I am not on Facebook, Twitter or any of the social media sites. I perpetually fail to deal with my so-called social life in the real world, and the very thought that it could be extended into ether for new! bigger! better! social networking makes me want to dart under my bed and never come out.

But crouching in that comforting darkness, safe among forgotten boxes, I would be happy to hold forth on the unparallelled importance of social media as a tool of mass empowerment that must never be censored.
Not censorship, dear old Kapil Sibal shouts. Just some way of keeping offensive stuff off sites! How can you allow people to put up such malicious and insulting content? They hurt religious sentiment. They humiliate leaders. They may incite violence. They must be stopped.
Frankly, I do see where Mr Sibal is coming from. Yes, certainly from the cosy Congress club, where slighting the first family is blasphemy. Also from the minister’s office which fears social uprisings — especially if they can’t lathicharge protesters. Even then, we must admit, the minister’s concern reflects the important but neglected issue of the need for decency in public life.
And I quite agree that there must be some way of keeping deeply abusive content off social websites. Where I hugely disagree is in the method proposed.
Sadly, in his hurry to be grimly governmental, Mr Sibal made some silly mistakes.
First, instead of sticking to larger issues of vulgarity or hurting sentiments and inciting violence, he also expressed horror at offensive posts about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi. “Aha!” we screamed. “How dare anyone insult the king and kingmaker! You want to censor us!” It was a switch turning on mob hysteria, kicking out reason. Tricky matters of enormous complexity like the limits of free speech are best handled without clouding our minds with “aha!” moments.
Second, Mr Sibal suggested that social networking sites manually screen user-generated content before they are uploaded. This, of course, is not just impossible but also bizarre. The whole point of such sites is immediacy and user freedom. With every comment being vetted, the sites would become pretty sarkari — avuncular, insipid, outdated, shackled by red tape. Besides, only an obsessive optimist could imagine the Net swarming with clerks diligently sorting zillions of proposed posts. (Possible “aha” moment: Aha! Mr Sibal wants to create more jobs for Indians in global industries!)
Such a desperate idea does suggest censorship. But since it’s impossible, that suggestion is disqualified. The issue here is not censorship, but creating a code of civility. Mr Sibal is probably talking of self-regulation, like all mature governments.
But how effective is self-regulation on the Net? Who is this “self” that regulates, and by what yardsticks? How well can they balance demands of free speech with demands of respecting cultural, religious or individual sentiments? Or balance the need to protect user’s privacy with the interests of national security? Is self-regulation — that shining baton flourished by us, staunch believers of democracy and free speech — failing us?
Abusive content has been around ever since websites opened their doors to public comment. Almost all also have a “report abuse” button that promises to get offensive stuff removed. But only if there is a will to keep the website civil. Unfortunately, drunk on popularity, neither website owners nor users care much about that.
Sadly, the knee-jerk response in India to views you disagree with is vile, vulgar personal attack. The government was unperturbed when the anti-reservation stir was going on and Dalits, pro-reservation activists and the then HRD minister Arjun Singh were viciously attacked on the Net. Free speech, smirked Web officials. I bet all of us — especially women — who speak our minds on thorny issues have faced vulgar personal attacks from depraved netizens. At one point, I was so disgusted that I stopped a column I had on a website. You can always move away if the neighbourhood gets too dirty.
Fact is, social media reflects life — full of loonies and uncouth chaps being obnoxious. Like in real life, the government can’t stop them. But we can. As individuals, we could reprimand them, laugh at them, shut them up, boycott them or plain slap them away. It’s up to users to take action. And the fact that they don’t speaks volumes about our collective irresponsibility.
Worse, the Internet is like a Halloween party where everyone is masked. It’s easy to be repugnant when you are anonymous. Clubs have rules and bouncers. Regular media has editors. But the Internet is a free for all, where rules are clearly disregarded and bouncers frozen stiff by the idea of “free speech”.
Sure, laws exist for defamation, vulgarity and hate speech inciting violence. But our justice system is too slow and creaky to deal with the Net. Besides, it is not easy to prosecute anonymous agents. This gives netizens the spirit of a lynch mob — they can be as vile and violent as they choose and get away with it.
Since we incessantly demand accountability from others, maybe we should demand it of ourselves too. Websites need to be responsible and accountable. It may be impossible to prevent abuse on the Net, but it is possible to remove offensive posts from the public domain. And if the public wishes to be comfortable in said domain, it needs to make sure that their space is somewhat clean and healthy — by reporting abuse, objecting, getting offensive content removed.
We need collective self-governance if we don’t want to be controlled by a desperate, ham-handed government. Which is tough for apathy masters like us. We hardly ever speak up for others, especially if it involves unpleasant consequences for us. We don’t even help accident victims for fear of getting involved. Happily, it is far easier to change social norms and enforce ethical behaviour on the Net than it is in real life.
We have too much moral policing already, we don’t need any more. But if we are to cherish our freedom of speech, we better clean up our act. The Net is populated by us, with our prejudices, frustrations and violence. It reflects us, in all our glory and shame. And to make it comfortable each of us needs to be more proactive in keeping it clean. We can’t hold our breath and hope the stink will go away. If we value our freedom, we better work for it.

The writer is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com