Privilege, Not Right

I have heard a lot of "Kolaveri" about Kapil Sibal's statement on the liability of social networking sites such as Facebook to filter and manage content that could be objectionable. While there is also a considerably voluminous view that the internet is renegade and needs to be controlled and regulated. The usual arguments in favour of this view are in the following broad statements:

1. Freedom of speech cannot be absolute, there have to be limitations.
2. The content hosts (Google, Facebook) should have effective filtering mechanisms to remove objectionable content.
3. If the mainstream media has limitations to what it can say, why should new media be exempt?

For a moment, let's not even get into the debate about who decides what is offensive (*), or that what may be offensive to your community might be commonplace in another and that you may be imposing your sensibilities on someone who does not want them. Let us forget that if you find a Facebook page which is offensive to your religion (or indeed to your political leader) you could just block that page and ignore it from then on so as to not get offended again. Even then, all of these statments are either factually incorrect or are progeny of incoherent logic. Let me tell you why...

Freedom of speech cannot be absolute, there have to be limitations

This has to be one of those statements which sounds so reasonable and accurate that even staunch defendants of freedom often fall prey to its lure.The temptation (in part) to say this arises from the feeling that anything that is not done in moderation is bad for us. However, when you give someone Freedom of Speech, you are providing them - by definition - the ability to say something that you donot want to hear. So, to say that "I will give you unbridled freedom of speech as long as you say only what I want to hear" is ridiculous. Freedom of Speech either exists absolutely or does not exist at all. While it may be justifiable to expect a speaker (or author) to say (or write) his views in an inoffensive manner, the prerogative to do so rests with the sender of the communication and not the receiver. If the receiver restricts what is communicated, it is (again, by definition) not free speech.

The content hosts should have effective filtering mechanisms

I would ask a pertinent question: Why?
Why should they do that? If you are a company that makes raised diases for political rallies, is it your liability to ensure that nothing untoward is said there? Does such liability extend to phone companies, if someone says something offensive on one of their networks? Sounds outrageous, doesn't it? Let's say that even if that were to be the case, how exactly do you propose that be done? To date there is absolutely no way to filter communication from telephones - devices that were invented over half a century ago, yet loud cries continue to demand filtering of messages sent over Facebook or Twitter which is practically impossible.

If the mainstream media has limitations to what it can say, why should new media be exempt?

There is no need to refute this strange assertion because it is not true. Mainstream media (at least in India) is free to write/ show/ broadcast on any topic they want. If there is regulation it is self imposed (hence a prerogative of the sender of communication). Let me take an analogy, would you as a reader have been okay with the idea of the Telecom minister using his influence to stop publication of an offensive op-ed about Sonia Gandhi? It would have been scandalous no doubt. Which is why, the anger directed at Kapil Sibal by internet users (I refuse to call them "netizens") was because he had no business trying to impose regulation on speech by asking social platforms to intercede when he should have been appealing to content creators (bloggers, posters etc.) to maintain restraint. Now if the first thing that popped into your head was "But convincing one editor about the offensiveness of an article is a considerably easier task than convincing the raging wilderness of maniacs that post on the internet", then you know how Facebook feels, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

The freedom to run upto the fence but no further is the kind of freedom only prisoners can appreciate. If our soceity is to grow, become more progressive and open it is imperative that we take offence to fewer things and express displeasure in a way that does not impede fellow persons. Inoffensiveness of content should be considered a privilege, freedom of speech a right.

* (Let me clarify that I am talking about information that is considered offensive without alluding in any way to facts (or the lack thereof). Anything that misrepresents the truth MUST be removed from public view.)

Z(OMG)-omato

If there is one thing I hate about Pune it is the ubiquitous sycophancy showed by Punekars for some of their most ordinary restaurants. Having recently moved here (and then tasted the said ordinary food in the said celebrated restaurants), I have started a minor movement to discredit them on Zomato.com (my preferred foodie site). It's been a ritual to post a review there (usually scathing) after having visited a place (and also to chide some of the famed Punekar obsequiousness). Here's some things I'd like to say about the site:

The Good

Navigation: I have found that the site has an incredibly clean look (in contrast to its "belchy" sounding competitor), which makes navigating the site less like visiting a porn portal.

What's the program:







Quite recently they've also added an "Events" section which is really neat and unlike anything I've seen before. I stumbled across the events section when I was groping around to check if I could find a stand-up act somewhere in India, amazingly I found one, nice work Zomato.

The site also has a very useful mobile app (Android, iPhone, BB) which suggests a random nearby restaurant evertime you shake your phone. Also let's you review, locate and call the retaurant, right inside the app!

The Not So Good

The app (Android) uses a little too much battery for my liking. The Zomato developers really need to optimise it to make sure that doesn't happen.

