On Thursday British PM David Cameron spoke about the role that social media has had in causing the UK riots. He essentially placed partial blame on these sites for enabling the organization of such violence, and in response, he says he is “considering a limit on social media use.”
This is disturbing:
Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised 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. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.
The entire transcript of this speech can be read here.
Sure, to some it may not sound like major infringement to identify and seek out those who are using social networks to plot violence. But once the power to “stop people communicating via these websites and services” has been deemed necessary and just, where does it end? Full permanent government regulation and monitoring of all social networks? Why not just tap suspicious phones and e-mail accounts while we’re at it to ensure there will be no plotting that way either? Oh yeah.
Just this year we have seen Egypt block social media to all of its citizens in an attempt to quell its own riots. How long until sites such as these are deemed too dangerous to exist at all? After all, governments can completely shut down social media websites to ensure there will never be any on-line coordination with malicious intent. Right, China?
Yes, the British government can attempt to stop certain people from communicating on social media. And maybe this will even temporarily disrupt an angry mob’s plan. But it’s a very slippery slope.
Besides, people have been capable of organizing massive riots and uprisings long before Facebook and Twitter.