008 during the first months of President Lee Myung-bak's administration. After announcing the FTA with the U.S., Lee faced a de-facto popular rebellion that caused the incoming president's popularity to drop from 52 percent to 17 percent within the first 100 days of his term. His popular nickname, Bulldozer, turned into a term of derision from one of admiration just a few months prior.

This rebellion was primarily driven by alarming information that South Koreans would be forced to eat American beef from cows infected with "mad cow" disease. The misinformation campaign quickly took on a life of its own on the "Agora" service of Daum, the second most popular portal site through which a majority of South Koreans get their news. Fake news about the potential dangers of mad cow disease and conspiracy theories accusing the Lee government of sacrificing the welfare of Korean citizens to cater to U.S. demands and the bottom-lines of fat-cat corporations proliferated the Agora platform, as well as exhortation to organize and demonstrate at particular places and times. In other words, both the organizing power and misinformation danger of social media were on full display.

Needless to say, black and white judgment over the efficacy of social media is too blunt. After all, social media is only a lens through which human behavior is magnified and amplified. We have always behaved tribally, believed in dark conspiracies against "the others," and organized to express our hatred and anger toward one another. What social media changed was the velocity of this behavior and, thereby, greatly reduced opportunities for cooler heads to intervene and/or restore some balance to public discourse. It's as if the critical point of a complex system is reached so quickly that there is no chance for the system to maintain equilibrium.

If velocity is the problem, then perhaps Sri Lanka provided us with a perfect strategy to tap the breaks to control the speed. Eliminating social media won't work. It's just not realistic. Social media serves a very useful and increasingly critical function in our modern society. But perhaps reducing the velocity of social media by forcing it to go dark for a while after an event that can be used to incite further violence gives society enough breathing space to regain its footing. The trick is to find the right balance between censorship and the legitimate need to control the messaging ― this balance will be different for each country.

Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.