Hands off Twitter – Switching off social networks is a non-starter #handsofftwitter
As executives from Facebook, Twitter Blackberry manufacturer, Research in Motion, today meet with Home Secretary Theresa May to discuss the riots in England can we be clear here and say clearly that the idea of switching off social networks in the event of riots or social unrest is a ridiculous non-starter. It should not be entertained in anyway shape or form. Could you imagine the government also suggesting a media blackout?
It shows more than anything that the government having been initially slow to respond as the riots started, flailing around for a national response, is out of touch.
Who seriously believes that Twitter and Facebook played any serious role in contributing to the riots? Hands up now.
Anyone who spent any time on either social network would be aware that while there was much discussing of the riots there appeared to be little more than idiots posturing and bragging from the sidelines when it came to the actual activity.
I wrote before about David Cameron was wrong to talk about stopping people using social media in circumstances such as the riots.
Cameron and May should listen and talk to some of those using it like the police forces in Manchester and Sussex who praised social media as a force for the good. Talk to them rather than criticise from the sidelines.
Talk to the people also who used Twitter to share news and updates, to warn people that some areas were becoming unsafe, and then talk to the people who got together as a community to organise the great riot clean-up activity. Most important talk, and keep communications open, rather than shutting things down.
That would be more constructive than making noises about banning social networks and following the lead set by the Sun and the Daily Mail, which for the sake of good headlines blamed social networks for fuelling London’s riots.
The Mail was first to criticise the police for their response to the riots and then to take aim at social networks and Cameron, speaking to middle England, followed suit. Not quite leadership, more following. Apt for social media.
While it is in the best interests of social networks to quickly remove content that incites violence or other kind of unacceptable activity, such as racism, other than that I am not sure what more they can do.
You can talk about banning people who commit such activity, but Facebook has
never showed itself open to doing that and it is obviously very easy to set up new accounts.
Its disappointing to be in the UK in 2011 and to hear talk about banning social networks. You can no more ban them than you can ban the media. Who would ever suggest such an idea. It would, of course, be the worse kind of censorship straight out of Uncle Joe’s Soviet media playbook. The Daily Mail would literally wet its bloomers with outrage.
But if you looked at the coverage you could easily argue that the national media did as much to encourage the riots as social media. The Daily Mail and other papers revelled in posting riot images.
It was riot porn that turned the pictures of those young male rioters into iconic poster boy images: brands, flames and bandanna’s. They were the rock stars of a week of unrest.
Sure close Blackberry Messenger for a week, but hands off Twitter and Facebook. Rightly Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry are refusing to restrict their systems.
It is worth checking out The Guardian interactive Twitter graphic. It has compiled a database of more than 2.5m tweets related to the riots, showing that the majority of surging social media traffic occurred after the first verified reports of incidents in an area:
All Comments
I quite agree – would shutting down Twitter and Facebook have stopped the rioting? Absolutely not. The aftermath of the riots was the perfect example of how social media can be used positively, with a surge of support for clean up operations (@riotcleanup) and the naming and shaming of those morons involved by the police (@gmpolice). As a Croydon resident I was particularly close to the ‘action’ and wrote a blog shortly after the worst of it died down (http://bit.ly/nhpIT2) and the surge of support, retweets and facebook ‘likes’ I had following posting it was heartwarming. Social media, whether used positively or negatively, is here to stay so we might as well embrace it, and tackle the bigger problem of what’s really at the core of the riots.
People need to stop blaming the tools and start taking responsibility for their actions..social media is here to stay and as Lucy has just said,did an awful lot to help the police, bring the criminals to justice and helped with the clean up campaign…
the only countries that have media blackouts are usually dictatorships.. and surely we dont want to be in one of those…
Mark Shaw
Yes Lucy is spot on. Social media proved to be a real boon for the police as images of rioters were shared. And importantly they could use it to dispel some of the false rumours (and there were many) that were circulating.
I agree with all previous posters – to blame social networking is ludicrous. The only thing responsible for riots are people, nothing else.
And people will use whatever tools are to hand, from Twitter to word-of-mouth, telephone to colour-coded flags and waved torches.
These things are all simply tools of communication that can be used by people both for better and for worse.
Riots have been happening since before Brutus killed Julius Caesar, and to much greater, and far more lethal, effect than what happened this month.
Lynn makes a good point, riots are as old as people. The government’s approach really is taking a hammer to the problem. If they happen again, banning social networks will not have an impact. Effective policing on the other hand will. The riots didn’t get out of control because of social media they got out of control as police from the first night went into containment mode. They formed lines and in front of those lines people looted and owned the streets.
It is rather too easy James to blame the police, but you’re right essentially banning social media would have no impact. Although worryingly (bizarrely even) i saw research that said a lot of people were in favour of such a move. Rather like a lot of people want tough sentences for all no matter what the offence. Like you said, blunt instrument.
My question is where would this end? Do we shut down television broadcasts? Email Servers? Close newspapers? The fact is pretty much every media reported on this incident, whether it was Twitter, BBC News, the local newspaper or even people through word of mouth. You can’t possibly shut down everything, so putting a blackout on social media will in essence achieve nothing. Is social media really that powerful compared to other forms of media in the eyes of the Government? or is it just something they don’t know how to deal with or engage in effectively…