Recently news from the United Kingdom has focused on the violent rioting on the streets, with hooligans smashing and looting shops and clashing with police. When I saw the images, I was shocked by how such a modern city spiraled out of control. The violence erupted after London’s Tottenham district police shot and killed a man without a reasonable explanation. Youth’s then vented their pent up frustration over society, such as finding it difficult to get into university or find a job. This has led Prime Minister, David Cameron to call into question the role of social media such as Facebook and Twitter in assisting such violent and organized outbreaks.

CNN news reported that,  President David Cameron said “Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media…Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them.” Now government officials are working with authorities to investigate whether it would be better to stop people communicating via social media when they “know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Of course, social media supporters have lashed out at the idea of blocking social media to any degree, as it denies the basic human right of freedom of speech and degrades democracy. Others have argued that Twitter and Facebook have been used for good to organize clean up efforts and call for peace.

For a long time, internet censorship has been the core of heated debates in China. It’s a complicated and tricky issue. Most Westerners who come to China, and are used to total access to social media back home, are shocked and confused by why the Chinese government blocks social media. For people, it impacts daily communication. For companies, it impacts their very existence. We all know the tenuous relationship between Google and the Chinese government.

But when even the most democratic government in the world, UK, is considering banning or imposing controls on social media, it starts to give interesting perspective on whether the Chinese government as a communist government had reasonable grounds to block foreign social networks in China. There are a number of suspected reasons for this, ranging from domestic economic protection to social security protection.

But if you live in China, you would know that social media, at least Chinese owned and operated social networks like RenRen or Weibo are not blocked at all. In fact, the exponential growth of mobile and internet users has triggered the boom in social networking. Instead, content is tightly controlled by teams who deem things appropriate or not.

I think social media networks should take responsibility for immediately removing any content that is clearly used to organize violent group activities before things spin out of control. I think it’s an invasion of privacy to pre-empt and monitor everything that is being written but at the least, social media companies can delete violent organization as soon as it is created. How they do this, is a different issue.  Of course this is over-simplifying the situation and solution but there has to be balance between allowing people to communicate openly without compromising the general safety of the community.

Guest Editor

TechNode Guest Editors represent the best our community has to offer: insight and perspective on how technology is affecting business and culture in China

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

  1. Blocking social media is wrong on so many levels. How does a social media network control content and remove it in time. By the time you deem data dangerous, it would have already spread. Besides the reason for the spread is also because of the multitude of  mediums devices support.

    A Blackberry for example can tweet, post to Facebook, email, sms, bbm, etc. A block on social media would legitimize this ‘protest’ and make it a real political movement.
    David, tread carefully.

  2. Blocking social media is wrong on so many levels. How does a social media network control content and remove it in time. By the time you deem data dangerous, it would have already spread. Besides the reason for the spread is also because of the multitude of  mediums devices support.

    A Blackberry for example can tweet, post to Facebook, email, sms, bbm, etc. A block on social media would legitimize this ‘protest’ and make it a real political movement.
    David, tread carefully.

  3. What is consistently understated is the fact that the violence started without the assistance of social media. The violence intensified when social media feeds incited more rage with images, video, etc. The government(s) are attempting to “frame” Internet social media for state-driven societal problems. — John Strubel

  4. David Cameron never proposed a ban on social media. He suggested that the services be monitored and violent speech somehow suppressed. Unfortunately, this is coming close to emulating a certain part of Chinese internet regulations.

    That said, the UK is already well known for its powerful nanny state. It may be democratic, but things like ASBOs and the world’s most extensive CCTV surveillance network sully the nation’s liberal reputation.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.