Social media

Nowadays, the news of divorce cases is no longer surprising as many people often put countdowns on the occasion of the celebration of every marriage. And the advent of the internet has not in itself helped matters, as couples, especially celebrities, often rush to social media to post marital issues. PAUL OKAH reports.

“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has united, let no one separate it ”is a passage from Matthew 19: 6 which speaks of the exclusivity and sanctity of marriage, which is often ignored or ignored when couples begin to experience problems. conjugal.

These days, it’s common to see romantic couples in the past take legal action against each other and go out of their way to divorce for different reasons, mostly as a result of minor disagreements.

However, according to surveys, social media appears to fuel marital conflict, as details about couples’ lifestyles are often posted by sour parties, to the derision of readers.

Moreover, even when either party wishes to work on solving marriage issues, searching the internet is often daunting, as the opinions of supposed feminists, home breakers and non-professionals always do. surface to fuel disagreements, thus eroding the chances of settlement. or reconciliation.

Recent cases

In recent weeks, the internet has been inundated with news of divorce and marital issues involving some Nigerian celebrities, including Paul Okoye (aka Rudeboy) of the late P-Square music group, African Queen Crooner, Tuface Idibia, the enigmatic actress. Tonto Dike, actor Nedu from Wazobia FM, Tega Dominic from Big brother Naïja, among others.

The marital issues of the aforementioned celebrities bordering on cheating, neglect and other complaints revealed by their wives or concubines have been all the rage on social media for the past month, with twists every hour or every day. by “actors” and bloggers and other Nigerians adding “salt and pepper” to fuel the problems; in order to generate comments and traffic to the sites.

Invitation to more problems

Reacting to Nigerians’ penchant for rushing to social media to disclose family issues, veteran journalist Azuka Onwuka said in a September 6 Facebook post that it was an invitation to disaster because many would naturally offer unsolicited advice, while the Internet does. don’t forget anything posted on it.

“If you make your marital problems public, there are millions of them who love it and will help you add gasoline to the fire you have started. Deleting such a message afterwards makes no sense. If you don’t want more problems in your marriage, don’t post about your marriage in the first place, unless you’ve decided to leave the marriage. You cannot ridicule your spouse in public while wanting to continue your marriage. It’s contradictory, ”he said.

Talk with Master plan weekendSocial commentator Rosemary Okorie said many people will now be afraid of getting married at the rate that marital issues and divorce cases are posted daily on social media.

She said: “I am concerned and really disturbed by the recent developments in the country. Gone are the days when elders and family members were asked to sort out marital problems. Now social media has taken center stage, with quack advisers and illegal lawyers. Just last week, not to mention the whole month of August or the year, social media relationship update or celebrity marital issues pitted Tuface Idibia against his wife, Annie; actor, Mr. Nedu against his ex-wife; Tega against her husband, then Paul Okoye and his wife.

“Indeed, the devil is destroying marriages lately. What amazes me most is the fact that the women in these relationships were the first to post their marital problems on social media, whether they are guilty or innocent. In fact, I honestly wonder what Nedu’s ex-wife was thinking when she gave interviews to news organizations, now posting her reactions in snatches. Its action is in itself reprehensible, but sharing it on social media and giving interviews is like washing your dirty laundry in the market. I’m not thrilled with people’s private issues. I hate when adults quickly forget about the good times they shared together, just because they’re not together anymore. It’s not nice at all!

“You know, we have this mental fracture in our heads. It seems that our sense of reason is damaged and that many cannot think well. Everyone wants to be a celebrity by exposing themselves on social media, especially our women. To me, this is nonsense, because there are things you don’t have to expose.

“Of course Nigeria is a dramatic country, including some of its citizens. Every week there has to be a new social media drama. This last quarter of the year was devoted to divorce / infidelity between married couples and lovers. You see this generation of mobile phone users, the divorce rate will be a lot soon. It’s not “I’m engaged or I’m getting married”; what do you have to offer in marriage? This is why you see couples cheating from top to bottom. However, I am sad that most married women are not ashamed to expose their adulterous life, their whim and promiscuity. May God save us!

