A word against Internet regulation

Upheaval followed and the printing press played a central role in the reformation led by Martin Luther that split the Catholic Church. The Church leadership tried to suppress dissemination of these ideas and the new technology that was pumping them out. 

But the attempts were in vain and the world entered a new epoch, the flames of the Renaissance fanned into an explosion of scientific investigation and knowledge that gave birth to the Enlightenment. The ideas which we now take for granted – freedom of religion, of speech, and the right to liberty – had their beginnings in this technological revolution. 
This pattern has been repeated throughout history. Each time scientific innovation has threatened the status quo of the traditional gatekeepers, the gatekeepers or the government have sought to stifle the technology. The attempts have usually been overpowered by the tide of “progress”. 
Consider the coverage of the Vietnam War by US television networks. For the first time, armed conflict was brought into the living rooms of households nationwide. Footage of wounded and dying soldiers turned the tide of public sentiment against the Nixon administration and prosecution of the war. Both Richard Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger tried to control the spread and use of these images, but to no avail.

The modern battlefield 
Today, social media has become the new technology threatening the traditional gatekeepers of information. Widespread Internet access has levelled the playing field in terms of who gets to provide information, in what context, and for whom. Not only are there no more gatekeepers of information, there is no more gate. 
Obviously, some actors have exploited this situation for their own ends. Whether it is “fake-news farms” capitalising on ad revenue, or foreign agents using social media to affect the outcome of elections overseas, social media has been the vehicle for these developments. 
I was privileged enough to attend a recent Asia Europe Foundation (ASEF) meeting in Brussels where discussion focused on how to best confront these challenges without curtailing freedom of speech. Many good ideas were put forward. Fact checking, investing in media literacy, and maintaining good traditional journalism are all important dams against the deluge of social media. 

To regulate or not 
One issue that came up repeatedly in Brussels was whether governments should attempt to regulate the social media space – many people argued passionately that they should. After all, social media influencers and fake news have given rise to the administration of Donald Trump, spread rumours leading to a genocide in Myanmar, seen human rights overpowered by a brutal drugs war in the Philippines, and are undermining European Union politics. 
The argument was put forth that in the EU, far-right parties advocating a return to 1930s politics are given too much space to spread their hateful views online. The governments of the EU could do so much to curb their influence by regulating hate speech and fake news in these online forums.  
While I could see the merits of their arguments, I do not believe that such legislation would transfer well to Asia and the developing world. While the journalists and politicians of Europe may be driven by altruistic notions, the people who inhabit my part of the world have seen too often where government regulations go. Any legislation introduced by the EU would provide a pretext for its introduction in this region. 
I do not disagree that fake news and social media have become problematic in my own backyard but I fear the legislation that might be introduced to monitor and restrict those spaces. I fear that eventually laws that were meant to clamp down on fake news would be abused to perpetuate the rule of despots and dictators. 
We are only a generation removed from Marcos, Pol Pot, Suharto, Mao Zedong and others. The governments of this part of the world are still young, and in the case of my own country, Thailand is still totalitarian. The institutions that democracy should ideally stand on are not yet in place to provide checks against such legislation. 
If the EU took the lead in calling for regulation, these “Third World despots” (forgive my Western education) would point to its example and justify introducing their own. Even without the EU’s example, countries like Bangladesh, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand have in place or are introducing media regulations that rights defenders say are aimed at curbing criticism and dissent. 
One only has to look at the arrest of the two Reuters journalists in Myanmar under a draconian law left over from British colonial rule to know the destructive potential of misplaced legislation. Furthermore, legislation to curb technology will inevitably fail – just ask Nixon and the Catholic Church. Instead of wasting time and giving excuses to despots, the effort should be to educate, to promote good journalism, and to shore up the values born 600 years ago in Gutenberg’s back room. 

Cod Satrusayang is the managing editor of Asia News Network.