In Asia editor Alma Freeman recently caught up with author and social media expert Beth Kanter after a talk held at The Asia Foundation’s headquarters, organized by the Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy. Named one of the most influential women in technology by Fast Company and one of the BusinessWeek’s “Voices of Innovation for Social Media,” Kanter is the author of Beth’s Blog: How Nonprofits Can Use Social Media for Social Change, and Visiting Scholar at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

GlobalWebIndex’s latest data shows that the internet now makes up 57 percent of global media consumption, with social media alone taking 26 percent of people’s media time, more than TV’s 23 percent. What does this trend mean?

If you think about the media landscape, it looks like a clover: you have traditional media, influencer blogs, and social media. People are now getting their information from all of those sources, especially in places with good broadband access. But this means that people, especially younger people, need to have a really good sense of digital literacy and be able to detect: Is this the whole story? Is it balanced? Is it the truth? Especially now that we have the filter bubble with Google, which is feeding us back what is likeable, as opposed to search results that are balanced.

Increased internet access, pervasive broadband, and the ability to get internet on the smartphone have made information so much more accessible. Things like the $25 tablet in India are making a huge difference. As the tools and technology become more accessible, the environment online becomes more socially interesting. But there’s always resistance to technology and social media – the argument of why should we do it now, it’s just a fad, it’s going to go away. Now, most of the nonprofits I work with view social media as an important part of their marketing, but there’s still the struggle that organizations have on getting everyone to participate. Navigating the personal and professional is also very tricky – many employees may be using it personally and care about the issues around the organization. Figuring out how to navigate and leverage that personal passion for your organization’s work in service of the mission is not an easy thing to do.

Internet usage is sky-rocketing in Asia, making it one of the fastest-growing social media regions in the world. How will this change social media and particularly, how non-profits and NGOs can use it?

That’s true, but when I go to India, I hear people say often that only 3 percent of the population is on Facebook, so why should I care? While that’s true, that 3 percent represents over 60 million people, which is the third largest country on Facebook. Most of those people are concentrated in urban areas, but that doesn’t mean that someone in a village with a smart phone can’t get that information and influence others off-line.

You have a deep connection to Cambodia, and helped raise money for the first Cambodian Bloggers conference in 2007 and recently attended another bloggers conference last year. What has changed?

I first started blogging in 2003 and had three blogs, one for non-profits, and two on Cambodia. I started getting comments from Cambodian young people, and became the bridge blogger for Global Voices, and started blogging and interacting with Cambodian bloggers more on a regular basis. Then I met Tharum, one of Cambodia’s first and most influential bloggers, and helped to get him a scholarship to go to London. He went on to become a very well-know blogger.
When I was first in Phnom Penh in 2000, there was one traffic light, and the only internet connection was in the fancy hotel that was a dial up and super slow. In 2004, there were a couple of internet cafes. Now it seems like there is Wi-Fi everywhere, and people are getting it to their phones. It has changed vastly.

What role can blogs play that traditional media cannot? Can they help increase transparency and citizen participation?

The later question is asking a lot, honestly. Unless everyone is working together, and has a tremendous amount of backing, I don’t know how realistic it is to expect bloggers and social media alone to be able to transform countries and governments. Although we have seen things like the Arab Spring which was driven by Facebook, we’re still watching to see the impact it had on lasting change. However, blogs can be an authentic, local voice. They can give a sense of what’s happening locally and how people are thinking about issues. That’s what attracted me to Global Voices. For example, during the viral online campaign to capture Uganda warlord Kony, I loved going and reading from the Ugandan bloggers. You found that what they were thinking and how they were talking about the event was completely different than here.
Social media is a double-edged sword. There is social media for good and social media for evil. It’s a question around the resilience of our networks. In September, I was supposed to be on a plane to Tunisia, but it was cancelled because of that video that triggered a wave of unrest in the region. So, I wrote a blog on why I’m not on a plane to Tunisia right now, and it was basically about how we need to build more resilience in our networks and civil society so that when something like this happens, people can rise up and resolve it, as opposed to just escalating the bad.

