Social media and social disorder

[Rum]

There seems to be a growing discussion about the simple, practical consequences of social media, 'one to many' texting as per Blackerry's system and so on, not just in connection with the UK's recent riots but elsewhere too (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14509831). The new media, it seems, enables very anti-social behaviour and anti-social individuals to crystallise, as it were, congregate in one spot and create mayhem. This is a totally new phenomenon and could not have happened prior to the internet era in anything like the same way.

The UK government is looking at this phenomena apparently. Would control of it simply be a curtailment of personal freedom and liberty or a justifiable brake on easy ways for anarchy to explode out of nowhere?

[Berthold]

Remember the (approx.) 1500s when the printing press made its impact?

[Rum]

Remember the (approx.) 1500s when the printing press made its impact?

Yes of course. I was in my teens.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Hm. Thread reported as being in the wrong forum.

Question is, where does it belong? Here? General Discussion/Philosophy? News & Current Events?

One of those topics that fits in lots of places. I think I'll wait and see how it pans out before moving it!

[Rum]

Hm. Thread reported as being in the wrong forum.

Question is, where does it belong? Here? General Discussion/Philosophy? News & Current Events?

One of those topics that fits in lots of places. I think I'll wait and see how it pans out before moving it!

I struggled with this taxing issue last night. I was a bit pissed too, which didn't help. Took me a lot of corrections ...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

On the OP, one thing I hard on the radio yesterday was that the liberals were against some of the more hard-line government responses to the riots - curbs on twitter/blackberries/etc. included - how apocryphal this is, I don't know.

[PsychoSerenity]

There seems to be a growing discussion about the simple, practical consequences of social media, 'one to many' texting as per Blackerry's system and so on, not just in connection with the UK's recent riots but elsewhere too (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14509831). The new media, it seems, enables very anti-social behaviour and anti-social individuals to crystallise, as it were, congregate in one spot and create mayhem. This is a totally new phenomenon and could not have happened prior to the internet era in anything like the same way.

The UK government is looking at this phenomena apparently. Would control of it simply be a curtailment of personal freedom and liberty or a justifiable brake on easy ways for anarchy to explode out of nowhere?

All the new media has done is give a voice to people who have never before had one. Society now needs to adjust to the fact that these people exist and can finally stand up for themselves, - then the problems can be resolved.

[Rum]

There seems to be a growing discussion about the simple, practical consequences of social media, 'one to many' texting as per Blackerry's system and so on, not just in connection with the UK's recent riots but elsewhere too (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14509831). The new media, it seems, enables very anti-social behaviour and anti-social individuals to crystallise, as it were, congregate in one spot and create mayhem. This is a totally new phenomenon and could not have happened prior to the internet era in anything like the same way.

The UK government is looking at this phenomena apparently. Would control of it simply be a curtailment of personal freedom and liberty or a justifiable brake on easy ways for anarchy to explode out of nowhere?

All the new media has done is give a voice to people who have never before had one. Society now needs to adjust to the fact that these people exist and can finally stand up for themselves, - then the problems can be resolved.

But let's take an extreme example. Say a bunch of paedophiles with Blackberries identified a potential victim..

I need say no more need I?

[PsychoSerenity]

There seems to be a growing discussion about the simple, practical consequences of social media, 'one to many' texting as per Blackerry's system and so on, not just in connection with the UK's recent riots but elsewhere too (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14509831). The new media, it seems, enables very anti-social behaviour and anti-social individuals to crystallise, as it were, congregate in one spot and create mayhem. This is a totally new phenomenon and could not have happened prior to the internet era in anything like the same way.

The UK government is looking at this phenomena apparently. Would control of it simply be a curtailment of personal freedom and liberty or a justifiable brake on easy ways for anarchy to explode out of nowhere?

All the new media has done is give a voice to people who have never before had one. Society now needs to adjust to the fact that these people exist and can finally stand up for themselves, - then the problems can be resolved.

