Sri Lankan Social Media Shutdown
What does this spell for journalism and democracy?
This Easter Sunday, 21 April, a series of coordinated terror attacks conducted by suicide bombers in churches and hotels rocked the country, leaving at least 359 people dead, many of whom tourists. In the wake of the attacks, the government decided to block access to certain social media sites within the country, including Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram. It does appear that Twitter is still accessible to users within the region.
The Sri Lankan government justifies its decision, citing fear of misinformation or hate speech as main reasons for the ban. Their decision has sparked criticism in global press as social media is a conduit for the free exchange of information. Despite the government’s precautions, constraints may only create more misinformation as citizens are left to make sense of the attacks themselves without outside media.
Sri Lanka’s fears are not unfounded as social media sites have been used to incite violence in the past: for example, Facebook has admitted its role as a forum for anti-Muslim sentiment preceding the genocide of Rohingya Muslims by Buddhists which began in 2017. During the recent Christchurch massacre, the shootings were livestreamed on the platform, too. In these cases, it is ambiguous as to whether the violence or coverage of the violence was preventable.
This is not the first occasion in which Sri Lanka has restricted its citizens’ access to social media: in March of 2018 during Buddhist riots against Muslims, the government took similar action.
According to the 2019 World Press Freedom Index, Sri Lanka rates 126th of 180 countries. It has a poor history of press freedom with many journalists being threatened or murdered without consequence or investigation. Particularly, during the 10 years of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency from 2005–2015, a slew of journalists were murdered, their deaths only partially investigated by his successor, President Maithripala Sirisena.
As social media is one of the largest source of news, limiting access to it increases the likelihood of there being an uninformed public.
Going forward, the Sri Lankan government will have to choose between an unregulated social media landscape and undemocratic restrictions. While complete freedom may result in some misinformation for inhabitants, they will hopefully access accurate information instead of none at all. In a democratic society, civilians should have the option to sort the available reports and opinions, culling the truth from the media.