India’s online community has been buzzing since the arrest of two young women by the Mumbai police last month for posting comments on Facebook criticizing the city’s shutdown following the death of veteran Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray. The arrests of Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan sparked public outrage across the country, and drew criticism from civil society, media, and the government. Telecom Minister Kabil Sibal described the arrests as “unfortunate,” and renowned Indian personalities, such as author Shobha De, anti-corruption activist Arvind Kejriwal, and others, expressed their dismay on Twitter. Faced with mounting public ire, the Mumbai police eventually suspended the officers who made the arrests and dropped the case against Dhada and Srinivasan. The arrests triggered a vigorous public debate that rages today about the right to freedom of speech and expression, and the extent to which the government can or should regulate the internet.

India is one of the fastest growing internet markets, and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are becoming increasingly popular as mobile phone penetration deepens across the country.

India is one of the fastest growing internet markets among the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) nations, according to a recent study by Assocham and ComScore, expanding annually at the rate of 41 percent, with approximately 125 million internet users currently. Nearly 75 percent of these users are between the ages of 15 and 34, making India’s online community one of the youngest in the world. While internet penetration is still low (less than 10 percent of the population), social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter are becoming increasingly popular as mobile phone penetration deepens across the country. From a small user base of 8 million in 2010, Facebook today has 50 million subscribers in India, with the number growing each day. Indians are generating a growing volume of user content as they like, post, tag, tweet, and blog online. Some of this content has the Indian government worried.

As I wrote in an earlier post to In Asia, India’s government has dramatically increased its oversight and surveillance of the internet and social media platforms over the last two years. In April 2011, it adopted a new set of IT rules requiring websites and service providers to remove content deemed “blasphemous,” “disparaging,” or “hateful” within 36 hours of a complaint. Later in the year, the government filed cases against 21 internet companies, including giants Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, demanding the removal of objectionable and inflammatory material and the “pre-screening” of user content. According to Google’s latest Transparency Report, between January and June 2012, Indian authorities also sought web user details in as many as 2,319 cases and requested the removal of 596 items from various internet platforms. The items related primarily to issues of privacy and security (374), defamation (120), and religious offences (75).

The argument for internet regulation or censorship in India has mostly been framed in the context of ensuring national security and secular harmony. Efforts at regulation increased in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and subsequent tightening of national security. While some see these arguments as justified given India’s experience with terrorism and history of ethnic and religious tension, many civil society and internet activists feel that the government’s attempts at regulation go too far, infringing on peoples’ right to free speech and expression.

In recent months, there has been a spate of arrests across the country for content posted by users on social networking sites. In West Bengal, a chemistry professor was arrested for sharing an unflattering cartoon of Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee and other political figures online. In Tamil Nadu, businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested for a tweet criticizing the son of Finance Minister P. Chidambaram. In Mumbai, political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi was arrested on charges of sedition for a series of anti-corruption cartoons that criticized the government. In each case, arrests were made under a controversial section of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act). Under Section 66A, individuals may be sentenced for up to three years in jail for posting information that is “false,” “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” insulting, or designed to incite hatred or ill will. Lawyers and internet activists have argued that the law is vague in defining terms such as “offensive” and “menacing” and needs to be amended. Last week, a young student in Delhi filed a public interest litigation case in the Supreme Court arguing that Section 66A is unconstitutional and infringes on the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution.

India’s role in spurring the global internet revolution is widely recognized. Indian companies in the silicon cities of Bengaluru and Hyderabad are international exporters of internet technology, and Indian engineers and programmers have played key roles in companies such as Intel, Cisco, Google, Oracle, Google, and Facebook. Closer to home, civil society groups, activists, and social movements have innovatively used the internet and social media platforms to combat corruption and bribery, redress grievances, and demand improvements in service delivery and governance more broadly. Initiatives such as Ipaidabribe.com, for example, provide Indians with an opportunity to file online reports of bribe giving or taking. Similarly, Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption campaign last summer used Facebook and Twitter to generate public support against corruption. However, recent incidents in India have raised difficult questions about the regulation of social media and consequently free speech in the digital commons. Spurred by media and civil society pressure, the government is now mulling changes to the IT Act. However, it is evident that changes in policy need to be accompanied by a much broader and nuanced debate among the government, civil society, media, and internet providers.