Expert advice

Speaking exclusively to this reporter, marriage counselor Mr. Theophilus Balogun said couples are barely meeting family members and experts to resolve their marital issues as they now believe the internet offers better options. , while it is counterproductive.

“From all indications, weddings don’t last long these days due to many factors. Aside from couples who get married for different reasons other than love, too much demand, cheating, and love of material things are some of the reasons marriages break down faster than you might think. . A visit to our courthouses and a trip to the legal columns of major newspapers will tell you everything you need to know about couples in love who spend thousands, if not millions, just to divorce.

“All of the problems mentioned above are simply the result of intolerance, lack of understanding, lack of communication and other factors affecting marriages. Long ago, parents, family members, and in-laws were always the people couples depended on when problems arose in marriages. More often than not, the problems would be solved without the general public knowing.

“Over time and development, guidance and counseling experts and professional marriage counselors began to make a living helping couples resolve disputes outside of family circles. More often than not, the success rate was high as I have personally spoken to couples about divorce considerations on issues that are even ridiculous when rephrased.

“However, recently it seems that this new craze of Nigerians, regardless of their social class, to rush to social media to disclose their issues to the world, who often don’t care and will even add fire to themselves. ensure that marriages are broken as many of them are single, divorced or just bitter souls looking to destroy, ”he said.

He added: “They call it ‘a capture cruise’ when they offer unsolicited advice to anyone wanting to share their marital issues on social media, but it’s the poster that should be blamed for leaking her. privacy to the whole world as there is an African proverb that says “he who brings home ant infested firewood should be ready to dine with lizards.” People should learn to talk to marriage experts, instead of rushing to social media to share marital issues with people who don’t even want well for them.

“God himself does not like the idea of ​​divorce or the breakdown of families, for the institution of marriage is sacred and intended for procreation, unity and a better world. So, I will always advise people to reconsider rushing to social media to meet bitter souls and those who are willing to fuel problems. When you are having trouble resolving your marital problems within the family, meet with professionals to help you. Any marriage or marital issue brought to social media or the public is pretty much gone because many people are not happy that you are married or are successful in your endeavors.

Related

Police and government agencies in the UK have adopted tactics similar to those of social media influencers and used targeted ads to fight crime, according to a recent report.

The study, published by the Scottish Center for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR), found that the National Crime Agency conducted a six-month “influence operation” to combat cybercrime involving surveillance, direct intervention and commercials. targeted online.

Researchers also found a government communications service training podcast that claimed the Home Office was using purchase data from people who had recently purchased candles to target them through their smart speakers with ads. fire safety.

The study shows that these online influence tactics, used both locally and nationally, are also used to influence the public on health and social policy.

Dr Ben Collier of the University of Edinburgh, one of the co-authors and researchers of the article, said that while this approach may help with crime prevention, concerns remain about the potential negative consequences such as the additional stigmatization of groups that already face structural oppression through targeting and surveillance, causing anxiety or potentially serious harm.

He said: “In some cases, these practices could potentially have the opposite effect of what they intended, with targeting serving to disseminate the very unwanted narratives and behaviors that they aim to counter.”

Dr Collier added: “We have found examples of well thought out and effective campaigns, some of which have been developed directly with the communities they are aimed at, but some campaigns seem much more intrusive and disturbing.

“Home Office delivery vans and knife crime advertising on fried chicken cans have come to the public’s attention because they have appeared in public spaces.

“But when this happens in people’s living rooms and on their cellphones via targeted advertising, it is potentially much more difficult for managers to be held accountable.”

Dr Daniel Thomas, of the University of Strathclyde, who also co-authored the report, said the practices of “government influence” need further examination.

He said: “These advanced marketing approaches are more than just communications and go far beyond media management. Our research suggests that these are frontline policy interventions and should be seen as such, and subject to the same public debate, scrutiny, and accountability as other such policies. “

Dr Thomas added: “There is also a need to answer legal and ethical questions regarding the selection of particular groups and characteristics, the use of operational data to inform these campaigns, privacy and data rights issues, and algorithmic aspects of targeting. itself and the data it generates and on which it is based.

