#nosnowflake

We love free speech, don’t we? Yet we should not argue that everything comes with a price, and nothing should be brought too far. It’s the same for freedom of speech, especially when it is applied in the digital space. This is one of the most overlooked topics as people take social media for granted, for how it is, and they often forget the severity of a poor digital health environment and the implications it brings.

This is not an article against freedom, but an affirmation to monitor and moderate digital behaviours to secure true freedom. For the better of everyone.

Rhodes’ pioneering work Understanding Governance (1997) identified six different meanings given to the term governance, and suggests that it ‘really has no meaning’. Rosenau and Czempiel (1992) wrote about ‘governing without government’. Scholars have developed mind-opening perspectives to the concept of governance each time. That itself speaks to the importance of the word ‘governance’.

Meanwhile the International centre for governance and policy (2024) defines governance as follows:

“the system of rules, processes, and institutions that ensures a government and public organisations function effectively, transparently, and accountably.”

Cyberbullying remains the top issue on social media. Though differently, its claws are reaching our children. In the UK, the #NoSnowflake online tolerance issue has highlighted deteriorating digital wellbeing among students as online behaviour among young adults push towards increasing violence and degrading mental health. Recent case studies and UN polls reveal that global cyberbullying is escalating, with around two-thirds of children experiencing online harassment. These studies highlight an increase in malicious incidents, such as social exclusion on WhatsApp, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, and targeted digital exploitation. 

In the face of escalating problems, social media governance stands as the only cup in preventing deeper repercussions. Some countries have imposed the underage social media bans such as Australia and Malaysia, by enacting legislation—enforced through mandatory platform age verification linked to government-issued records that prohibits children under 16 from independently owning or operating accounts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. 

The escalating problem cannot be addressed by isolated national laws alone. As the UN data shows, the issue is a global phenomenon. Platform self-governance, primarily through community guidelines and content moderation, has proven woefully insufficient. The sheer scale of content uploads makes perfect enforcement impossible, and the reactive nature of reporting systems places the burden of triggering action on the victims. The recent Indian controversy referenced in the tweet IndiaToday, which involved a high-profile case of online harassment and the platform's delayed response, is a stark example of this systemic failure (India Today, 2012). It underscores the gap between a platform's public commitment to safety and its operational realities, where complex content decisions are often outsourced to automated systems and overburdened human moderators. 

This brings us back to the core of governance as defined by the International Centre: a system ensuring effective, transparent, and accountable function. For social media, this system must be a tripartite model involving:

Platforms adopting “safety by design” principles, auditing their algorithms for societal harm, and providing transparent data to independent researchers.

Governments enacting coherent, rights-based legislation that sets clear standards for platform duty of care, particularly towards children.

Civil society acting as essential watchdogs, conducting audits, supporting victims, and fostering digital literacy programs that builds resilience on the frontline.

The goal is not to sanitize the internet of all offensive speech, which is neither possible nor desirable, but to architect digital spaces where the most severe psychological harms—like coordinated harassment campaigns and the non-consensual spread of intimate imagery—are systematically deterred and addressed. This is the "price" of a sustainable digital commons: a shared commitment to governance structures that protect the vulnerable. Without it, the promise of digital connection devolves into a marketplace of abuse, corroding the very social fabric that these platforms claim to build. True digital freedom is not the absence of rules, but the presence of a fair and accountable system that prevents the tyranny of the mob and protects the right to participate without fear. 

References

India Today [@IndiaToday]. (2012, May 22). In the face of escalating problems, social media governance stands as the only cup in preventing deeper [Tweet]. Twitter. https://x.com/IndiaToday/status/2061773926343352793

International Centre for Governance and Policy. (2024, March 28). What is governance and what do we mean by good governance? Govcentre. https://govcentre.org/what-is-governance-and-what-do-we-mean-by-good-governance/

New Straits Times. (2026, June 5). MCMC probes coverage media content after public complaints. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2026/06/1455978/mcmc-probes-coverage-media-content-after-public-complaints

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.

Rosenau, J. N., & Czempiel, E. O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: Order and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press.