Mandakini Devasher Surie is The Asia Foundation’s senior program officer in India. She can be reached at mdsurie@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

A buzz of excitement filled the room, with camera lights flashing and fingers fervently typing on laptops and smartphones. Students, young professionals, and seasoned journalists from around the Asia-Pacific gathered eagerly for the start of BlogFest Asia 2012 in Siem Reap, Cambodia, The four-day affair earlier this month brought together the region’s best and brightest bloggers and technologists to exchange ideas on more effective blogging and the digital landscape.

From left to right, Panelists Sopheap Chak of Global Voices and Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR), David Isaksson of Spider (moderator), Moses Ngeth of Community Legal Education Centre, and Ramana Sorn of CCHR participate in a discussion titled “Practical Aspects of Internet Empowerment: Gender, Language & Civic Engagement” at the third BlogFest, held in Siem Reap.

In the spirit of the ASEAN region’s goal of economic integration by 2015, BlogFest was created to build a community of social media enthusiasts that fostered the exchange of ideas and culture. Approximately 200 people from Malaysia, Bangladesh, Burma, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Hong Kong, the Philippines, Australia, the United States, and Cambodia attended this third BlogFest, after the first in Hong Kong in 2009 and Penang, Malaysia in 2010.

Topics ranged from the practical (commercializing blogging, cyber security, using blogs as a resume, blogging with multimedia) to the more theoretical (defining internet freedom and responsibilities, using the internet to empower and promote civic engagement, defending freedom of information and expression). However, the most poignant discussions took place on the topic of ensuring freedom of expression, press, and information – a critical and urgent issue for the region.

In September, three prominent bloggers in Vietnam were handed prison sentences, charged with propaganda against the one-party communist state. In Malaysia, a blogger was arrested in early July for allegedly insulting one of the country’s royalty, an offense punishable by up to seven years in prison. Bloggers and activists in the Philippines have been battling a new internet law called the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, which took effect in October 2012 (the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on the law after strong protest). The law penalizes computer-related crimes, including identity theft, online fraud, child pornography, and cyber terrorism, but critics are most concerned about its overreaching provisions related to libel. A person found guilty of libel on the internet could be imprisoned for up to 12 years. According to the new law, a libelous comment on blogs or any other social media platform like Twitter is considered a more serious crime than printed libel.

In comparison, Cambodia’s current state of internet freedom is relatively unrestricted: its cyber law is still in draft form, although outright criticism of the government remains scarce and self-censorship widespread. Blogger Sopheap Chak, one of the conference organizers and project coordinator at the Cambodian Center for Human Rights, said in an interview with the Cambodian Daily: “[There are] not many bloggers writing about social issues or politics…This is probably [due to] self-censorship because you can see all of the cases of harassment of journalists offline.”

Cambodia ranks 117 out of 179 in the Press Freedom Index (tied with Zimbabwe and Venezuela) and currently lacks a Freedom of Information law. Meanwhile, the looming cyber law raises concerns among bloggers and human rights groups wary that the proposed legislation will limit freedom of expression. The government assures that the cyber law is not meant to punish critical voices, but rather to prevent crime and protect data. However, in the context of a shrinking space for civil society and an increase in human rights violations in Cambodia, some are beginning to express scepticism.

According to Freedom House, the government is increasingly concerned with the internet’s potential to serve as a platform for the opposition. In February 2011, numerous media outlets reported on the shutdown of several opposition websites, including KI-Media, a popular news aggregator and commentary blog. The government denied any involvement.