“Although our research and the background paper focuses on UK law enforcement and government services, we have recently secured funding to investigate these issues further in a Scottish context.”

Chief Justice of India NV Ramana was on hand when he observed that the common connotations of content posted by social media and YouTube channels all work to show India in a bad light, not to mention that some of these offenders consider themselves “patriotic”. CJI correctly noted that these entities have no responsibility and can freely smear people and institutions they don’t like and circulate content without factual verification or advice. These sightings came upon hearing Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and others protesting “biased” reporting on Tablighi Jamaat at the start of the spread of Covid in India.

CJI’s accompanying observations on the print media, which he says, again rightly, does responsible reporting and has built-in corrective mechanisms, highlight a great dichotomy. News published in newspapers is compiled by professional journalists and is printed after several levels of fact-checking and editorial control. It doesn’t make newspapers perfect. But this ensures that reputable mastheads are not platforms for bogus, libelous, or hateful content. In contrast, social media has become a cesspool of all of this and worse, because it doesn’t use as many editorial networks as the ocean of posts requires. Here it is also important to distinguish social media from digital news portals, which include digital publications from print media. The latter are subject to the same due diligence as newspapers and face the same regulatory regime.

Oddly and indefensibly, the GoI’s purported response to social media excesses, IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021, does not quite make this distinction between true news organizations in the digital space and wild media wasteland. social and hate factories on the fly. It’s no surprise that IT rules face severe legal challenges in high courts. GoI should listen to what CJI said: content is dangerous when it promotes lies and hate. This means more rigorous scrutiny of social media companies and letting digital media do its job.

END OF ARTICLE

After shattering an existing media oligarchy and increasing people’s freedom of speech, social media is as transformative as print media was 500 years ago. But to ensure that technology does more good than harm, its core functions must be separated from each other.

CHICAGO – After being celebrated for playing a pivotal role in the Arab Spring, social media platforms are now blamed for any outcome mainstream media dislikes – from the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump to political polarization in general. Growing disenchantment with social media has led to increasing demands for regulation. The pressure is now strong enough that Facebook, fearing it would be shackled by the state, has sought to lead the regulatory effort on its own, making numerous advertisements to express its own support for such policies.

But what kind of regulation do we need? To answer this question, we must first appreciate the transformational nature of social media, which is arguably comparable to that of printing in 15th century Europe.

Before the printing press, books were unaffordable and their production had to be subsidized by the Catholic Church, which thus maintained the monopoly of knowledge. But once the printing press arrived, the books became affordable for the merchant class. And because most merchants were not fluent in Latin, the demand for Bibles printed in the vernacular increased.

Printing has thus changed not only the language of books, but also the style and content of debate. If the scholastic debates of the Middle Ages were fierce, they had always been educated and raised in tone. But with the printing press came the Reformation, which involved theological debates full of insults and drama. Then as now, everyone understood that a very charged intellectual struggle would produce greater sales.

The reaction of the Catholic establishment to this new era has been multifaceted, but three of its decisions deserve to be highlighted: power has been refocused in the hands of the Pope; the Index of prohibited books has been created; and the Inquisition was strengthened to protect Catholic souls from preachers from “false knowledge”. It is humbling today to see which books the Catholic Church has banned. In its Index were several of the most important works of Western culture, from Niccolò Machiavelli and René Descartes to Galileo Galilei and Immanuel Kant.

As the printing press broke a monopoly, social media encroached on a comfortable oligopoly. Before social media, everyone was free to talk, but not everyone was entitled to a megaphone. While printing texts was relatively inexpensive, distributing them was not – and distribution was even more expensive, when permitted.

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Subscribe to Project Syndicate

Enjoy unlimited access to the ideas and opinions of the world’s greatest thinkers, including weekly readings, book reviews, thematic collections and interviews; The year to come annual print magazine; the entire PS archive; and more – for less than $ 9 per month.

Subscribe now

As a result, access to megaphones was limited to those expressing ideas that advertisers found acceptable. To administer this cozy oligopoly, a new class of journalists has emerged. They chose the topics to discuss, the books to read and the music to listen to. They also shortlisted presidential candidates, helped rock the elections and even advised governments. Elite journalists were the priests of the new order.

When social media broke this clan cartel, the instinctive reaction of the ruling power – as in the 16th century – was to attempt to regain control of information. The general process is the same: some topics are banned on Facebook and other platforms, and some users are disfellowshipped. And yet, we should know from history that this approach does not work. Martyrdom is the best form of publicity; being “canceled” can be a launching pad for even greater success.

To effectively regulate social media, we need to focus on separating the effects of technology, which are here to stay, from the effects of a particular business model, which regulation can change. The problem isn’t that people are allowed to post crazy stuff online; as long as they do not commit any crime, they should be free to speak out. Rather, the problem is the refraction of social media through a business model that maximizes profits by promoting the craziest and most inflammatory ideas.

This model is facilitated by the immunity of social media platforms from legal or reputational consequences. Newspapers have long been held accountable – both legally and in terms of reputation – for what they print. But thanks to Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act of the United States of 1996, social media companies have avoided legal liability for what appears on their platforms. And when they attract reviews for promoting the craziest content, they systematically blame an algorithm (even though they themselves have designed their algorithms to maximize the time users spend on a platform) .

Social media platforms play two roles: they operate networks connecting billions of users, and they decide what content those users see. Newspapers have played this kind of editorial role for centuries, but they have done so in a highly competitive environment. The same cannot be said of the social media environment today. With about 72% In the US social media market, Facebook is effectively a monopoly, with all the negative consequences that monopoly entails.

This is where regulation can help: by separating the “social” from the “media”. In many countries, the electricity grid – a natural monopoly – is separate from electricity production. Likewise, we need to separate the social media networking infrastructure from the editorial role. Network externalities make the first activity a natural monopoly, while the editorial function would benefit from competition. It is important to note that the company managing the virtual grid should not be allowed to enter the publishing industry. This would allow it to kill all competition by subsidizing one activity with the other – exactly the system we have today.

How would these two distinct layers make money? The competitive layer offers many options: Companies can advertise, sell data, or charge customers for content or the privilege of not receiving ads and not selling their data. The virtual network – like any natural monopoly – should charge a regulated price for access to the infrastructure.

These types of changes should not be made through litigation or technocratic regulation, but through legislation. In a democratic society, the main political decisions affecting the flow of information should be taken by elected representatives. No, I am not optimistic that such a law could pass any time soon in the United States. The elected officials who depend on social media for re-election are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. But make no mistake: this is the solution. Everything else is a stopgap or, worse, a way to strengthen the current monopoly.

Images of the press conference held by former President of Kenya Mwai Kibaki and his late wife Lucy Kibaki have surfaced on social media. The 2009 press conference was called so the president could deny the polygamy allegations – or, as the pages of the memes say, declare he had “no side chicks.”

ALLEGATIONS OF KIBAKI POLYGAMIA

The former president who will turn 90 in November was known to be shy of the media during his ten-year tenure as head of Kenya, which added to the strangeness of the press conference. Lucy Kibaki, who died in 2016, was however known to be quite the opposite.

“I want to make it very clear that I only have one dear wife, Lucy, who is here, and I have no other,” Kibaki told members of the media gathered, along with his wife. standing right next to him. The police chief was also present closely, according to The Guardian.

Kibaki said the reason for the press conference was to respond to media reports that he had “one or more other wives.” The first such report took place in 2004 when it was reported that Kibaki allegedly married businesswoman and politician Mary Wambui, with whom he also had a daughter, Wangui Mwai, under customary laws in the 1970s.

The now notorious press conference took place in March 2009, testifying to the persistence of the allegations. Kibaki said he decided to call the press conference because a former politician mentioned his alleged relationship with Wambui.

“I want to say quite frankly that anyone who is determined to go this route will see me in court. And we will deal with him, no other way, ”said the former president.

When the late First Lady spoke her anger was pretty obvious – when Kibaki finished saying what he had to say he gave the media a chance to ask him questions and Lucy filled the dramatic break. that floated in the air saying, “Ask now or never.”

Lucy Kibaki spotted a cameraman from Kenya Television Network in the crowd and said I almost came to your studio last night to attack you like I did The nation. You torment us. I don’t know what you get out of it.

The first lady was referring to when she staged a nightly sit-in in the offices of one of Kenya’s largest newspapers – The Daily Nation – after posting an unflattering story about him. Lucy Kibaki allegedly slapped a photojournalist in the face and even confiscated phones and laptops that night in 2005.

Another infamous slap in the face of the former first lady was said to have taken place in 2007 after a Kenyan government official mistakenly introduced her to dignitaries like “First Lady Mama Lucy Wambui”, according to The Guardian.

Lucie Kibaki, a first lady like no other, died in hospital from an undisclosed illness in London, England, in 2016.

READ ALSO :

Updates from the Information Commissioner

Sign up for myFT Daily Digest to be the first to know about news from the Office of the Information Commissioner.

The UK will target social media companies, video streaming and gaming platforms as a broad set of new regulation to protect children’s data online goes into effect Thursday next week.

The rules proposed by the UK regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office, aim to prevent businesses from tracking the whereabouts of children, personalizing content or advertising for them, and offering behavioral advice, such as automatically playing videos. .

“We have identified that currently some of the biggest risks come from social media platforms, video and music streaming sites, and video game platforms,” said Stephen Bonner, executive director of regulatory futures at the ICO. “This can include inappropriate advertising; unsolicited messages and friend requests; and privacy-eroding nudges urging kids to stay online.

Bonner added that he was concerned that the adverse consequences for children could be “physical, emotional, psychological and financial.”

The UK’s Age Appropriate Design Code, which comes into effect after a one-year grace period for companies to comply, has been touted as pioneering regulation.

Violating the code will result in the same potential penalties as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), including a fine of up to 4% of global revenue for companies that do not comply.

Members of the United States Senate and Congress have called major American technology and games companies to voluntarily adopt the ICO code for American children.

Over the past two months, the biggest social media platforms, including YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, have announced changes related to children’s privacy ahead of the code’s application.

Earlier this month, YouTube announced that it would turn off autoplay by default on videos and remove targeting and ad personalization for anyone under the age of 18. It would also activate ‘take a break’ and ‘bedtime’ reminders for the same age group, he said.

Meanwhile, Instagram last month introduced a new feature that prevents adults from sending messages to people under the age of 18 who don’t follow them, among other changes. And TikTok said it will no longer send push notifications after 9 p.m. to users aged 13-15, and after 10 p.m. to those aged 16 and 17.

“These are not proactive changes, they are a set of changes that respond to the code – this is proof that the regulations are working,” said Beeban Kidron, a member of the House of Lords who originally proposed the amendment to the law. “Otherwise, why would three global companies make similar announcements in the weeks leading up to September 2? It shows that the digital world can be designed to respond to societal concerns. “

Despite its pioneering nature, the code has been criticized by a series of companies that operate online services, who have complained that the ICO’s comprehensive approach would encompass companies that did not specifically target children, including children. retailers and newspapers.

In response, the ICO has now said it will focus its proactive regulatory and enforcement efforts on high-risk areas, “performing audits” and “overall enforcement,” according to Bonner.

“When the risk is relatively low, we wouldn’t expect to see stocks in the short term. We have been clear on where the potential damage is greatest, so these organizations can take action quickly, ”he said. He suggested that news websites and e-commerce companies generally pose a lower risk to children’s privacy.

“Prioritizing certain areas makes a lot of sense to me because that’s where the risks lie, but it leaves the rest of the digital economy in theoretical uncertainty,” said Dom Hallas, executive director of the Coalition for a Digital Economy, which represents technology. start-up. “The vast majority of businesses still don’t know what obligations they have under the code. ”

Another aspect of the new rules that is of particular concern to businesses is age verification, which they say could carry additional privacy risks and become a burden on small businesses without the resources to develop sophisticated technology.

