Public and civil society should not allow the authorities to abuse digital technologies and restrict the rights of users to freedom of speech, said in an interview for CABAR.asia Inga Sikorskaya, the Central Asian media expert, director of the research center the School of Peacemaking and Media technologies in Central Asia.
Follow us on LinkedIn
CABAR.asia: They say that the beginning of the pandemic and lockdown measures have made more people use internet and spend more time there. Based on this information, has Covid-19 influenced the level of the freedom of speech on the internet in Central Asia? How have the authorities responded to it?
The period of COVID pandemic has become one of the most gloomy aspects for the freedom of speech in Central Asia. The authorities have responded to the epidemic with strict restrictive measures that suppressed the freedom of speech and press, increased the risks of persecution, threats and attacks against journalists and bloggers, especially those who wrote about coronavirus.
On the one hand, we became dependent on digital technologies. On the other hand, many measures have affected the freedom of internet that became the main platform for spreading and sharing information during social isolation.
The authorities reduced journalists to silence and refused to accredit the media outlets when they covered the topic of coronavirus during the lockdown. In Kyrgyzstan, in March-April 2020 the authorities forced bloggers to apologise for their criticism against the government that responded poorly to the Covid pandemic.
In Uzbekistan, the supervisors of one of the security agencies forced the administrator of the Troll.uz Telegram channel to delete the post about corruption during the pandemic in July 2020. In another case, some unknown people called bloggers and reminded them of criminal liability for “spreading panic” in their posts about the coronavirus.
Insults and threats were directed against independent journalists in Tajikistan who covered epidemic when the authorities denied there were coronavirus cases in the country.
Our monitoring of media risks and attacks shows that their number increased in 2020 and in 3 months of this year.
Thus, at the end of 2020, Uzbekistan introduced administrative and criminal liability for primary and repeated circulation of “fake information.” Journalists of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have been accused of the similar “circulation of misleading information.” During the outbreak of coronavirus, the parliament of Kyrgyzstan adopted the draft law “On manipulation of information” that contained too loose interpretations and allowed the authorities to remove content that can be found as “false” or “unreliable” by officials from internet platforms without the judge’s sanction.
As to the hate speech that you are studying, what are the dynamics and changes that Covid-19 brought to the sphere of hate speech?
The hate speech level on the media and the internet has increased a bit during social isolation because of the increase in the number of messages and comments from people who shifted to the online sphere. Most of the hate content in visual format was recorded during this period.
The distressing situation, fight of the people for existence have increased the growth of xenophobia and islamophobia. According to the results of our last survey on the influence of Covid-19 on discrimination, the main purposes of hate attacks online in Kyrgyzstan were Muslim pilgrims who returned from hajj just before the lockdown. Some users not only accused them of spreading the coronavirus, but also urged other people to punish them.
Another target group among hate distributors was ethnic Chinese. The latter were the main target of media xenophobia in Kazakhstan.
Hate speeches against migrant workers who came back to the motherland because of the pandemic were recorded in the online segment of Uzbekistan.
For example, in Kyrgyzstan that encountered the fabricated parliamentary election, extraordinary presidential election, referendum, political shock from the immediate change of power, hate speech was broadcasted and spread on the internet much faster than in more quiet neighbouring countries.
Very often, we recorded hate speech in combined forms together with trolling, flaming. In some cases, these were “heart cries” coming from the socially exhausted users, and in other cases, these were explicit fakes and trolls.
In analysing and studying the hate speech, we studied the structure, context, personalisation, as well as the victims and status of hate speech circulators. This and other markers help understand the purposes and intentions of verbal attacks. However, in terms of humanitarian studies, there were no significant changes in the structure and dynamics of hate speech.
First, it concerns Central Asian countries that are “not free” according to the latest index of the Freedom on the Net[1].
Various actors try to use the existing challenges to suppress the freedom of speech under the guise of struggle against hate speech. Moreover, this censorship campaign involves subjects that are far from struggling hate speech and humanitarian examinations that study hate speech cases. This is a very threatening trend.
On the internet, we can see both argument-based criticism, qualitative discussions, and severe offences, unsubstantiated accusations against public persons and ordinary citizens. Where is the borderland between the right to freedom of expression and liability for online declarations?
On the internet, we can see accusations by public speakers with some powers. This is more harmful for the society than similar declarations made by ordinary users towards public persons. Why is it so? Because politicians, opinion leaders or key bloggers have many followers, many voters who imbibe their statements, spread them, trust them, shape public opinion, create newsworthy events.
In western democracies, for example, with the sufficient level of freedom of speech, the laws that prohibit kindling hate specify legal distinctions that differentiate harmful and possible hate speech, the borderline between the freedom of expression and liability.
In many cases, harmful behaviour (cyberbullying, trolling, dissemination of fakes) and harmful content are clearly defined and classified ranging from the spread of terrorism ideas to hate crimes. The latter are the subject of anti-discriminatory legislation, whose mechanisms help struggle against intolerance. Unfortunately, Central Asian states do not have anti-discriminatory laws, and laws about kindling hatred are still used to make critics keep silence[2].
Not to spread hate speech and to respond correctly to it, we need to perceive and adopt the value of mutual respect and tolerance. However, it may be difficult for the society where traditional values serve as a guidemark.
Analysis of online public discussions shows that hate speech propagators in Central Asian internet often use the abstract set of links to “traditions or mentality”. It often raises hate speech in discussions that can be qualified in some cases as illegal expression.
