Social Media: Should It be Banned?

The issue is not simply the hoax – the kind of false, deceitful news that intentionally misinterprets data. Social media, which has become one of the crowning achievements of communication and information technology based on computational science, algorithms, and so on, today not only gets praise from us, but we celebrate it, even legitimizing it through all forms.Actually, it is precisely here where the actual problem lies.

Most of us, I think – the acceptors or the celebrants of the latest communication medium –see social media as the latest social or even cultural means in which to implement what we call values and basic human rights, as shown, for example, with the right to think, speak and make expressions, which can be traced to the individual. With social media, we as humans seem to embody ancient ontology-philosophy on the existence of "I", ecce homo, or the "real me.”

This is the point, which some consider to be illuminative, that culminates in individuals getting their power and presence without being disturbed (indérangeable). The individual becomes a sort of ruler, at least to him or herself. It is like the liberation of man from all prisons of all values, norms or ethics established by customs/traditions, religions, positive laws, and so on, which has thus far shackled freedom and existence. Humans have reached their peak of glory, so to speak. There has not been any precedence.

Therefore, at the same time, social media gives space, time and opportunities as vast as the imagination, and we all legitimize and legalize it, allowing each person to express their truth. The truth, even, is very personal and preferential.

What has become the benchmark or guidelines – which was consensus for elders in the history of culture/civilization – has now fallen to a benchmark for individual preferences through not only goodness and truth, but also beauty and aesthetics as well as necessities and obligations, among others. If there are others who say, "it is wrong", "the good and true is not that", "how can beauty or aesthetics be like that", and so on, the preference-per-person will reply casually: "it is up to you", "what do you think you are", "should we think about that", "that is your business", "you, me, stop" and so on.

Virtual jungle

Now it is all clear. We are "indérangeable" –not a single party can prevent us from having what we think is good for us on a personal level. We operate regardless of others – whomever they are; whether they are ulemas or clergymen, intellectuals or great humanists, politicians or noble statesmen, district heads or presidents; "you, me, end." It is extraordinary. This is the real praxis of the people\'s jargon: for, of and by the people. Democracy? Jreng!

Can you start to see where the critical problems lie?

Yes, I think, with a bit of intellect and manners we can start to form such an understanding. Human rights, including what we call "humans," up to the ideal ideology, which we call democracy, if embodied as illustrated above, will of course not produce goodness, order or arrangement, which form us as a community and becomes modern and civilized. On the contrary, the preference-per-person or truth-preferential dynamic will create havoc and chaos, which creates not only irony, but also tragedy and even involution in our own bodies and in society.

Social tragedy thus occurs. The way we interact on social media becomes a powerful means of publicity and in many circles becomes the alternative or even substitute for the powerful, conventional mainstream media to label false truths as honesty even if it is deceitful, manipulative, corruptive and so on. However, once it deals with the followers or participants and massive responders, it becomes a trending topic. Some of us consider and accept all of this as something that is "right and good." It is something even the president cannot deny or "straighten out.”

Herein lies the "virtual jungle", where the number of followers is the main marker of power in defining the truth. The actual world is still gripped by the tradition of the “silent majority.” Those who are busy and industrious and have become followers or responders of trending topics are the ones who think and influence with a kind of false adage: just say who you are. The more talks happen, the more we assert who we are. It is an attitude that comes from the internalization of understanding; the mind is the peak of human existence and intelligent humans are humans who speak out and converse.

In this internalized reality, those who speak a lot, especially who seem convincing, will garner a large following and will trend on social media. Then, even traditional mass media will follow suit, making references to the“hottest” news. They do so even through news headlines, even if the participants of the topics are only in the tens of thousands as compared to hundreds of millions of mobile phone owners or our country’s population. Inevitably, we are frequently trapped by issues that are not justified but instead falsified and manipulated.

What happened in the presidential election process in the United States was partly caused by the aforementioned situation and facts. The involvement of Wikileaks, Snowden, Russian intelligence in the circulation of issues, up to the creation of trending topics, which were mostly hoaxes and false news, was believed to have become assets for the “false” victory of Donald Trump. Several radios, which also used the same modus and sentiment, have been accused by several experts as contributing to the slip of understanding and public awareness.

When the same things happen in this country, we witness how fake data not only determines consciousness, but also creates figures, role models or fake heroes. If we carefully analyze virtual media, these things pop up in every field or dimension of life: intellect, art, culture, up to spirituality and religion.

The results that become the turn of all the phenomena is the collapse of nearly the entire role of traditional authorities, including teachers, parents, public officials, experts, religious figures and even prestigious institutions: from parliament and ministers to courts and religious institutions. If all of this happens, though perhaps still in the form of symptoms, it will become an extraordinary occurrence – as extraordinary as the very technology used. Can we imagine, even if our imagination is increasingly diminished, such a tragedy happening in the country? In this nation? Within ourselves, even?

Banning social media

I will not break down the above impacts. Cultured intelligence and our general rationality, if still maintained, can provide adequate answers, even if its accuracy is inadequate. What is clear is that we certainly do not want the collapse of the traditional authority, which has tirelessly (with blood, sweat and tears) been nurtured and maintained by our predecessors. It is now becoming the beginning of our downfall as human beings, as a nation and as an already fragile state.

Of course we will neither silently watch nor become provocateurs contributing to the collapse. We have to act. There is no need to be radical or revolutionary because mentally and spiritually, we are ready for it. Simply put, actions and deeds need to counteract and prevent the above tendencies: Ban social media!

Wait, wait. Do not react excessively, do not be emotional, as if I am anti-technology, anti-progress, anti-life or anti-human. Of course not. I say everything with care. I know what knowledge and experience are. I support us all with kindness and through other expressions: We all have to become sources that produce goodness. Technology, advancement, life and people have to create goodness because we basically all entered this world the same.

In the case of technological advancement, it would be wise and productive – and also constructive – if we were able to optimally cultivate our potential in goodness, rather than tapping into our potential to be negative and destructive. Because, we understand, so far the results of technology and the culture it brings actually has its negative and destructive side. We all created a culture that rejects, overcomes and anticipates negative aspects of our own behavior.

Therefore, social media should be excluded from destructive spheres – at least from those who have not understood everything, not been able to identify its negative aspects and also not been held accountable for producing or distributing the harmful trends of social media, whether consciously or subconsciously. Yet, these people, the younger generations included, are the ones we consider in terms of positive laws, religions or traditions. We put stock into those who are not mature enough. They might not even have obtained ID cards or graduated from high school.

With them, social media should not only be limited, but prohibited. Because what they have, both in knowledge and experience as well as in capability to make decisions and comprehend the vastness of the impact of social media, is rather minimal. Of course, this is natural. And it is difficult for laws and religions to ask for material responsibility from them. Let the world become a "jungle of life" – through virtual space – which in turn becomes their future, as we educate and teach them while preparing them to face the "factual jungle of life” that comes later on in their lives.

A teenager will fall victim to our atrocity, when he or she has not gone through puberty or even developed the ability to properly hold a cooking knife. We let them plunge into the virtual unknown – a world that is still controlled by imagination and nonsense, with endless spaces not seen in real life.

We must prepare them to actually keep to themselves and our nation; prepare them to face an indescribable future. Are we still unable to see it, even with our mind\'s eye?

RADHAR PANCA DAHANA

Cultural observer