“We have helped provide advice on realistic solutions to a number of issues raised, while also working to disseminate practical advice to our members to support efforts to achieve compliance,” said Ukie, the organization. UK gaming industry, which will be one of the ICO’s target areas for compliance.

“[However] Elements of the code rely on technological solutions, such as age verification, which are currently impractical, inefficient, or likely to be intrusive if implemented in their current form. He added that enforcement efforts should take place alongside “ongoing dialogue and education,” as the code comes into force.

The ICO told the Financial Times that they don’t expect all online businesses to immediately put an age barrier in place. Bonner said the ICO would release further guidance on age verification in the fall, for clarity. “We don’t want to build a walled garden. The aim of our work is that children can be protected in [the internet], not from him, ”he said.

Veterans and others related to the military use the hashtag #DigitalDunkirk to unite on social media and help thousands flee the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The operation takes its name from the famous civilian-assisted retreat of the British and Allied forces of France during World War II.

It offers expert assistance and advice on evacuating from Afghanistan predominantly Western allies and their families, such as interpreters or military personnel.

Jen Wilson, 35, is the Army Week Association’s operations chief in New York City, and her team alone has already coordinated the escape of 30 people from Kabul as part of the mission.

“Dunkirk, it was all the Tom, Dick and Harry with a boat… they all flooded the waters to get these guys out,” she told the PA News Agency.

“That’s exactly where it is here… we have former Navy Seals walking in with their own money… down to me as a civilian sitting in my apartment in New York City.”

“It’s all on the bridge, everyone is sending us contacts – I literally just had a contact this morning working with a guy whose brother is an Apache (helicopter) pilot on the ground.”

Ms Wilson said a “motley group of Royal Marines” stationed across the UK are always available to help with the international effort, using their sources and contacts to provide intelligence.

“One of the biggest problems is that we need constant new information on the ground because it keeps changing,” Wilson said.

“This group of Royal Marines, whatever time of day … they’re always sending me answers.”

Mike Jason, a retired U.S. military colonel and defense consultant, said he believed thousands of people had been helped by the campaign, which began in the United States.

“We have individually helped hundreds of people we know personally, but we believe these efforts are impacting thousands of people,” Jason told PA.

“I even worked with my classmates at Italian War University and now we interact with our Canadian counterparts, all in real time, through social media.”

Mr Jason’s work began on the project when he received a text from a friend – a senior Afghan army official who was in hiding in Kabul with his family.

After helping evacuate the official and his family, Mr Jason tweeted “how happy he was” in a thread which then went viral.

“The thread went viral and I was immediately connected with dozens of other veterans trying to do the same,” said Jason, who retired as a colonel in 2019.

“We have (since) organized ourselves into a working group using our military training – a CNN reporter called it Digital Dunkirk and we have embraced that spirit.”

When asked how those with no military experience can help the #DigitalDunkirk cause, Mr Jason said: ‘Speak out loud, tell everyone unequivocally that this is our moral obligation to bring out our friends and allies and welcome them into our communities with open arms.

“It’s not over with the last flight. Their new life begins when they arrive, we can all play a part.

The bizarre idea that Ebay, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Verizon will accept real business constraints that do more than a passing scratch on their business is hilarious. They have become law in themselves, effectively telling the state it should leave them alone and let them run their own patch. The EU has just realized this absurdity and has abandoned self-regulation, instead introducing a regulatory model. As always, we are years behind global best practices.

Recently forced, our government agreed to curb the excesses of the digital giants. The combined muscle power of the “old” media companies (newspapers, television and radio) was flexed and applied with enough force to force the introduction of a news media bargaining code. It tries to compensate for the digital advantage of new entrants and force them to reimburse news companies for the reproduction of their content. The Murdoch Empire foreshadowed a total assault if it wasn’t subsidized, so they got (most) what they wanted. Likewise, the threat to banks and financial institutions from application-integrated markets is forcing change in this industry, as powerful players insist that disruptors be constrained.

But well-heeled lobbyists and ex-politicians are not working for anyone to urge the government to tackle online racism, trolling or the mental health crisis among young people. Non-financial trauma does not raise eyebrows in the corridors of power.

