This personal opinion was misread and misinterpreted, by various personalities on Sri Lankan social media.
Looking at the comment, I note two statements of sincere patriotism: ‘I love my country; I love this country.’ All good so far. However, this commenter was not expressing a blind love. She added that she is not happy with the way the country has been run - since its Independence. Specifically not recently, or currently. But rather, since 1948. 73 years. Almost three quarters of a century.
This statement encompasses generations of leadership and mismanagement, across the range of political parties. And many people, including those who went on to criticize this commenter, broadly agree with her opinion. That this is a country naturally blessed in a million ways, but which finds itself in some significant ways not as equitable, economically prosperous and socially progressive as it could and should be, by now.
The statement that roused the anti-colonialist ire of millennial social media commenters was her assertion that ‘If we were a colony, we would actually have been better off, as a people and as a nation’. She was here, in my view, suggesting that the citizens of contemporary Sri Lanka should stop reiterating platitudes about sovereignty, and retiring into blaming long dead politicians, and making excuses for the state of the nation. Instead, this independent state could and should start to become truly, proudly, sovereign and autonomous, effective in its administrative infrastructure, and transform itself into a land in which all its citizens, and not only a privileged elite, feel truly blessed to live.
Her statement on Independence Day on Instagram, however, caused her to be labeled a ‘colonial sympathizer’ who was ‘nostalgic’ for the days of British rule.
In contemporary Sri Lanka, accusations of pro-colonial sentiment are a virtual death sentence. Given the history of oppression, racism and belittlement suffered by colonized people, this opinion expressed by this commenter came across as incendiary, and unfortunately opened her statement to misinterpretation.
The subsequent misreading of it was selective, and biased, and these coined terms ‘nostalgic’ and ‘pro-Colonial’ were then applied to her over the next several months, in a series of apparently random, disparaging and dismissive comments on Lankan social media.
As is frequent in the social media sphere in this country, there were commenters whose constant reiteration of these specific key framing terms, aiming to belittle and ridicule their target, identified them as pack leaders, sociolinguistically, and this core group prompted a group of followers, who constantly affirmed their comments, the reach of which were amplified by replies and emojis and memes.
One of the social freedoms Sri Lankans of all generations most strongly defend is their right to freedom of expression. Social media technology has powerfully weaponised this freedom, and many Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp users have fully exercised this freedom, to the extent of abuse and breach of the Internet, not stopping short of damaging the reputations of their fellow citizens.
The kind of malicious commentary described here has visibly become normalized in this country over the past several years, and its perpetrators and those who participate in the public comments threads on Facebook and Twitter clearly relish the social power accorded them by these platforms, to bully and criticize those against whom they have a grudge of any kind - whether personal or professional, real or imaginary.
It can be argued that if any person makes a provocative comment on a public platform, they should be prepared to receive feedback. In fact, the original creator of the Instagram Story message had invited her extensive base to respond to her statement, so that a conversation could be generated about this issue. Many people did just that, and a fruitful and positive discussion ensued.
It should be noted that the original Instagram commenter had built her business initially through ‘word of mouth’ and through the intelligent and adaptive use of social media. She was invited by Google to participate in a forum specifically because of her successful use of Instagram as a key instrument in building brand recognition and audience engagement. She has created not just a business but a lifestyle brand, one of Sri Lanka’s first.
However, the minority who chose to see her statement as ‘pro-colonialist’ and ‘nostalgic’ continued to brand her in a negative way. The original commenter is one of the most successful independent entrepreneurs in the country, and she has built an enterprise over the past seven years which is recognised for its high quality products and excellent and consistent standard of service and delivery.
During lockdown, she was one of the first to ensure her commitment to the economic security of her staff by resiliently adapting to offer exemplary home delivery and ensuring wholistic compliance with safety standards. From the start, she has supported other businesses, and empowered other entrepreneurs, even those in the same sphere of activity as herself, and as her business and brand have grown, she has generously given recognition to rising artists and creatives who have been associated with her enterprise.
The group of people who had started to form and indulge the addictive habit of belittling her, as a sort of performative art form, began mockingly calling her an ‘influencer aunty’ - a term not only factually inaccurate, as she is an entrepreneur, not an influencer, but clearly intended to be personally insulting. Success attracts envy. And some were adopting a ‘slash and burn’ approach to creating space for themselves on public platforms where the commenter was seen to dominate.
Disturbingly, this same group of people who had name-called her regarding the Independence Day comment on Instagram, started to comment on the way this entrepreneur ‘unjustly’ ‘mistreated’ artists and creatives who had worked in association with her. This was a direct attack on her business integrity and ethics, and these accusations were provably false. Despite the evidence of the falseness of the accusations being publicly shared, with direct testimonials from the artists and creatives themselves, refuting the false statements made, the negative commenters issued no apology.
Damage done knowingly to a person’s right to work, to operate their business, to occupy a social space which they have rightfully earned through their dedication and their hard work and their enterprise, is called defamation, libel and slander. This is where the right to comment and express opinion becomes offensive: when a person’s compulsive actions to cause damage to another, and to air their personal opinions on social media, opens their own conduct to public and legal scrutiny, and they become seen as perpetrators.
A person who engages in such behaviour may feel initially rewarded by the engagement they receive from their followers, who encourage them and bond with them in attacking their target. But the more they do so, the more evidence they offer of a compulsion on their part which seems to operate to make them use virtually anything that is available to attack the person, as if the ‘issue’ being commented on is not actually the point at all, but just an opening for their own opportunistic critique.
This observable pattern of attack is cancel culture in the making. And we see burning issues such as race, religion, sovereignty, gender disparity, social injustice and colourism being commented on every day. But when these issues are handcuffed to a personal grudge, the commentary is not objective. It is being used to decry and to denigrate, under the guise of activism or raising public awareness. ‘Having an unpopular opinion’ is a high crime in the conformist and cliquey culture of social media.
Technology in recent times has empowered a lot of articulate people, who have been given an unprecedented opportunity to express themselves in a world in which many have felt initially excluded and marginalized, by their comparatively young age, and their relatively minor professional status. They can, even from the social margins to which the traditional hierarchy and class conscious broader society has relegated them, create large online followings by expressing reductive, stereotypical, controversial and crowd pleasing opinions in quotable and retweetable ways. And many of them clearly feel that, by doing this, they are redressing the imbalance of a world skewed against them.
They may not be aware that if their actions - seen not as ‘one off’ comments, but as part of a pattern - constitute malicious harassment, and can be shown to be aimed at targeting, isolating and alienating another person, they can actually be deplatformed. As most of these perpetrators rely on their social media platforms professionally, to keep them relevant to their followers, this is counterproductive, to say the least.
The vast reach of the internet, used by most to increase their digital presence and online reputation, when used by people of ill will to damage others, ironically operates in reverse as far as defamation goes. The more people who are reached by false, accusatory and damaging statements, the more damage is seen to be caused to the person whose public reputation is under attack. And in law, every action has a direct consequence to the perpetrator.
People who have grown up commenting to vast and invisible audiences on social media platforms without awareness or recognition of this reality, focus exclusively on their rights, instead of their responsibilities. It is a bad habit to indulge, and sometimes intervention is required to make them aware that indulging it is not, in this appearance-based society, ‘a good look’, and definitely NOT the way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment