Unless you have been living in a cave in the Himalayas or perhaps are a Martian, you would have heard Gangnam Style by now. The song, and the dance that goes with it, are by Psy, a South Korean popstar who has become a worldwide sensation within weeks of it going up on Youtube.

With over one billion hits and counting, Gangnam Style is now the most viewed song ever, turning Psy into a star who now hobnobs with Madonna and Britney Spears. This is the power of the social media, where a singer from Korea can find fans all over the world, even in the US, which rarely acknowledges pop stars from elsewhere.
Another example of the power and reach of YouTube — this time not so pleasant — was seen when a badly made film, The Innocence of Muslims was uploaded causing a furore all over the Islamic world. Violence broke out in Pakistan and other countries and several people died in protests against the film, which was made by a trouble maker from the US. That it was crude propaganda did not matter; it touched a raw nerve among many Muslims and by the time the authorities everywhere could react the damage had been done.
Remember the situation that arose earlier this year when thousands of youngsters from Northeast states left their studies and jobs in Bengaluru and elsewhere and rushed back to their homes? Unfounded rumours were flying around that anyone from the Northeast would be violently attacked and no one wanted to take a chance. Unlike in an earlier era, when rumours spread by word of mouth, now they can be posted on the social media and can travel with bewildering speed. A tweet, a Facebook post and a Youtube video can go viral and reach millions within no time and create a climate of fear and panic.
These two sides to the social media give us a good idea of this most remarkable phenomenon of our times. On the one hand the social media connects while on the other it causes fissures. It can be used to spread important messages, but in the wrong hands it could create havoc. It has a Jekyll and Hyde personality that is visible to anyone who uses it every day.
How to apply offline laws to the online world? Can this genie, now that it is out of the lamp, be controlled? Is Freedom of expression on the web absolute or can — and should — it be curbed? These are vexing issues, becoming more complex as the web becomes bigger and all pervasive.
In India, the authorities seem to be viewing the social media a bit suspiciously if not with hostility. Though various ministers have made the usual statements about preserving the freedom of speech, their actions suggest otherwise. Late last year, Telecom minister Kapil Sibal went into aggressive mode, demanding that Facebook and Twitter pre-screen content that was uploaded on their sites. Too much slanderous matter that could cause communal trouble was freely doing the rounds, the minister was reported to have said. The online world exploded immediately and there was speculation that Sibal was particularly disturbed with posts about Congress president Sonia Gandhi. No party has yet robustly come out and said that freedom of speech should be kept in mind; the social media confounds and worries all of them.
There is little doubt that online users are often abusers and mischief makers often post all kinds of scurrilous stuff. Twitter trolls can be nasty in attacking those whose political views they do not agree with. Then there are those who stir up trouble for fun. Religion remains a sensitive area, as the case of the film on YouTube showed. But is clamping down or even pre-screening content the solution?
The impracticality of pre-screening has already been discussed; with millions of posts on Facebook, which now has 1 billion users, it would require huge infrastructure and investment to check everything before it is uploaded. The Chinese government has banned Facebook but people still find ways to access it. China's own Twitter-like micro-blogging Weibo is hugely popular with users who regularly post critical comments about the establishment on it.
But don't think that we are immune from various kinds of Big Brothers watching us. The social media companies themselves are alert to anything that might offend governments as well as special interest groups. Governments, even democratic ones have begun to monitor what goes on the social media. And intelligence agencies surely have ways to keep an eye on suspicious activity. The question of how the Shiv Sena got to know that a 21-year-old girl in a small town in Maharashtra posted something after Bal Thackeray's death is still mysterious and worrying. It is heartening that there has been widespread outrage over Section 66A of the IT Act, which is vague and open to gross abuse by the authorities — as seen in this particular instance — but so far the government has been resisting going back on it, holding on to its stance that such a law is needed.
In the coming years, we shall see even more debate on the social media and its uses and abuses. Some conflicts will also arise, between governments and users, between those who want to keep it tightly controlled and those who think there should be much more freedom.