Abuse of technology

Social media has become the defining public square of our age. By early 2025 roughly 5.42 billion people – about two thirds of humanity – were active on platforms and services that connect us- websites, messaging apps such as WhatsApp, and giant networks like Meta’s Facebook and Instagram and X. These tools have transformed how people communicate, organise and hold power to account. Yet, this technological marvel harbors a dark underbelly that demands urgent societal introspection. The recent incident in Nagaland serves as a stark reminder of how digital platforms can become breeding grounds for harassment, hatred, and personal vilification. A social media post that mixed death threats with deeply derogatory language aimed at Rosemary Dzüvichü, adviser to the Naga Mothers’ Association(NMA), provoked outrage across the state and rightly so. Civil society organisations demanded legal action; the SP Cyber Crime registered an FIR; and within a day Dimapur Police arrested the accused, identified as W.J. Longkumer. That swift response and the chorus of condemnation is commendable. It demonstrates that public pressure and timely policing can deter abuse and signal that certain behaviour has consequences. Yet the incident also highlights uncomfortable truths. The post had already circulated online, leaving a stain that an arrest cannot entirely erase. The language used did not merely target one public figure- it demeaned women more broadly, amplifying gendered contempt and normalising disrespect. The perpetrator’s motives or mental state are beside the point for victims who bear the damage and personal humiliation which are real and often irreversible at the chilling expense of free expression. It is time to move beyond outrage to systemic responses. Indian law already recognises this harm as sections of the Indian Penal Code criminalise insulting a woman’s modesty and related offences, carrying imprisonment and fines. The Information Technology Act imposes penalties for online abuse that can carry fines up to ₹5 lakh and jail terms for first offences. The Supreme Court has weighed in as well, urging self regulation by platforms and calling for comprehensive rules that strike a balance between freedom of speech and safeguarding dignity and public safety. The Court emphasised that individuals who forward offensive content are responsible and directed the Union government to formulate broad regulations on social media conduct. These legal frameworks are necessary but not sufficient. Platforms must step up content moderation, transparency and accountability, and administrators of groups should not be able to hide behind anonymity or negligence. Where speech crosses into threats, misogyny or organised hate, prompt investigation and prosecution should follow. Civil society’s role is crucial as NGOs and community groups need to sustain pressure, support victims and demand redress every time an individual is defamed, not only in a high profile case.It is also time that policy makers consider stronger structural measures such as mandatory registration or verification for significant social media channels, clearer liability for administrators, and faster takedown mechanisms for violent or abusive content. All these need to be balanced carefully against privacy and legitimate free expression. In a society that values both open debate and human dignity, citizens cannot allow “keyboard warriors” and demented minds to masquerade under the guise of free speech. The recent case should serve as a catalyst for quicker deterrence, better support for victims, and a shared civic commitment to a digital public square that respects every person.