I would like to express my views on the Thai government’s recent attempt to ban four news outlets. In the past few months, the Thai people have united to demand reform of the monarchy and an end to corruption and military involvement in politics, calling for a transparent democratic election, the release of political prisoners and a new constitution. Banning media outlets would severely harm the nation; I am totally against it for several reasons. First, such a move would take a toll on the economy. Many businesses rely on an open internet and social media to reach potential customers. A media ban would not only hinder businesses’ ability to promote their products or services, but also have a negative impact on investor sentiment. Moreover, blocking the media violates human rights and the freedom of the press. The freedom to present the news or express one’s opinions in accordance with professional ethics is not simply guaranteed by the Thai constitution, but is the birthright of all people. Recently, the Thai government sought to ban the Telegram messaging app to prevent protesters from coordinating plans. We all should enjoy the right to receive multifaceted information, not just propaganda. In the end, a Thai court lifted the suspension orders against the news outlets. Muzzling the media in the name of eliminating “ill-intentioned actions … aimed at creating chaos and conflict” is just adding fuel to the fire and will not stem the current unrest. The Thai people’s determination will not easily weaken. Thus, I believe media bans are counterproductive, and I urge the Thai government to meet the protesters’ demands and solve the country’s problems by tackling structural and core issues. Venus Wong, Ma On Shan Using the internet to organise protests has its drawbacks The protests in Thailand – and some of the tactics used by the protesters – have gained worldwide attention. The Thai protesters use the internet to communicate, such as deciding on the route or time of demonstrations by casting a vote online. This will be a growing trend for protesters in the future. However, relying too much on the internet when organising demonstrations may not be the wisest choice (“ Thai protests a reminder of how easily fake news spreads on social media ”, October 23). First, online decision-making leaves the process open to manipulation. The internet is an equaliser, allowing every user – including those against the movement – a chance to vote or simply leave a comment. It is also easy to spread misleading or deceptive information or suggestions online. Second, the internet may lead to personal information being leaked easily. Because Thailand’s lèse-majesté laws prohibit negative comments against the monarchy, people use anonymous accounts to express their anger online against the king. But last year, an activist was arrested by the government for online posts. The internet is a transparent platform, every activity leaves a trace. Using the web to discuss the details of the protests enables the government to monitor you and your conversations. Protesters who are active online are vulnerable to having their personal information, or that of their family members, leaked online . Finally, using the internet to organise demonstrations may not be able to engage all generations of protesters. Although social media has been gaining greater momentum in recent years, the older generations may still not know how to use it well, which means they would have less say in decision-making and lack access to the latest information. Bonnie Wong, Sha Tin
