Cyber bullies have a field day on social media when they operate in the vernacular language space. The hate pages they open on Facebook go under the scanner while they form formidable coalitions with fellow haters to target anyone who dissents. They even get their victims banished from the social network by twisting the rules of the game. Women, in particular, are at the receiving end of the anti-social elements’ shaming and silencing tactics. Even little children are not spared. Three women activists speak out their nightmarish experience on Facebook.
“My first Facebook account was in my own name,” Preetha G.P. said. “Once I responded to a comment by a political leader and a tirade started against me. I would get abuses. My photos would be morphed and circulated. Hate pages were formed in my name. Then a group of people started posting comments accusing me of owning an account under a fake name.
“As a result, Facebook blocked my account, saying that I had not used my real name. I produced identification papers to prove it was a genuine account. So I was allowed to start a new account as Preetha G.
“The next controversy started when I replied to a comment someone had posted when former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam died. The social media gangs left alone the man who posted the comment but cornered me. They lacerated with words my father, mother and my little boy. They commented below my picture with my 12-year-old son in a language that crossed all borders of decency. There were more hate pages and more allegations of owning a fake account and my account was blocked once more. When I complained to Facebook about a hate page, they responded that there was nothing in it that did not meet the criteria.
“Facebook insisted that my account was fake though I had thousands of friends on my list and about 20,000 followers. The account was started again after I submitted identification papers. But my decision not to use the caste name was not recognised because I had to go by the name in my school records to start a new account.
"Inji Pennu", one of the early bloggers and cyber activists in Kerala, is no longer on Facebook. She is a known victim of the social network’s “real name policy”.
“This is not a problem if you just keep sharing photos or limit yourself to small talk. The moment you say something serious, everything changes,” she says. Her Facebook account was reported after she reacted to the hate pages against Preetha. “After my colleagues spoke to Facebook executives, including its Asian Policy Head Monica Bickert, they offered to create me an exemption to create an id. I did not take up the offer,” she said.
Kunjila Masilamani, a movie director and activist, was preyed upon on the net after she posted a comment about Jagathi Sreekumar’s accident. “They created a fake profile using the stills from the films I had acted. They posted objectionable photos on it. Though I complained to the police, they said they cannot interact with Facebook officials in the United States. There were four or five more fake profiles. Then my pages were widely reported. Facebook asked me to produce my identification papers to reactivate my account. I refused and I do not have a Facebook account now.”
Lost in translation
Facebook is active in all vernacular languages but it is not clear how many language experts the company employs to keep a tab on the content it generates. Facebook officials say they will take action against account owners if they receive complaints of personal attacks. In Preetha’s case, they found that the comments were permissible. If the comments against Preetha were in English, they would have been forced to act. The language was the hurdle in this case.
If someone accuses someone else of having a fake Facebook profile, the needle of suspicion is first pointed at the person who is accused. There would be actions, including the deletion of the account. However, there is no mechanism to check if the accusation came from a fake account. This is what happened in Preetha’s case.
Facebook says it cannot police the social network. It cannot censor the pages. Fair enough.
Facebook can take action against an account if its owner threatens to kill someone but it cannot do anything if that person just says he hates the other. If the company receives a complaint regarding a fake profile, it will find the location of the profile owner by tracking the Internet Protocol (IP) address. This is to check if the person has given the correct address in the account. Then the user’s friends list will be examined. Then it will ask the user for an identification proof. If the name on the account does not match with the name as shown in the identification proof presented, the account maybe deleted.
For a better place
The malicious online campaign against Preetha led to a campaign named “For a better FB” on Malayalam social media space. This initiative aims to correct the policies of Facebook and suggest remedies for the evils faced by women on social media. A look at some of the key issues raised by online activists and suggested remedies:
Right to privacy: Facebook should protect its users’ right to free expression. It should allow users to opt for names other than those shown in records to protect themselves from attacks targeted at gender, community and political views. Pen names should be allowed to protect privacy.
Right to security: There should be an effective mechanism to ensure that hate pages are reported in the non-English space too. There should be time-bound action on such pages being reported.
Facebook should appoint language experts to monitor non-English pages. This is the only way to take action on complaints of obscene remarks and objectionable contents in vernacular languages.
What’s in a name?
Facebook’s “real name policy” wants a user to create a profile in the same name as shown in the identification papers. If someone complains to Facebook that a particular user has a pseudonym, Facebook officials can request for identification papers. They could even delete the account if they find a mismatch with official records. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has said in an interview that this policy was meant to make it easier for people to recognise each other on the social network. But this does not take into account those who do not want to reveal their identity, people who face casteist or racial prejudices as well as victims of cyber bullying. This policy effectively means that their right to expression is not recognised.
Policy makers face challenges galore when they have to accommodate people from different regional and cultural background. Unlike in rural India, it is common for women to drink in the western world. It is not easy to convince executives based in other countries of a social problem rooted in local cultural ethos.
To each, his location
A Malayali girl who went partying with friends realised this cultural divide the hard way. Someone had taken a picture of her with a liquor bottle in the foreground and posted it on Facebook. The photo became a scandal in circles, which still relished parochial and patriarchal values. It went viral, threatening to make the girl an outcast. She complained to Facebook.
The photo would meet the social network’s global standards but the executives recognised local differences. They addressed the complaint through a mechanism called “geo-blocking”, which blocked the photo from any user based out of India.
(Reporting by Sandhya Grace, K. Rekha, Remya Binoy, Gayathri Muraleedharan, Neetha Naveen, Gayathri Jayaraj, T.S. Divya, Anu Mary Jacob, Sreedevi Nambiar, K.P. Safeena, Juny Joseph, K. Sreerekha, Ansu Anna Baby, Ria Joy, Linu Mol Chacko, Ninny Mary Baby and Shahala Kunjumuhammed)
Disclaimer
The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Manorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.