Self-regulation of social media and the digital market is not working. Self-regulation after deregulation never works – foxes and henhouses and everything. Witness the catastrophic deregulation of elderly care, financial services, construction standards, the energy market, banking, job insecurity and deregulation and the booming economy predatory of odd jobs that resulted, all under the pretext of cutting red tape and making businesses more efficient.

We must end online anonymity. Proof of identity can easily be introduced. It would stop the biggest sleight of hand in the digital age.

Loading

My faith in our humanity and kindness was also tested this week by our government expressing concern for the victims of the Taliban in Afghanistan while hypocritically withholding any compassion for the victims of the Taliban already here in Australia seeking asylum. Crocodile tears. That they stay

Jon Faine is a regular columnist.

ISTANBUL – Turks could soon face up to five years in prison for spreading false information on social media, according to reports of the government’s latest crackdown on online communications.

Proposals due to be submitted to parliament when it returns in October include a one to five year sentence for spreading false information, while those convicted of insults online face up to two years in prison, according to the pro-government party. Turkiye newspaper reported.

There are also plans to create a social media branch within government to monitor online comments.

The reported plans are said to be the latest in what critics say is an effort to control free speech and access to unbiased news in Turkey, where all but a handful of newspapers and TV news channels are controlled by the government or its supporters.

“At the moment it’s quite ambiguous, but I think its mission is to intimidate users of social media,” said Erkan Saka, media manager at Istanbul Bilgi University.

Saka added, “This is part of this crackdown and restriction on social media. The government already has the tools to restrict social media, but people who are sued for what they write on social media are usually released after a few months. Now they would like to criminalize this criticism via social media. “

Cathryn Grothe, Research Associate at Freedom House, described the development as part of an “ongoing trend of the degradation of Internet freedom.”

She added: “This is another step towards cyberauthoritarianism that we see under Erdogan and under the current crackdown on free speech and journalists in Turkey. Criminal sanction is really problematic because we know that these laws tend to have very vague wording in terms of what is defined as fake news. “

The development comes shortly after the government claimed that a Twitter plea for help during wildfires was an orchestrated attempt to undermine morale and confidence in the authorities.

The #HelpTurkey hashtag has led to a criminal investigation amid allegations it was designed to panic and humiliate the government, which has come under heavy criticism for its response to the deadly fires.

The government said the hashtag was spread by fake accounts that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called “terror of lies … spread from America, Europe and certain other places.”

Recently, social media has seen an increase in anti-refugee posts following reports of an increase in the number of Afghans crossing the Iranian border into Turkey and violence against Syrian refugees in Ankara.

“Over the past two weeks, some Twitter accounts have been posting very provocative statements about refugees, who could easily be arrested and officials arrested for not using anonymous accounts,” Saka said. “The government appears to have allowed this to happen to create a climate conducive to a law against disinformation on social media. “

Earlier this year, legislation came into force to force social media companies with more than one million daily users to appoint a representative and store user data in Turkey, condemned as an attack on freedom in Turkey. line and an expansion of state surveillance.

According to a recent study, Twitter and Facebook are the main sources of information for more than a third of Turks, and the growing restriction of social media – one of the last bastions of relatively open and free public debate – is seen by some as a prelude to elections scheduled for 2023 or earlier.

In recent months, the opposition has launched effective Twitter campaigns to highlight the government’s alleged mismanagement, for example asking where has gone “missing” $ 128 billion in foreign exchange reserves.

A recent report by the Istanbul-based Association for Freedom of Expression, revealed that legal action was taken against 32,000 social media accounts last year, while some 58,800 websites were banned.

The government says its approach to regulating social media is based on European models, specifically citing Germany.

However, German legislation of 2017 targets hate speech online and forces platforms like Twitter and Facebook to remove illegal content within a certain time frame.

The law, concerned not to infringe on freedom of expression, does not threaten users with prison sentences and does not aim to combat fake news.

“These are protective laws that are very specific about the kind of online speech platforms should regulate – hate speech, incitement to violence. There are very clear definitions and generally do not provide for this type of penalty for users, ”said Grothe.

