Our pain or gain
“Hate speech in social media has been shredding the moral fiber of the nation. It motivates violence and destabilizes social glue and forbearance.”
I saw these lines in an article I recently saw in Rappler, written, I believe, by Val Villanueva. I am happy that the attention on hate speech in particular and disinformation in general is emphasized and sustained. Because both hate speech and disinformation will be around for a long time.
At the same time, the changing of the times, from dictatorial, monarchic, and autocratic governance for many countries to democracy, and especially those with the most powerful economies, necessarily changed the nature of the noise in the world. From no noise, or none that contradicted the ruler, to free-wheeling freedom of speech, stirred up the hornets’ nest.
Having been disturbed, technology then stepped into the picture to send the noise spinning around the world with unbelievable speed. Capacity in the electronic world, too, multiplies so fast that the volume of data once stored in a huge building is now only a fraction of giga-byte SD (Secure Digital) cards.
It is now a free for all as far as noise is concerned. I am not talking only about news as we defined it before but all bits of information – and disinformation. The volume is crazy, as crazy as the speed of distribution.
We cannot blame the messenger for the murder of the facts and the truth. The main messenger today is social media because it is the fastest and the most direct. Plus it can accommodate anyone. Mainstream tri-media, or radio, television, and print, had its days but the competition brought about by human beings with more freedom and rapidly advancing technology is simply overwhelming.
There are countries whose autocratic leaderships are doing what they can to contain the noise from their own citizens. The key factors they try to control is, of course, the Internet and social media platforms. In their countries, they are succeeding to a point. I doubt, though, that control is the right strategy. It always works for a while when the leadership is in near or absolute control. In time, though, the contained noise may itself be the ammunition of an implosion.
Their problem, and ours, too, if we move towards control, is that digital technology is the platform for both communications technology and for almost all types of technology. Defense technology, medical technology, financial technology, systems technology managing air, land, and sea travel, power distribution, and much, much more. When we constrict one field, we slow down other fields as well.
Disinformation, unfortunately, is a critical factor in generating anger and hate. It is also the end product of billions who have inner resentments that defy being bottled up indefinitely. Distorting facts and the truth will necessarily provoke the other billions who believe in those facts and the truth. The distortion threatens the harmony of all relationships involved.
Hate speech is not created by social media. Rather, hate is created inside the person and communicator. Social media is a facilitating factor. And inside social media will be people and groups who will be like support systems to those with hate in them.
In nations where freedom of speech is a human and a Constitutional right, the idea of control or censorship is a last resort, if at all. We will be able to witness the most intense conflict between facts and truth on one side and fake news and outright lies on the other. From them, we can learn our lessons, the more technical rather than the moral, and see who wins.
In the Philippines, the challenge might be greater though our technology may lag behind a bit. Unlike governments in the developed nations, our government may not be so committed to facts, the truth, and transparency. The formal engagement by the government with bloggers and even those that have openly distributed pro-government propaganda already signals that they will be following a clear line in their reporting. In a few months, the patterns of news and information reporting will be obvious – including the slants.
It is not as though there had been no policy to keep the news and related information friendly to the government. We had 14 years of that already, from 1972 to early 1986. It is too early to tell if the son will follow in the footsteps of the father as far as media and propaganda are concerned. We can be hopeful, but disinformation driven by resources and authority can be as effective as containment.
These are hard times for the poor and the almost poor. I hope that the information about their plight will be well covered by alternative media even if such news is negative. Shrinking purchasing power, unaffordable food prices, rising utility prices, and the difficulty that many businesses are encountering are important to monitor.
Disinformation and hate speech will not ease the suffering of those in want and in fear. They will only aggravate it. Movies made in Malacañang or by martial law storytellers will not make rice P20/kilo for either pro- or anti-Marcos forces. The controversy will distract them for a while – then they have to go to the market to buy rice.
What we can learn from disinformation and hate speech is our level of ignorance, intellectual laziness, emotional immaturity, and inner resentments. Social media is a powerful trigger for our own personal issues to reveal themselves. More than being caused by social media, our ignorance and resentments simply find a welcoming medium of expression through them.
Our societal leaders, consequently, bear great responsibility in addressing our ignorance or inner hate. The more noble ones will design ways to mitigate and then reverse our weaknesses. The more greedy ones will exploit our weaknesses, feed and exacerbate them, and further disable our capacity for intelligence, empowerment, and harmony.
But then again, ultimately, it is our choice, our pain or our gain.
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.