Ferhat Mehenni * “The multimedia has pushed back the boundaries of censorship which were ruling within dictatorships before their advent. What could be more natural than using it?”
Two categories of people regret the existence of social networks and spend their time denigrating them and to pour their snot on users, accusing them of all the woes of the world.
Their first detractors are the tyrannical regimes through their spokespersons.
The second was privileged who had access to the media and who held the monopoly of public speech.
At a time when the Internet did not even exist in a dream, we needed to be journalists, politicians, writers or published authors, to make our point of view heard directly or indirectly.
Moreover, all that was said on the air and written on the various media, was not perfect, nor necessarily worthy of interest. Far without need. The information disseminated was equally questionable. Big scandals, false information, innumerable manipulations, have marked the history of the print and audio-audiovisual press. “The professionalism” of the authors and speakers “with which we are reminded of the ears and the journalistic deontology, have never been all risks insurance for the manifestation of the truth and even less for unfailing objectivity. You just have to listen to the radio, watch the TV or read the press, to have bloodshed, when, they approach the topics that you know well and that are close to your heart.
The confusion, the approximations, and the shortcuts, arrogantly illustrate the comments of specialists and experts. Therefore “information” called “professional, cross-checked and controlled” is not more perfect than that circulating on social networks. Recalling that the majority of the privileged readers of the 20th century had access to only one newspaper always written by the same people.
The advent of radio and Television have a time, expanded and diverse sources of information, points of view and comments. However, the production, formatting, and implementation of information had remained under the control of only “information professionals”, which did not prevent the dissemination of horrors and false information. As well as monstrous lies well written and especially well-targeted, “false information” has even made the fortunes of a certain press made by “professionals” and some unscrupulous authors. There are even some of them who have become TV stars. Besides, my purpose drives open doors. Opinion studies tell us that the majority of the population is as suspicious of journalists as politicians. When publishing, the list of “black works” on all levels and on all subjects, all kinds of errors, lies, priories, bias. We can not go through the entire edition, the list of grievances would be endless …
Today that speech is free on the Internet, “authorized voices” constantly denounce the dangerousness of social networks, accessible “to anyone! But if we look closely, we realize that they are mediocre professionals and guardians of small chapels, who fear competition from amateurs, sometimes more relevant than them on certain subjects. I do not support social networks at all costs. I do not say, either that their content is perfect and as “secure” as the professional media. I only say that they are no more dangerous than other media when they fall into the wrong hands and people with bad intentions. Hundreds of evangelical and Islamist televisions, many of them state-owned, are taking millions of people hostage and transforming them into terrorist apprentices while developing sprawling networks of logistical and ideological support … The “jihadist” sites exist, of course, but their audience is very small in relation to the televisions financed by the tyrannical Arab and so-called Arab regimes, to whom we unfurl the red carpets. On the other hand, it must be said that social networks have advantages that other “heavy” media do not have. It is the flexibility, the speed, and especially the accessibility to all ….
In the countries where the tyrannical powers control the information of the source until the diffusion, the social networks, acquired statutes of against -power, more than honorable and useful. They have become even indispensable to the democratic struggle, the social struggles and the denunciation of situations of oppression, both individual and collective. In revolutionary situations or simply political disputes, social networks have become the allies of the protesters and the weakest.
In some ways, they have helped to rebalance a little bit, the means in terms of communication between the weak and the strong. The information that until now was the monopoly of the repressive powers is now confronted with other sources, fragmentary certainly, but which makes it possible to question, the information produced by the official supports of the powers. That is why, whatever the disadvantages or inadequacies, the social networks, these must be defended. Their benefits are much broader and much more fundamental to the future of the population who are taken hostage by their “rulers” than the problems they can generate in some cases.
The first virtue of social networks is to have given free access to the freedom to express oneself for any individual who has the desire, whatever his age, his education, his wealth, his language, his color. And this freedom does not have any price. The way social networks are used is only a matter of education and responsibility. Which does not change other aspects of our daily lives.