MUMBAI: Have you ever heard of the adage -- “one man’s hate speech is another man’s free speech?” No? Well, I just made it up given the rhetoric heavy political atmosphere that surrounds us. Nowhere is this more true than on social media, where posts, comments and tweets are often the subject of intense debate and even backlash.

At times, these original posts are abusive -- targeting a particular religion, community, or gender. Facebook’s “report” feature, therefore, is a useful tool to regulate the social media platform, getting users to generate feedback on objectionable content and then taking action by blocking it and deleting the content and/or the user.

Sometimes, however, content that is not even abusive gets the raw end of the deal. Cue Pratik Sinha, the administrator of Facebook page Truth Of Gujarat -- that has over 100,000 likes and infuriates a category of online users known as “bhakts” as its content is critical of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP, the RSS and the Hindutva ideology.

Sinha posted a long status after his account was yet again blocked by Facebook. He said:

“I was blocked yet again by Facebook. This time for 3 days. And this was the second block within a month's time, first time for a day. Recently, the parody Sususwamy page was also banned. I have written about it here:

http://www.truthofgujarat.com/facebook-become-freedom-expr…/

It is quite obvious that Modi Bhakts have been reporting the posts of anti-bjp pages/accounts. But I don't hold a grudge against them. They are opposed to us ideologically, their job is to report and they do so. But I do hold a grudge against Facebook though, a big one at that. Pages like TruthOfGujarat and SusuSwamy get multi-million post views per week. Though we are creating content for a cause that we believe in, we also help Facebook make money via their advertisements when people see the content that we have created. And if you read the post above, you'd see how ridiculous the bans have been. Completely atrocious. The next time I get banned, I believe it is going to be a one month ban according to Fb rules. And the next ban after that will lead to deletion of account. Seeing how arbitrary the bans have been, I know sooner or later that it is going to happen.

Moreover, Facebook has no grievance redressal mechanism. I even ended up writing to the Facebook India MD, Kirthiga Reddy, after I found her email off the internet. Expectedly, there was no response. She must be a busy person.

Therefore, there needs to be a change of strategy. Can't just sit around waiting for the apocalypse. One can create more pages, more accounts, but that is not a solution. The only solution is to put efforts into a platform where likes of Facebook can't censor us. So, as part of that plan, I have decided to use sites external to Facebook like truthofgujarat.com as the first choice publishing platform and use Facebook just as a distribution mechanism.”

Here’s a sample of the posts on the page, which, are usually plain (and yes critical) information and at times satirical but by no stretch of the imagination abusive or hateful (because if we were to consider this hate speech, every critical page on Facebook -- of anyone, be it Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Nawaz Sharif or Erdogan, Kylie Jenner or Miley Cyrus -- ought to be banned. And that will, for me, be the end of Facebook).



The posts are certainly critical, but hateful and abusive?

Sinha’s trouble points to the very problem ingrained in Facebook’s “reporting” tool -- the fact that it is user generated. In India, where pro-BJP, pro-Modi supporters are some of the most vocal social media users, mobilising enough people to “report” a post that they feel is critical of the government at the centre or of the Prime Minister is not difficult to do. However, being critical of the government and the Prime Minister is not hate speech or abuse, and well within an individual’s freedom of speech and expression. Further, in the age of information -- viewpoints that are critical and different, if not hateful -- need to be accorded space.

The problem, however, is that Facebook has no grievance redressal mechanism. Once enough people have reported a post and it -- and/or the page and account with it -- has been deleted, there are hardly any available redressal mechanisms in convincing Facebook that the post was not a violation of the social media giant’s user guidelines and T&Cs to begin with.

The Citizen faced the brunt of this “reporting” tool recently, when an article that gave an update on the police brutality in Hyderabad Central University was pulled off Facebook. The article was purely a news piece -- it included the information that one HCU PhD student Uday Bhanu had been admitted into a private hospital as he fell unconscious after being picked up from campus and thrashed by the police. You can read the article here and judge for yourself whether it can qualify as hate or abuse, or just as news that the pro-government supporters did not like. (Side note: The post was eventually reinstated).

So therein lies the problem, posts that are banned and blocked on Facebook are often not hateful or abusive, but just information or comments that a section of society -- pro-government, pro-BJP and pro-Modi -- do not like out in the mainstream. Given the large number of this section of internet society, Facebook’s “reporting” button ends up being used more as a censorship mechanism than a tool to regulate abusive or hateful content.

Perhaps no page knows this better than Unofficial: Subramaniam Swamy -- a page that has faced the ire of many bhakts and the official Subramanian Swamy himself. At the time of writing, the page stands banned, with Facebook having pulled it after SuSu Swamy (as the parody page is known) posted a photo of Muslims celebrating holi at a Sufi Saint’s shrine in Deva Shareef, Uttar Pradesh. The caption, in true SuSu Swamy style, sarcastically read: “How can Muslims celebrate our festival?’

Anyone who follows the page knows that its style is purely sarcastic, with the posts calling out the hateful politics of every single political party, yes, even the BJP. That’s the part the “bhakts” do not like, and the page and its posts are often reported -- resulting in Facebook blocking it altogether.

(SuSu Swamy’s post -- which was deleted and the page blocked. Courtesy: counterview.net)

To sum it up, Sinha says it best when he asks (as quoted by counterview.net): “"So, when Facebook says that it stands for Freedom of Expression (FOE), what sort of FOE are they referring to? If documented history is not FOE, if personal commentary on a post is not FOE, if sarcasm not intending to hurt anyone’s feelings is not FOE, then what exactly is Facebook’s definition of FOE?"

(Cover photo courtesy: Pratik Sinha Facebook page)

Latest News

RAHUL GARG