What’s he hiding …AG, highest legal mind in the country, seeking the assistance of a social media platform to remove comments that are not satisfactorily flattering to his government? What’s the bone of contention that renders this extent of discomfort?
Social Media will be social media. It attracts a cross section of populations with varying views on issues and tolerance levels that span societies’ spectrum of emotions. That’s a slice of who we are and because it’s a slice, we, like many, will never condone threats to life.
But if the reason is to flex some –apparently –flaccid political muscle to prevent dissent, then, that’s just lame. It’s a throwing in of the proverbial towel…going for Option Suppression when Engagement and Capability are at odds. It shows a total lack of political stamina. The highest legal office in the land would rather bully an algorithm than stand up to public scrutiny?
Maybe its a preference for authoritarianism, we’re thinking. Because, the last heroes of public protests- Crum Ewing, Waddell– were slaughtered into silence.
And we’re not saying that the AG- is responsible. Not in the least.
What we’re saying is that there appears to be a disproportionate amount of zeal to go after dissent; especially since the killers who slaughtered the dissenting heroes were never found.
This AG was the top cop during the period that saw their lives taken in what was an unequivocal violation of the law…murder.
We may have missed publications by the Guyana Police Force and the Attorney General’s Office offering rewards for finding the killers of these two dissenters. We read of testimony being offered by a ‘Drug Lord’ on the demise of Waddell. Nothing similar was found for Crum -Ewing.
And we’re not saying that there was State inaction to diligently pursue the murderers of these men. We’re just saying that, comparatively, going after Face Book Commentary rates as excessive, in our opinion.
The transition from the gravity of unsolved assassinations to the policing of social media with the intensity of going straight META, demonstrates an ironic resolve. Unless there was a change, the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression…with all the sensible prohibitions…like threats to well being .
To be clear, we’re hardly fans of the Face Book commentary platform which, largely, does more to promote rage than provide healthy conversation, let alone, solutions. And, just for the record and particularly for those who feel comments shouldn’t be made unless they are solutions, that would be a one-person remit, if it is a specialized consult. Other than that, political solutions are, generally, made as a team, not by random sentiment from Face Book observers.
But let’s get back to why seeking Meta’s help wears poorly on the AG and his government.
Why do opinions – and we underscore opinions as opposed to threats of bodily harm- have the AG so rattled, so discomfited, that making public announcements of deploying META were his resort. What ‘Institutional Arrangements’ is he referring to? We visited META Transparency Center page to see what the AG’s options are.
We learned that the process is not as ‘beck and call’ as the statement alluding to complaining implied. There is, actually, a series of steps that are taken in the interest of fairness, threat assessment and possible escalation to, as high as Inter Pol, if Meta determines that its platform needs that level of legal intervention.
Though we won’t vouch for it, the rules make sense. Meta’s business model is its users. It has more users, than countries and governments to satisfy. They know that users always find a way to connect…when that challenge arises. So blocking Face Book, as a freedom of expression tool is, largely, imponent.
And we’re not the type to test the AG’s mettle. But the public broadcast of intent is never made not to cause fear or imply some form of retaliation, that can be fought at a level above that of the adversary’s.
Why the appearance of Government fragility, we’re wondering? What’s with the thin skinned reaction to criticism?
It’s not like there is an absence of expletive- ridden responses from defenders of the AG’s Party who are not shy about their racism or mal-fluent in their threats, still engendered by the deceased politician whose majesty they’ll never match.
The threat of siccing oversight bodies has that tinge of one-sidedness, the overtone of causing fear and trembling … as if they are the government’s exclusive bodyguards and not at the disposal of citizens, alike.
And this circles back to the use of governing bodies more as weapon than for national benefit .
We’re still awaiting the deployment of the Ethnic Relations Committee (ERC) on this decided pervert which was launched with dispatch in response to remarks that were ‘believed to have potential to fuel division’, made by this politician of different Party and race.
We understand that ERC’s mandate is explicitly ethnically or racially charged infractions. The pervert’s target, in his effusive irreverence, was a black, 12 year old girl, whose death remains unsolved. Maybe, there’s deference to the perpetrator, through the lens of the ERC, if he presents as a specific ethnic and political demographic.
But, back to the Institutional arrangements with META to remove comments that the AG would not support.
Fear of narrative suggests that the government is terrified of losing control over public conversation. The why is obvious. A specific subset of the population is enjoying the spoils of governance. Performance deficit? Perhaps, as these numbers would suggest .
And the arbitrary cash grant distribution, not being cited as a short term fix for systemic failure by the Opposition, accelerates the demise of the population that is chronically disadvantaged. The fear of narrative comes with a certain level of insecurity.
Some of the matters being reported to META have had their day and adjudication in Guyana’s court. The outcome is that Guyana’s jurisdiction is confined to its Courts and borders; which may explain why the AG is seeking the aid of META to remove what his courts cannot enforce.
Bottom line, what the AG is realizing is that the true control over public discourse is held by Platforms and not Parliaments. Opinions will be expressed and heard as a matter of commitment by those with opinions and digital availability.
The pursuit of the hammer of META affirms familiarity with a specific set of tools; what text books would refer to as the ‘muscle memory of power’.
There was a time when the phone and the politician dialing to threaten media houses with libel suits, or pulling advertisements, suppressed opinions, editorials. And withholding pay owed for advertisements was means of gagging printers, if not forcing them out of business.
Modern discourse is decentralized.
And when Meta pledges allegiance to governments that solicit removal of commentary governments find unflattering, there’s always the independent publisher.
These creators are so committed to free speech and unvarnished opinion that they maintain their own websites.
There will always be a counterweight to oppression in the modern information war.
Muscle memory is the only thing that is obsolete here.
