Remember when Maryam Lee was viciously attacked for her role in the UndiRosak movement?

Empower (an NGO) summed up the situation: “Instead of demonstrating maturity when engaging in the discourse, many supporters of the opposition resorted to unwarranted sexist, misogynist and extremist harassment against Maryam, and targeted their attacks solely at body shaming and (at) her identity as a young woman.

“Many of these attackers have accessed, taken and used her pictures without Maryam’s knowledge and consent. They further manipulated and/or morphed her photographic images into sexually explicit ones.

“These images are accompanied by extremely demeaning and sexualised insults and name-calling.”  

False information

Furthermore, what kind of cockamamie methodology was used in this study presented by Loh at this closed-door forum? With 131 “suspicious” accounts monitored? Really, what was suspicious about them and since the term used was “paid political actor”, who paid them and where is the proof they were paid?

The study further breaks down the ethnic and gender composition of these accounts, which just further narratives of racial animus and does nothing to address the problem of the flow of disinformation.

Yes, there are paid actors who disseminate false information and something like the PDRM-linked troll farm should be investigated but what causes the most damage are the algorithms used by social media sites spreading disinformation.

Furthermore, the use of troll farms by political operatives has a global impact and the furtherance of narratives that destabilises societal cohesion but states need to constructively engage with social media companies to find an equilibrium.

The problem is that when it benefits the state, social media companies are useful to spread propaganda.

This is why everywhere in the world, the growing tension created by the spread of misinformation is difficult to grasp or find a solution for because the connective tissue between the state and propaganda are social media platforms.

All this goes beyond just cyber trooping and involves questions of censorship and how we should be very sceptical of the way the state defines certain freedom.

Keep in mind that Harapan, the so-called progressive force in this country, was mulling controlling the comment sections of social media platforms by making the operators liable for comments by partisans.

This is the kind of "biting the hand that feeds you" policy that demonstrates that before coming into power, toxic partisanships were ignored but when the reality of maintaining order when in power, the political elites suddenly realised how damaging partisanship was for society.

The reality is that toxic material, and this includes lies and “fake news,” are intentionally passed around by partisans, even though they know the veracity is suspect.

The same reasoning applies to comments in the comment sections. Anonymity, oftentimes, brings out the worst in people. In fact, there are subscribers who make toxic posts on news stories, and generally behave as if the comment section is theirs to reinforce party dogma.

Cyber troopers are merely a convenient scapegoat for the reality that partisan politics and its Manichean Weltanschauung are making the political landscape in this country (and elsewhere) toxic and as long as people have the ability to transmit their ideas through social media they would either do that responsibly or irresponsibly.

Political leaders could set an example but why would they?

Always remember that this partisanship benefits them until it doesn't.