worsen misfortune on social networks

Let us recall the facts: Alexandra Martine Diengo Lumbayi, a student at the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières, was last seen at Saint-Quentin Island Park on October 2, when her roommate came there. drop off at the park entrance.

Images from the island’s surveillance cameras clearly showed the young woman arriving alone on foot at the reception post, before heading towards the park. Then, nothing more.

In a heartbreaking message, her mother, who lives in the Democratic Republic of Congo, launched an appeal on TikTok to help find her daughter. A message that resonated, with millions of shares around the world, and for good reason. Who could remain insensitive to the distress and despair experienced by this family who remains without news and powerless on the other side of the planet?

Initiatives have been put in place almost everywhere. Calls for vigilance and solidarity were launched from all platforms, in particular by his colleagues at UQTR and the Congolese community of the university and Trois-Rivières. Social networks were used in the same way as traditional media, and fortunately many people relayed the information, with the sole aim of helping and enabling this family to find answers.

Social networks are often good.

But unfortunately, there is also the other side of the story…

There are all these people who have found a way to turn this misfortune to their advantage, too often to profit from it. Yes, because the more it clicks, the more we benefit. Whether it’s through advertising revenue, or just the simple pleasure of having your little hour of glory.

In this era where everyone has been given the privilege of having a microphone, should we be surprised that a lack of judgment is for some what makes up the main programming?

I think of these Internet users who relayed all this false information, at the same time giving false hope to the family in search of the truth. This Internet user who affirmed, without a shadow of a doubt, that Alexandra was alive and held captive by a sexual predator who had just been caught and arrested by the police. Or even this one, very anonymous hidden behind his screen, who announced three days ago that a drowning had occurred on Saint-Quentin Island, even though no information to this effect could be confirmed.

These people who disclosed that jewelry belonging to him had been found. These others who said they heard her scream at 2 a.m. If this is the case, why post it on social media, other than to attract attention and generate reactions? Call the police and give your information to be verified, period!

But even worse: all those who gratuitously attacked the roommate who came to take her back to Saint-Quentin Island. Who pointed the finger at him, divulging so many falsehoods and serious suspicions about him that the Trois-Rivières police officers had to appeal for calm, being obliged to publicly reveal investigative elements to put an end to this noise that was destroying his reputation.

Another roommate of the young woman was also targeted. If some wrote to her or divulged falsehoods making her complicit in the affair, others duplicated her various social network accounts in order to pretend to be her and comment on all kinds of publications in her name, revealing false information. However, nothing indicates to us that she has anything to reproach herself for.

Added to this are a good number of mediums and clairvoyants who wanted to make their contribution. Some saw her alive, others not… One lady even broadcast on her social networks that she had had a vision of seeing her in the water, but more than 80 minutes drive from Trois-Rivières, on a bridge called the David Bridge. His publication generated hundreds of reactions, and of course piqued the curiosity of so many people who might today be tempted to retain his services.

Did this lady communicate anything to the police? Or did she prefer to promote her social networks instead of actually contributing to research? I don’t know the answer…

Of course, everyone is free to believe or not in these gifts. However, we can also place ourselves in the position of the family of this missing young woman, for whom information accumulates, contradicts itself and nourishes both hope and fear, only to find ourselves too often back at the starting point. , without any real advancement.

I discussed it on Tuesday morning with Henri Provencher, the grandfather of the young Cédrika Provencher, who disappeared in 2007 and was found lifeless in December 2015. While we did not yet know the most recent developments on the disappearance of ‘Alexandra, on Tuesday morning, her thoughts were with this young woman’s family. At the same time, he confided in reliving painful memories while thinking of all those people who had tried to help with all these donations, at a time when social networks were still just a speck of dust in the virtual universe.

“At the time, I took into account every piece of information that was given to me, and I verified it all. But nothing came of it, it didn’t get us anywhere. When you’re in it, you take whatever comes your way. But looking back, I see that it really cooled me down. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but for us, it didn’t help us.”

— Henri Provencher, grandfather of Cédrika Provencher

At the end of this investigation, certain leads will be retained, others discarded. But one thing is certain: we can all already begin our examination of conscience on how we use social networks in such circumstances.

And if I have little hope of raising awareness among those for whom morality has long been overtaken by the lure of gain and the hour of glory, I dare to believe that many people will now be more selective, more critical and more sensitive when the time comes to choose what they consume online, and what they choose to believe.

All my thoughts and sympathies to his family, friends, loved ones, and to the entire Congolese community of Trois-Rivières.