Inciting lynch mobs through social media

in perspective

The lynching of a teenager on the outskirts of the national capital by a mob hurling religious slurs has led to an almost unprecedented period of national introspection.

Thousands of people across the country gathered at “Not In My Name” protests, inspired by a Facebook post from Gurgaon-based filmmaker Sara Dewan.

As both sides of the Indian political divide polarise — one side being accused of “selective” outrage, and the other of deliberately stoking communal tensions for political gain — it is important to step back and rationally examine what this episode means for the state of Indian democracy.

The advent of social media networks in modern nation-states has led to what some call “radically networked societies” (societies that communicate, organise and mobilise much faster than traditional hierarchical states can respond).

Ever since 2010’s Arab Spring, a growing body of research has examined how social media is increasingly being used to rally unprecedented crowds around a common cause.

What do the election of the Twitter celebrity Donald Trump in the USA, the consolidation of the French left behind the aspirational messaging of Emmanuel Macron and Jeremy Corbyn’s shocking resurgence in the British general elections have in common? The role of social media — a surprising degree of cyber-polarisation and electoral mobilisation.

Multiple studies have shown that the increasing prevalence of online “echo chambers” on Twitter and Facebook – where people only see news and interact with those who confirm their views, has led to increasing cyber-polarisation - a nation of very angry people and their imagined giants.

Cyber-polarisation, as applied to India, has two important consequences. The first is extreme standards of public debate — groups of people offer confidence and reinforcement to each other’s views, essentially creating a feedback loop of extreme opinions.  Even moderate views can become more extreme as people are concerned as to what the rest of their group will think of them.

The second is the formation of increasingly fragmented groups with a high degree of internal credulousness and external scepticism. Thus, an uncorroborated rumour can go viral in one group, and turn into a “cyber-cascade” as people go along with what they perceive is the opinion of their group. It is when cyber-cascades lead to violent mobilisation that real dangers arise.

In India, a series of horrific mob lynchings, mobilised thro­ugh WhatsApp and other social media platforms, have raised serious questions about polarisation in communities that have only recently gained access to smartphones and data connections. These communities are often already divided, usually on caste or communal lines, and radical new connections offer a dangerous tool to mobilise violence that law enforcement is powerless to control.

All that is needed to set off a cascade in these fragmented networks is a single rumour. In the Jharkhand lynching of May 2017, a group of villagers were driven to hysteria by WhatsApp forwards warning of kidnappers in the area and set up checkpoints on roads. The network made no attempt to reach out to a more reliable source for confirmation.

When a car attempted to break through a checkpoint, the news cascaded through the network, leading to the lynching of an innocent man as outnumbered police forces stood by. However, social media is still a powerful tool for positive social change. After the lynching of the teen in Delhi, it took just a matter of hours for the news to hit television, and from there generate explosive outrage on social media.

Common cause

Social media such as Twitter and Facebook allow for a wide array of people to coalesce around a common cause and rapidly organise protests.

As an Egyptian protester famously said during the Arab Spring: “We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate and YouTube to tell the world.” They allow for the rapid dissemination of poli­tical information and help better inform voters and protesters.

The true danger is when social media turns into a bunch of fragmented echo-chambers or “bubbles” where there is no room for facts or free debates.

This is especially true in the world’s largest democracy, overwhelmingly young and with a rapidly increasing smartphone and Internet penetration, where the state is clearly unable to cope with a radically networked society. A radical rethink of the role of the state and how it engages with society is in order — but that’s not all.

Fragmentation, polarisation and an absence of constructive debate hamper the exercise of individual liberties and the practice of democracy. We owe it to the legacy of our freedom struggle to maintain the ethos of our constitution.

A spirit of scepticism, free debate and democratic principles is difficult to achieve in the age of Twitter and teargas, but India needs to find a way, or fail the test that we endured even in the darkest days of the Emergency.

(The writer is a researcher at Takshashila Institution, Bengaluru)