However, the situation is definitely not all doom and gloom in Cambodia. For instance, the government could have easily barred an event like BlogFest from happening; instead, the Cambodian Minister of Information, Khieu Kanharith, attended and presented awards on the final day of the conference. While the state wields heavy influence over traditional media outlets, new and social media are, as of now, largely ungoverned. The ICT infrastructure and growing internet penetration (3.1% in 2011) provide immense potential for overcoming challenges.

Increasingly, Cambodians are getting excited about harnessing technology for development, as evidenced by events like BarCamp Phnom Penh, an open technology conference, TEDxPhnom Penh, and the Asia BlogFest. Technologists, bloggers, and others hope these events can be incubators of innovative solutions to pressing development challenges and a source of inspiration for Cambodians interested in participating in social media.

In one of the conference’s final workshop sessions, “Cybercrime Law in the Philippines,” speaker Tonyo Cruz shared with his Cambodian counterparts applicable lessons from the Filipino context. It was encouraging to hear him remind participants that despite different nationalities, that as netizens of the internet, they are all in this together. He added, “Only in an atmosphere of freedom could we make full use of social media and technology for good [governance] and progress.” As I watched participants brainstorm ideas to form networks across the region via Twitter and Facebook, the excitement and immense potential the digital landscape has to empower and unite voices for positive social change was undeniable.

The Asia Foundation was one of several sponsors who supported BlogFest Asia 2012.

Lisa H. Kim is a program associate for The Asia Foundation’s Cambodia office. She can be reached at lkim@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Malaysiakini, a trailblazing, online news service based in Kuala Lumpur and published in English, Malay, Chinese, and Tamil with an impressive readership of 2.5 million per month, has for more than a decade found a way around the country’s strict censorship policy by publishing only online. Now, after 13 years of online service, Malaysiakini may be able to offer its news to readers in print.

In 2010, Malaysiakini applied for a permit required by the government to publish and sell 40,000 print newspapers in and around Kuala Lumpur. The Home Ministry rejected the application without giving a reason. Malaysiakini challenged the decision, calling the ruling unconstitutional and a violation of freedom of expression. Finally, on October 1, the Malaysian High Court declared that the Home Ministry’s decision to deny Malaysiakini a publishing permit application was “improper and irrational” and against the principles set forth in the Malaysian constitution.

Traditional media (print, TV, radio) in Malaysia are closely aligned with or controlled by members of the ruling party and exercise a high degree of self-censorship to maintain their government-controlled media licenses. This year in its Press Freedom Index, Freedom House ranked Malaysia 144th out of 197 countries, putting Malaysia behind Uganda and even Libya. It ranked Malaysia 31st out of 40 Asian countries.  In April, a global outcry erupted over the lack of local media coverage and the censorship of international media footage of the BERSIH 3.0 rally in April. The High Court’s declaration on Malaysiakini is therefore a noteworthy and timely victory for press freedom here.

While most Malaysians still get their news and information from newspapers, in recent years internet news sites have emerged as a counter force to the traditional media. Malaysiakini has blazed the trail with its hard-edged, investigative reporting, which is often critical of the government. In fact, many political observers attribute the opposition coalition’s (Pakatan Rakyat) strong showing in the 2008 general elections to the power and persuasion of internet media, such as Malaysiakini. Some argue that Malaysiakini’s anti-establishment reputation and critical style was the real reason that the Home Ministry denied its application for a printing license, fearing more widespread penetration of Malaysiakini’s critical reporting, beyond just the internet.

The conditions seem favorable for greater media freedom and freedom of expression in Malaysia, as Prime Minister Najib has less than six months to call the 13th general elections. In the past year, in an attempt to attract votes, the prime minister has repealed and amended several of Malaysia’s Colonial-era laws affecting civil freedoms, including the Internal Security Act and the Printing Presses and Publishing Act.

However, Malaysiakini’s victory is not yet in the bag. The High Court’s declaration only means that Malaysiakini has the right to submit an application, while the Home Minister must still consider and approve it. “Although the decision is likely to be appealed, the court decision is a step in the right direction. Malaysiakini will be asking the Home Minister to take cognizance of the verdict and make the necessary changes to the Printing Presses and Publications Act,” said Malaysiakini’s co-founder and CEO, Premesh Chandran. The Home Minister has revealed his preference for an appeal.

