British Home Secretary Thereasa May met with social media industries Thursday about possibly banning people from social media during times of crises such as the riots in London. Those in England believe that sites like Twitter and Facebook are being used to plot acts of violence. Law enforcement officials became involved today as the Association of the Chief of Police sent a representative to today’s meeting, however, they declined to say what position they would take in the matter.
Nothing more needs to be said, but good luck! Possibly putting a ban on Twitter and Facebook during times of crises will not rest well with any individual. It has blown up the way we communicate and it has become dependent for most lifestyles. To put a ban on social media would be similar to banning the right to eat and drink. It is not something they or we would be able to do. Restriction is a better word for the issue. Restricting usage somehow would fit to be a better strategy and way to deal with the problem. Even if it were possible, is it ethical, morally right, or even lawfully sound to shut down social media?
In the United States it would be a no brainer. Freedom of Speech would abolish any sort of restriction or ban on any type of social media. If a ban or restriction does occur, look for commoners to be searching for any loophole in England’s constitution to overrule the matter. The amount of issues that may arise from the subject far outnumber the amount of good the ruling would provide. Instead of the government vs. the rioters it may ultimately become the government vs. all in England. This is something I’m sure the government officials talked about in today’s meeting about the possible ban.
The word restriction is very appropriately used concerning the media. People are connected immediately to breaking news and information through our digital world. However, not all of the posts on Twitter and Facebook are accurate. Neither are the television reports or newspapers. People want to know what has happened, but they want to know their information is accurate. This is quite a dilemma. Information is spread so quickly today that what happened 5 minutes ago is history-restrictions apply.
ReplyDeleteYou made a lot of great points. I think that you did a great job of showing that new new media is and should not be restricted by the government. I do feel that it is important to understand the power of new new media and the fact that is has lead to cyberbullying and other destructive problems. I also think that it is an incredible tool and can be used to spread information out in a short amount of time. I enjoy your work and keep it up.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way they could ever ban completely the use of these sites. There are just too many web gurus out there that would figure out another way to get the message out.
ReplyDeleteI do like the fact that you bring up the point of maybe restricting their posts. This would seem to make more sense, just not sure how that would work out.
Dillan,
ReplyDeleteIt's always fun to watch how other countries are adopting to the demands of social media. In America, we often feel like we are technologically advanced; of course, this is not true and this article is a great way to supplement that. If this "ban" were to take place in America, there would be instant riots. We live for Freedom of Speech. Can we assume other countries have that to fall back on? Social media probably does not play the same level of importance in other countries (England aside) and, therefore, cannot be held accountable during these troublesome times. I don't know. Maybe all the heads of state have a weekly Facebook Chat session.
Great post!