Opposing parallel proceedings and debates “on social media by some petitioners who have called for an independent investigation into Pegasus’ alleged spy problem, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday that there must be some discipline and that they had to have some confidence in the system.

A bench led by Chief Justice NV Ramana, who said he would take an appeal Aug. 16 about whether to send a notice to the Center on Pegasus Line Inquiry Requests, said he was not against the debate but when the case is pending in the Supreme Court it should be deliberated here.

The tribunal, also composed of Justices Vineet Saran and Surya Kant, said it expects petitioners interested in the case to answer any questions the tribunal puts to them through a proper debate in front of them. the court and not outside.

You see, once you come to this tribunal, we expect a debate to take place here and we expect them to answer questions, the bench told applicants’ counsel, adding: They need to have some confidence in the system.

He observed that instead of having a parallel proceeding or a parallel debate, whatever the petitioners want to say, they can file an affidavit in court and the court would review every content of it.

CJI told lead counsel Kapil Sibal, representing veteran journalists N Ram and Sashi Kumar who filed one of the petitions, that there must be some discipline.

Sibal said, Absolutely, I completely agree with you. When the matter is in court, there should be no public statements of any kind. I completely agree with you.

At first, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Center, told the judiciary that he had received copies of the petitions, with the exception of one possibly filed by former Union Minister Yashwant Sinha.

It’s not a grievance, they can serve it. I may need instructions, Mehta said from the bench, adding that I am reviewing the case. I need instructions from the government. Subject to the convenience of your lordships, if I can have time until Friday. I need two business days to get instructions.

CJI said the case will go to a hearing on Aug. 16, as it has personal drawbacks on Friday.

Senior lawyer CU Singh, representing one of the petitioners, told the bench that an opinion would be issued on the petitions.

Monday, I’ll take a call. See you on Monday, said the bench.

Lawyer Manish Tewari, representing Yashwant Sinha, said they served the copy of their petition on the Center.

During the hearing, the judiciary referred to the arbitration process and said the courts had asked questions of both parties.

We’ve all asked you a few questions. We are waiting for material, information or something. You know the arbitration process from the way the courts will ask questions. Sometimes it can be embarrassing for you, sometimes it can encourage you. Either way, both sides have to face this music, the bench said.

Sibal said that on the last court date he appeared for Ram and that there had been a reference to Pegasus-related proceedings in a California court.

He said Ram had been trolled on social media.

See, that’s the problem when a line was taken out of context, the bench observed, adding that he had asked questions and that had been disproportionate.

The Supreme Court said that was not correct and that the debate should not go over the line for anyone.

You see, we follow a procedure and the system. They need to have faith in the system, the bench said.

Sibal said the problem involved in the case is serious and the government or others should be given an opportunity to explain the position.

The bench said it has always given the petitioners as well as the government an opportunity.

See, any of the petitioners or anyone interested in the matter who says something in the papers or the media or whatever, we would expect them to answer all questions, all questions. questions, to all things when we bring it to you through proper debate in the yard, not outside, he observed.

Meanwhile, activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, on behalf of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information, wrote a letter to CJI requesting a live webcast of the hearing in the Pegasus case.

The Supreme Court heard a series of pleadings, including one filed by the Editors Guild of India, calling for an independent investigation into the alleged Pegasus spy case.

They are linked to reports of suspected espionage by government agencies of prominent citizens, politicians and scribes using Pegasus spyware from the Israeli company NSO.

An international media consortium has reported that more than 300 verified Indian mobile phone numbers are on the list of potential targets for surveillance using Pegasus spyware.

At the hearing into the case on Aug. 5, the highest court said the Pegasus-related espionage allegations were “of a serious nature” if the reports against them are correct.

He also asked the applicants whether they had made any efforts to lodge a criminal complaint in this regard.

The Supreme Court, which asked the applicants to serve the copies of the pleadings on the Center, also asked why the case suddenly arose now when it came to light in 2019.

Editors Guild of India called in its plea for a special investigative team to be set up to investigate the reported surveillance of journalists and others.

(Only the title and image of this report may have been reworked by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is automatically generated from a syndicated feed.)