The case will become a test of Prime Minister Najib’s rhetoric for change, and Malaysians will be watching closely to see if and when Malaysiakini’s application is approved.

Anthea Mulakala is The Asia Foundation’s country representative in Malaysia. She can be reached at amulakala@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.

Moviegoers in India were disappointed this month when producers of the critically acclaimed Hollywood film “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” cancelled the film’s release in India. The decision followed demands by the Indian Censor Board to cut scenes that were deemed “unsuitable for public viewing in their unadulterated form” – specifically scenes of torture and rape. Such censorship of films and TV shows isn’t new here, and Indian audiences have grown accustomed to random and often baffling cuts to even the most innocuous content. However, the recent surge in government censorship and regulation of different media – particularly, the internet and social media – has the Indian and international media buzzing.

Consider the following: In the last six months, the Indian government took 22 internet firms, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook and Twitter, to court over “objectionable content” posted by users online; lodged a formal complaint with the U.S government over remarks made by U.S TV host Jay Leno about a sacred temple in Amritsar; and raised a complaint with the producers of BBC’s show “Top Gear” for an episode that mocked “India’s culture and people.” And, it doesn’t end there. TV shows on English and Hindi language channels are increasingly facing the chop (literally) for “inappropriate” language or content.

These incidents have sparked an intense public debate about the extent to which the government can (or should) determine what the Indian public gets to watch, read, or hear. Some have described this trend as the rise of a “nanny state” where media content is pre-approved for public consumption, while others have raised concerns about what this new regime of censorship means for the freedom of speech and expression. For example, the government’s crackdown on Google and others comes at a time when the internet and social media have become important conduits for the expression of people’s views and opinions. In August last year, social crusader Anna Hazare’s “India Against Corruption Movement” made headlines for its innovative use of social networking sites Facebook and Twitter to organize rallies and galvanize support for their campaign to create an independent anti-corruption agency or Jan Lok Pal in India.

Traditionally, censorship in India has been justified on the grounds of “cultural sensitivity” and the idea that Indian audiences need to be shielded from content that could offend their social, cultural, and religious beliefs. Speaking to the media on the case against the internet companies, Telecoms and Information Communications Minister Kapil Sibal was quoted as saying: “We have to take care of the sensibilities of our people; we have to protect their sensibilities. Our cultural ethos is very important to us.” But as political commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out, “cultural sensitivity is not a pre-given fact in India.” The reality is that India today is undergoing rapid social and economic changes.

More than 50 percent of India’s population is below the age of 25 and nearly 65 percent under the age of 35. There are an estimated 100 million internet users in the country, with the number estimated to triple by 2014. Mobile phone penetration, particularly in rural areas, is extensive with over 800 million subscribers in 2011. With the rapid expansion of well-paying jobs in sectors such as IT, software, and business-outsource processing, many young Indians have access to disposable incomes far greater than their parents and have aspirations to work and live abroad. Against this backdrop, the government’s efforts to censor the internet and other media is an anachronism and symptomatic of a pre-liberalization regime of state regulation and control that is long past. And let’s face it, in a country of 1.2 billion people monitoring or policing user content is simply not feasible.

As India positions itself as a global leader in the 21st century, one of its greatest strengths is its loud, boisterous, and often frenzied democracy. The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental pillar of this democracy, and efforts at curbing this right through arbitrary laws and rules will only serve to turn back the clock on the country’s social and economic progress. Mahatma Gandhi once advised a newly independent India to pursue a path of spiritual and inner purity embodied in the principles: “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.” Surely a state that censors and curbs the free flow of information isn’t what he had in mind.

This article has been reposted with the permission of The Diplomat.

Mandakini Devasher Surie is The Asia Foundation’s program officer in India. She can be reached at mdsurie@asiafound.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the individual author and not those of The Asia Foundation.