However, we should add here that the right to expression refers to “information” or “kinds of information” that many people do not like and that can cause indignation. These are the requirements of pluralism and tolerance. This is what we don’t have.
Based on the above question, how would you evaluate the attempts of the authorities to regulate internet, identify users and make them liable? How can we solve the problem of malicious behaviour of citizens on the internet via fake accounts?
Most of the methods that are used to regulate internet in Central Asia are authoritative and promote censorship of opinions. This trend can be seen in other states that have digital authoritarianism. Related instruments are used to strengthen social and political control and to suppress civil liberties. Despite the fact that the digital society suffers from fakes, the implementation of technologies related to online control and regulation requires guaranteed personal data confidentiality and the rule of law. It is difficult to assume that the governments of the Central Asian countries will be willing to do this.
Therefore, the problem of fake accounts is best solved by cooperating with technology companies, digital giants such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, which have a huge number of users, a cluster of haters and fakers. These large campaigns are already known to be actively involved in this issue, they are developing new algorithms, rules, promoting openness, transparency, safe Internet, their own regulatory mechanisms and freedom of expression.
How successful do the CA governments control information on the internet? Is there something in the internet technology that the intelligence agencies of the region cannot deal with? What is the vulnerability?
We see that control over information flows has increased and it is dangerous, as I said before, this is often done by various structures with dubious competencies. And most often, the balance of freedom of expression is not taken into account. To further increase the state’s influence on the Internet and reduce freedom of speech in the Central Asian segment, Russian technologies are widely used. One thing is for sure – we are very close to digital authoritarianism.
How do government’s restrictions affect the work of journalists, bloggers, activists – all those who use internet for reasoned criticism and free discussion of relevant issues? How should the media community solve these problems?
Recent trends show a steady decline in internet freedom for several years in a row. There are three main challenges that follow and will further threaten the freedom and development of journalism in Central Asia.
Firstly, this is an increase in the level of online threats, which will continue in the offline environment, the growth of media risks using legal and economic mechanisms, as well as various attacks. During the election campaigns of 2020 and 2021 in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, journalists and Internet activists faced an increase in bullying and intolerance, attacks and seizure of equipment while covering political processes live on the internet.
Therefore, more attention needs to be paid to the digital and physical security of media workers and all fighters for the freedom of expression.
Secondly, these are disinformation campaigns organised on the Internet, which often aim to reach the media, reporters or active users in order to “catch them into their traps”, force them to react, and then be responsible for the consequences of their statements or reports.
This challenge is directly related to such a trend as digital tribalism. This is when discussion group members or network trolls evaluate information not on the basis of compliance with generally accepted standards of evidence or compliance with a common understanding of the world, but on the basis of whether it supports the values and goals of a given digital tribe and whether this information is confirmed by their leaders.
Here we have the combination of the ideas like “good for our group” and “truth”. When I studied digital tribalism in the internet communities of the Middle East and Africa, I found identical structures in our country.
For example, during the parliamentary election campaign in Kyrgyzstan, during the political crisis and the change of government in October 2020, digital tribalism models worked successfully. This is also confirmed by journalistic investigations, when various digital communities worked to promote the people they needed to power.
This challenge can be managed through the widespread introduction of fact-checking tools, a new media culture that includes elements of netiquette and non-violent (peacekeeping) communications. It should become a kind of continuing education course for journalists and bloggers. Trends in the above tools are changing with the introduction of new mechanisms to control freedom of expression.
A shift to new investigative formats such as decision journalism can also help break lies, undermine digital tribes, force audiences to find a way out, and encourage open discussion about issues of public concern.
The third challenge is the continued use of hate speech on social media discussion platforms and forums under articles by online news agencies. Most of the documented incidents of online hate fall under the concept of freedom of expression and, if necessary, are regulated by the development of correct polemics, education, and online actions of social disapproval.
However, there is a danger that the dissemination of hateful content could provoke outbreaks of offline violence against minorities and social groups.
Therefore, the media community must act carefully here, with an understanding of the integrity of the flexible structure of hate speech, so as not to cause a baseless attack on freedom of speech. How to do it? Again, through the introduction of particular network rules, an improved culture of communication and network communications. In addition, online media should update their editorial instructions for handling comments (moderation and pre-moderation). Comment posting strategies need to be reviewed. I recently developed a training course based on international experience in this area and there are several steps on how to deal with hate speech under news items in multilingual media. These techniques are being improved and new approaches are already emerging. They can be used. And in some cases, targeted work with hate speech comments can even increase targeting and, therefore, increase the economic return of the news.
What other challenges do defenders and advocates of the freedom of speech on the internet face in Central Asia?
The COVID pandemic has changed not only attitudes, but also technologies. Defenders of free speech will face increasing challenges. Censorship will grow through the expansion of technology and the export of digital authoritarianism in Central Asia’s big neighbours, Russia and China. The surveillance and control of Internet freedom defenders and advocates will grow. This challenge to democratic principles and human rights shows that we are moving in the opposite direction. Only new alternative strategies can win.
These can be joint programmes of digital companies, media, civil society and governments, which must agree on a basic set of rules, values, taking into account the importance of preserving freedom of expression for the development of an open and inclusive society.
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net
[2] https://iwpr.net/ru/global-voices/novoe-tolkovanie-zakonov-o-razzhiganii-rozni-v-centralnoy-azii