Editor,
In the digital age, where opinions are currency and silence can be misread as apathy, society seems to be swinging wildly between two poles of communication: the emoji minimalists and the keyboard maximalists.
On one end, we have the modern-day cavemen: emoji users. These are people who respond to layered thoughts, heartfelt reflections, and sometimes even national debates with a mere or . It’s the digital equivalent of a grunt at the dinner table when someone shares news of a personal breakthrough. For those who take time to craft thoughtful posts, this is not just frustrating—it feels like throwing a letter into a well and hearing only a distant splash.
Of course, emojis have their charm. They’re fast, universal, and non-confrontational. In a world where attention spans compete with goldfish, a quick heart can say, “I saw this.” But does it say, “I understood this”? Or, “I have something to add to this”? Not quite. It saves time, yes, but it also saves people from thinking deeply, or worse, from engaging authentically.
Yet, before we mourn the death of meaningful interaction, let’s look at the other extreme: the keyboard warriors.
Here, the silence breaks—but not always for the better. This breed of internet gladiator is the opposite of emoji users. Instead of saying too little, they say far too much. With caps lock as their sword and hashtags as their shields, they charge into the digital battlefield, convinced that their opinion is not just valid, but holy. They rarely listen. They quote half-read articles. They declare moral victory within three comments.
These self-appointed thought leaders rant endlessly online but avoid real conversation like it’s a pothole on a rainy Shillong day. Challenge them in person, and you’ll find their volume drops faster than your mobile network during a thunderstorm. The same person who wrote a 1,000-word takedown on Facebook can’t survive a two-minute chai-side debate. It’s not courage fueling them—it’s the comfort of the backspace button.
So, where does this leave us?
We’re caught between passive disconnection and performative over-connection. One side has reduced thoughtful engagement to a series of symbols. The other floods our timelines with noise, confusing volume for value.
This polarization is more than just a digital quirk; it’s a mirror to a deeper societal drift: We’re slowly losing the art of disagreement. Either we don’t speak at all, or we shout until no one wants to stay in the room. We’re forgetting that expression is not just a right, but a responsibility. It’s not just about having a voice, but about using it with care and clarity.
We’re normalizing laziness in reflection and aggression in expression.
As someone once joked, “Everyone has a voice now. Unfortunately, not everyone has a point.”
This is not a call to uninstall your emojis or mute your outspoken friends. This is a call to restore balance. To revive the beautiful middle ground of conversation, where emojis are acknowledgments and comments are contributions. Where people can speak boldly but also listen humbly. Where you don’t need to be a philosopher to say something meaningful, nor a preacher to hold a strong view.
Let’s be people who respond with more than emojis, and argue with more than anger. Let’s not be afraid to leave a comment, ask a question, or say, “I don’t know, but I want to understand.” Because in the end, that is how societies grow—not through echo chambers or reactions, but through conversations.
Yours etc.,
By Paia B,
Via email
Who will protect the brave witness?
Editor,A key witness in the high-profile Raja Raghuvanshi murder case has reportedly expressed concerns about his personal safety after his name and image spread far and wide. According to a recent media report, the witness’s mother stated that her son has stopped leading tourists to Nongriat, as he feels that his personal safety could be at risk. A father of two young children, the guide has now given up his livelihood and is possibly living in fear.
While coming forward to state that he saw Raja and Sonam along with three others at Nongriat on May 23, 2025, we believe the guide’s identity should have been concealed in the interest of his safety. His statement was crucial, a fact that was even underscored by the police. According to the police, it was following the guide’s revelation that the ‘mastermind’ of the murder, Raj Kushwaha, told Sonam to immediately leave Indore. However, the police quickly arrested Raj and his three accomplices, while Sonam surrendered.
Before and after the murder mystery was unravelled, the media interviewed the guide – publicising his name and image. Unfortunately, revealing the name and identity of the main witness, especially in a highly sensitive case, can have consequences. While the media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion, this influence carries a profound responsibility, particularly when reporting on sensitive cases involving key witnesses. It is the ethical duty of the media to protect these individuals and to maintain a careful balance between the public’s right to know and the witness’s right to safety and privacy. When media outlets act irresponsibly, it reflects a lack of empathy and professionalism.
In any legal investigation or criminal trial, the main witness often holds crucial information that can determine the outcome of the case. Their testimony may expose criminal activities, identify perpetrators, or clarify key events. Therefore, protecting this individual is critical – not only for the integrity of the case but also for their personal safety and well-being.
Safeguarding a witness’s anonymity is not just a legal or professional obligation – it is a moral one. In an age where information spreads rapidly, even a short video clip or headline can have serious repercussions. It is crucial that media outlets adopt and strictly follow guidelines that protect the identities of vulnerable individuals.
Meghalaya has given approval to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2025, as mandated by Section 398 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The approval was given by the Cabinet in April. This scheme provides a structured process for safeguarding witnesses in various cases. It is aimed to help build a safer environment for witnesses to come forward without fear. However, it is imperative that the government ensures this particular witness (guide) is fully protected, which includes his personal safety, and livelihood. Given the circumstances, we urge the concerned authorities to take immediate steps to ensure his safety.
We respectfully urge all media outlets to exercise restraint, discretion, and responsibility in their coverage of this high-profile murder case. The safety and well-being of the witness and his family must remain a top priority. While the public may only see the courtroom drama, it is essential to recognise the extensive efforts that go on behind the scenes to protect witnesses and ensure that justice is carried out without fear or coercion.
Yours etc.,
Rephica Becky Pde,
Via email