There is just no easy way for users to submit a restaurant to the website. I was really excited to find this burger place in KP and wanted to suggest it to Zomato, but no way. It is a noble intention to try and keep multiple entries and spam from the site, and encourage restaurant owners to list on the site, but there just has to be some way to submit a suggestion for a restaurant. The option doesn't pop up on either the site or the app. In fact what better than to have a feature in the app which would allow users to suggest a restaurant (GPS tag, photos of menu, phone number in tow)! That much less for the team to do.

I have also found the distinct lack of reviews on the website (for REALLY popular restaurants). There's no dearth of users, so why no love? People come to the site because of user reviews, Zomato really needs to spice up their review contests to attract more users. I think cookies help too, people usually GO to a restaurant after they search for it on Zomato, a gentle reminder to review the restaurant on the next visit wouldn't hurt.

I don't know how much Zomato is working on this front, but it is ideal if the restaurant owner is made aware of the feedback on his eatery and preferably be given the oportunity to respond. Good restaurants employ PR guys to handle online reviews, it is a big draw for users if they feel their suggestions and complaints reach the reviewees ears.

Main Anna Hazare bolrellaye

"Can a man who tied a drunk to a pole and flogged him with a belt be called a Gandhian?". This comment circulated the now already overcrowded annals of Facebook Wall history a few days ago. Depends. Did the drunk quit or not? If there is one thing that history has taught us, it is that a successful terrorist is called a freedom fighter.

Let me clarify that that I do not consider Anna Hazare a Mahatma, nor do I think that the Lokpal bill will be the panacea to the country's corruption problem. But it seems increasingly like the same people who were until yesterday critisizing the population of being silent spectators are levelling allegations of overreach against it today. Detractors of Anna Hazare have been pointing out that what he is doing amounts to subversion of the democratic process and blackmail of lawmakers. But what if the law making process is so compromised that it is naive if not foolish to expect MPs to act in the nation's interest? With aspersions cast on the character and competence of a Prime Minister that was until now considered both unblemished and able, what exactly should have been done? Wait for due process? Even when we are all convinced that due process would have taken a lifetime and resulted in toothless litigation? Can a system which is infected from the bottom up by corrupt people be dealt with using the same system? Why is a group of individuals pressing an MP into bringing litigation considered blackmail whereas corporate comglomerates doing it considered lobbying? Just by electing an MP to Parliament does the constituency give up its right to demand his credibility for 5 years? Five years is a long time, enough for a plethora of bogus and self serving bills to be passed by the party in office. If it is acceptable to have groups which can force the Government's hand on every matter from caste based reservation to what name should be given to a floyover, why can't there be one which does the same on litigation which has an obvious conflit of interest for the MPs? Why should the Government not fear its own people and be kept in a constant state of crisis? Complacence, as we all know very well, has already caused a whitewash.

On Anna Hazare all I'd say is that the answer to most moral quandaries is simple; history rewards winners, and punishes losers. If the British had not been destroyed by Hitler and forced to grant independence to the colonies, Gandhi would still be a half-naked fakir as opposed to a Mahatma. So the question to be answered is clear; Did the drunk quit?

The IT "engineer" song

With due apologies to IT engineers, the old Mech anthem from KJSom (written by yours truly)

-----------------------------------
All of my good friends
They're software execs
Six figure wages
And golden rim specs

My mommy says that
"They've got it make"
Everyone says I
dont have what it take

They pass out their "B.E."s,
They're top of their class
Their tongues are out licking,
Some Professor's ass

Birds of one feather,
Together they flock
Discussing how Enrique
Is Heavy Metal Rock

Their "rock solid" future
And their god-awesome pay
Impressing them babes
In their corporate way

So smart n so suave,
Where these guys be from?
Pretty little pin-ups,
For Matrimonials.com

Toiling away in some
high-tech hell-hole
Coding their ass off
And selling their soul

Twice as much moolah
At home you may bring
But man what the fuck
Are you "ENGINEER"ing?

Who are we...who are we

In the spirit of the KJSCE culture of showing your worst possible behaviour to every other engineering college in Mumbai, I present here the best Somaiya insults. The list btw is far from comprehensive...

1. Somaiya mein ayaa bhoot, RAIT ke maa ki ch**t
2. Zandu baam...zandu balm, TSEC ke gote jaam
3. Neem ka patta kadva hai, VESIT bh**va hai
4. Gali gali mein naara hai...SE ne BE ko maara hai (dedicated to Jawale)
5. Ablaa naari....B*blaa bhaari (dedicated to all "fashion" shows during engg)
6. Ch*tiya banayaa...badaa majaa ayaa (dedicated to Musicals during Symphony)
7. Bhench*d...Madarch*d...Bhench*d...Madarch*d

And the killer insult...

8. Get up turn around and clap (I hope you are doing that to this post right now)