|
|
|
No matter how you dress it up, censoring social networks is tantamount to limiting free speech
David Cameron's suggestion that social media could be blocked to prevent further riots and looting sets a hugely dangerous precedent.
In February there was outrage when, in the face of growing protests, Libya blocked social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Egypt did the same a month earlier. In the UK, any move to disconnect suspected rioters would represent a huge shift in internet policy.
It seems that Cameron's government is desperately out of touch in its understanding of how social networks operate.
His somewhat trite assertion that the free flow of information can be used "for good" but also "for ill" is as worrying as it is obvious. But who can say what is "for good" and what is "for ill"? Who is the judge and who is the censor? The government? The telecoms companies? The social networks?
Furthermore, if Cameron sees it necessary to censor social networks, why should it stop there? If it is acceptable to control what people can say on Twitter and Facebook, why not apply the same rule to letters, phone calls and conversations in coffee shops.
In making such vague and limp assertions about things being 'bad' and other things being 'good', Cameron is starting down a very controversial path where someone, somewhere has to make a judgement on what we're allowed to say.
Cameron has already urged Twitter and Facebook to remove material that could incite violence. It seems like such requests are born out of fear and lack of understanding, rather than considered political thinking.
It would be all too easy for the government to be rash in the face of such despicable violence. For the sake of free speech, we should all hope that Cameron sees sense.
Feeling like a beginner again
While researching a news story I started up my copy of the Windows 8 Consumer Preview in a virtual computer....
Top 5 unexpectedly dangerous animals on Wikipedia
We know to avoid snakes, spiders and sharks but they're not the only members of the animal kingdom...
Adventures in 3D printing with the Sculpteo iPad app
How much would you pay for a miniature coffee cup with a profile picture of your face on it? What if...
Making the move from inkjet to laser
After nearly 11 years of faithful service, my HP 930cm inkjet printer finally couldn't take it any more...
by David Mitchell on Making the move from inkjet to laser
by Dev priya on Making the move from inkjet to laser
by michel on Making the move from inkjet to laser
by Lynnrose on Lots of online storage for Microsoft Skydrive
Deal with online bloopers
Protect your Apple Mac
Erase web-browsing history
Save up to 40% on the price
Exclusive subscriber website
Our price won't be beaten
Select committee will look at issues such as broadband demand in the UK
A technology for downloading files. Allows even very large files to be downloaded quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Computeractive Excel (2010) Online tutorialPrice: £19.99 |
Computeractive Word (2010) Online TutorialPrice: £19.99 |
Computeractive Powerpoint (2010) Online TutorialPrice: £19.99 |
Angry BirdsPrice: £9.99 |
Back Issue CD-Rom 14 (2011)Price: £15.99 |
Social Networking/David Cameron
Shutting down social networks did no good in Egypt and Libya to stop rioting, why would it work here. While i don't condone the outrageous actions of the rioters i do find it highly hypocritical of Cameron when not so long ago members of parliament were ripping off the tax payer with ludicrous and numerous expense claims ie: having homes decorated/upgraded, gardeners, landscape gardening, paying for non existent second homes, paying relatives, false pay claims etc etc. The list went on and on. Theft and robbery are the same whatever guise it comes. No, the government didn't riot on the streets, they were much more devious and secretive about their theft . . . It would be much more beneficial if Cameron and his cronies were to get down to these deprived sink estates to find out what social ills and grieviances there were that make the younger population feel they need to run riot, burn and loot . . Same old, same old - one law for one lot another law for the less privileged . . . thats what makes us all sick of the whole hypocrisy of what Cameron and Johnson are saying.
Posted by Anne Khan, 16 Aug 2011
Riots
Weren't riots happening before social media became advanced?
Posted by AM, 23 Aug 2011
Social riots
It's advanced social media that enables whole gangs to be instantly re-routed to a 'hot spot'. A telephone call just doesn't do it because, without 'advanced social media' the caller would be ignorant of where the 'hot spot' was. However did I manage to grow up without it?
Posted by S.R Norsworthy, 26 Aug 2011
Blocking social media
Though social networks are an instrument of free speech and many people would object to them effectively being 'switched off' at the Governments discretion, they must still operate within the law. Action can be taken against individuals or organisations making defamatory remarks or threats, so it seems ludicrous that the networks shouldn't be temporarily restricted to protect national security. After all, isn't law, order, property and life more important than knowing how many coffees Lisa in reading drank this morning?
Posted by Rich Jones, 30 Aug 2011
get it banned
Social network sites serve no good use, they are used by criminals to find out when people are away, I am personally aware of two suicides because ex partners have taunted the estranged pertners about there activities or that they can no longer see there children. what real good do they serve
Posted by Paul Marshall, 07 Sep 2011
Thin end of the wedge...
Cameron isn't after controlling social media - or JUST social media, anyway. Like his predecessors, of all parties, he's after controlling ALL our communications and information. The Press and Media in this country are already more or less on board. But the internet still worries Cameron as much as it worries every other wannabee dictator on this planet.
Posted by John, 11 Sep 2011