*A Wider Concern About Online Media, Community Platforms and Information Security in the UK*

Today, I came across a concerning Facebook post created by Mrs Ganga Jeyabalan. Over the past few years, I have observed what I consider to be a recurring pattern within some community-based media platforms, where particular individuals appear to be repeatedly targeted and narratives are presented in a manner that can create a negative impression of those individuals within the wider community.

This concern is not limited to one Facebook post or one person. It raises a much broader question about how community-based digital media operate within the United Kingdom, particularly when they communicate primarily in languages other than English.

Today, Mrs Ganga Jeyabalan shared an article concerning a story involving Samrad and Nila's families and interpreted the name “Nila” as referring to me simply because we share the same name. I pointed out that information should first be properly verified, including by checking with people who have genuine knowledge of the matter, before publishing or circulating it.

However, a further statement was subsequently made identifying me as “RAW”. An allegation of that nature is extremely serious. Such claims should never be made casually or without credible evidence.

This is precisely why responsible journalism and community media require basic standards: verify the facts, establish the identity of the people concerned, distinguish individuals with similar names, separate fact from opinion, and provide evidence when making serious allegations.

*The wider UK issue*

I believe the United Kingdom needs to look much more deeply at the entire online information environment, including Facebook, YouTube, community newspapers, radio, podcasts, WhatsApp-based media networks and other digital platforms.

Importantly, this scrutiny should not be limited to English-language platforms.

The UK is a multicultural and multilingual society. Many communities have their own information ecosystems operating almost entirely in their respective languages. Therefore, if authorities are serious about online safety, community cohesion, foreign interference, disinformation and national security, they must also have the linguistic and cultural expertise necessary to understand what is being communicated within each community.

This does not mean monitoring people simply because they speak another language or belong to a particular community. Nor should legitimate political criticism, cultural expression or freedom of speech be restricted.

The principle should instead be equal standards and equal protection.

If a platform is repeatedly being used for harassment, serious misinformation, coordinated manipulation, unlawful incitement, foreign interference or other harmful activity, the language of that platform should not prevent the relevant authorities from understanding and addressing the problem.

Community media carries responsibility

Community media can play an extremely positive role. It can connect people, preserve language and culture, inform communities and give a voice to people who may otherwise be unheard.

But with that influence comes responsibility.

When a media platform repeatedly presents unverified claims about individuals, creates narratives around particular people, misidentifies individuals, or circulates serious allegations without evidence, it can cause significant reputational damage and community tensions.

People have the right to disagree. They have the right to criticise. They have the right to hold different political and social opinions.

But no one has the right to turn speculation into fact simply because they have access to a microphone, Facebook page or YouTube channel.

Protecting the UK's information environment

The digital information environment is now closely connected with the UK's wider social and national-security environment. Repeated misinformation, targeted harassment, coordinated manipulation or hostile influence can potentially contribute to mistrust, division and instability within communities.

Therefore, I believe the UK should continue strengthening its ability to understand and respond to harmful online activity across every language and every community, while maintaining the fundamental protections of freedom of expression, privacy and democratic debate.

The objective should not be censorship.

The objective should be accuracy, transparency, accountability and responsible communication.

There should be no double standard whereby an allegation published in English receives scrutiny while the same type of allegation published within a smaller language community goes completely unnoticed simply because the relevant authorities cannot properly understand the language or context.

One United Kingdom should mean equal protection, equal accountability and equal standards—regardless of language, ethnicity, community or background.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. But freedom of expression must exist alongside responsibility, evidence and respect for the rights and dignity of others.

Nila Bala ( Rtn. Balananthini Balasubramaniam)

Stop Human Trafficking CIC. Coordinator

Universal Peace Federation Peace Ambassador

Small Drops (CEO)

AASGON & GSEF Streeing committee member.

05/10/2026

21:45

Great Britain