Ujjain is a peace loving city. The city of Mahakal, does not usually contain reports of violent protests etc. But in 2015, suddenly one day thousands of Muslims gather around the mosque and start protesting against Kamlesh Tiwari. Kamlesh Tiwari of Lucknow was accused of condemning Mohammed, who is considered an unpardonable crime in Islam. Such a response in Madhya Pradesh to this incident of Uttar Pradesh was surprising. Immediately the administration became active and investigation started that how such a huge crowd gathered and how the administration did not even know. Investigations revealed that the social media platform Watts App was used to mobilize the crowd and secretly gathered people and created a ruckus in the city.
With the rise of social media, there is an increased risk that people with wrong intentions can also use it. This had already emerged in the London riots. This year, whether there is anti-citizenship riots in Delhi or the riotous crowd on the road within an hour in Bangalore, social media is definitely used in all these. True misinformation is broadcast secretly and an attempt is made to spoil the atmosphere of the society. In such a situation, can the question of misuse of social media be questioned by questioning only one group?
off course not. The right people are using social media according to their own and wrong people according to their own. The technology does not recognize true or false. The technology only provides the platform to you, use it as you wish. But Rahul Gandhi's tweet on a report published in the Wall Street Journal alleging that a particular group of social media has misused it against another minority group, seems to be more of a politically motivated issue.
The way the report of the Wall Street Journal is also written, it seems that those people are also deliberately targeting a particular group of Hindus. It is true that Narendra Modi started using social media since 2012 and the American PR company, which is allegedly watching his media management, brought Modi to the people through Facebook. National media had an censorship on Modi at that time and news related to Modi was not usually shown on TV. Aaj Tak, the largest channel in the country after the 2002 riots, even ran a long campaign against Modi. Therefore, it was necessary for Modi to reach people through alternative routes. In such a situation, Facebook became a very impressive medium.
So is it just Facebook's fault that it allowed Modi's campaign? No. This cannot be his fault. Social media platforms are not the same as traditional media platforms. One can promote himself by spending money on social media. Be it Facebook or Twitter, both these mediums promote your content by taking money and this is their stated policy. How can anyone question this? If the Congress party wishes, it can also spend its money on social media and new media platforms. And they also promotes.Today Congress has its own social media wing in which people work. At the time of elections, the Congress also uses this platform on the same side as the BJP does. If people on social media support BJP more than Congress, is it the fault of Facebook or Twitter?
As far as accusation is concerned, nationalist groups also keep alleging that their post's reach is being reduced. Twitter had recently blocked journalist Ranganathan's Twitter account as he questioned the Bangalore riots citing a verse from the Quran. Twitter not only deleted that tweet by calling it a hate tweet but also stopped them from posting. After Rahul Gandhi questioned, BJP MP Tejashwi Surya also tweeted and alleged on Facebook and Twitter that he has such information that these social media platforms are intentionally reducing the reach of nationalist posts and increasing anti-Hindu posts. She is presenting it. He said that by gathering the information, he will raise this issue in the Parliamentary Committee so that action can be taken on these social sites.
Apart from these political allegations, it is true that in technology it is possible that the reach of a post can be reduced or increased. Or even remove some special post like Ranganathan's tweet has been deleted. But beyond this, technology also has its limitations. They can neither increase the people of a particular class or decrease the people of a particular class. To say that those who are talking about Hindutva on social media are all agents of BJP or RSS or BJP is promoting such people, it is just political allegation. BJP has an IT cell and Congress also has an IT cell. But this does not mean that every person speaking is associated with some or the other IT cell. By saying this, if an effort is made to limit social media, then the importance of new technology will end. Remember, social media is not a beautiful garden of information, but a dense forest in which all kinds of information are floating. Right as well as wrong. The user has to decide how carefully he travels in this forest of information.