But let's take an extreme example. Say a bunch of paedophiles with Blackberries identified a potential victim..

I need say no more need I?

I'm not sure I understand your scenario as to how the Blackberries make it any worse that it already would be - but either way I think my point still stands. Let's take a truly extreme example. Say Blackberries somehow make it possible for the small minority of paedophiles to rape half the children in the country, almost completely undetected. Society needs to accept that these people exist, and that they are human, which apart from anything makes them rather cunning adversaries - any attempt to thwart them and they will likely find a way around it. They already exist. And right now there are probably children being raped. Rather than condemning and casting out the few that get caught, a better solution would be to understand their situation and encourage them to get help so they don't want to go about raping children in the first place.

[Atheist-Lite]

Chemical castration might work better than group therapy?

[apophenia]

I would suggest this belongs in News, Current Events & Politics, as it seems to involve all three.

I too wonder what adding blackberries to a gang of child rapers adds to the scenario. However, perhaps I don't have to do so.

Many times in the past, governments and strong political forces have both used and suppressed social media technology to further their aims. Whether it's burning books, destroying printing presses or blocking access to google, the goal is the same, to stifle divergent viewpoints. But there's a fine line here. In the United States, post-9/11 all sorts of "information freedoms" were attacked, including wanting libraries to turn over records of what books patrons borrowed -- all ostensibly to make people safer from terrorists. There still is, IIRC, a US law which permits wire taps on domestic persons suspected of trafficking with international terrorists without a warrant -- under the rationale that it isn't the US citizen whose liberties are violated and the other party has no rights. Terrorism, defined as the use of fear and terror to gain political influence beyond that justified by a constituency's body count, is frequently used as justification for depriving all of liberties. I would quote Franklin here, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's a well known fact that the rise of the internet has given birth to or enabled a range of crimes, including making the activity of pedophiles trafficking in child pornography both more prevalent, and safer; no doubt more children are being violated more often as a result. Do we then regulate the internet? What crime is sufficiently horrid that it warrants depriving the masses of a greater good? What happens when the protesters get wise and don't advertise the specific location in advance -- say, announcing "somewhere in south London on Tuesday" -- do we shut down all phone and wifi access in south London for a day?

I'm reminded of both "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt" and "Your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins." But what do we do when thought technologies are used for both good and ill? I'm not sure, but I lean in the direction of both Franklin and the maxim that, "The remedy for bad speech is more speech." Taking social networking tools out of the hands of people we disagree with, and out of the hands of those who engage in peaceful or violent protest, to me, is more the act of a PRC or North Korea, than the act of a freedom loving European or American democracy.

This goes nowhere in particular, but it occurred to me as I was lying in bed this morning that there is one, perhaps two, values which no political philosophy I know (understand perhaps?) compromises on. One is conformity -- even in an anarchist state, there is no room for the individual(s) who want to set up a totalitarian dictatorship within the realm of anarchy. Not being a well read anarchist though, I'm ready to be corrected. Tolerance is another funny lopsided value -- we can tolerate anything, except intolerance. Don't know yet what this means though; political philosophy is not exactly my bailiwick.

[Animavore]

I'm not sure what controls they expect to put on it. Are we going to put people through rigorous checks and questionnaires to make sure they follow the status quo and vote for the right parties? Or do they want to limit how many people you can text at a time? Sounds unworkable to me. Y'know in China groups aren't even allowed congregate. If you have too many people over at your house you may have the cops around. Putting checks or limits on this is the digital version of that.
Against.

[Atheist-Lite]

A big picture of a burly copper pointing a finger, alongside a simple 'alert authorities' number, should have some pyschological effect if made to be obligotory on mobile devices? Isn't necessary to have a real system when a cardboard replica will be cheaper and just as deterring?

[Rum]

I'm not sure what controls they expect to put on it. Are we going to put people through rigorous checks and questionnaires to make sure they follow the status quo and vote for the right parties? Or do they want to limit how many people you can text at a time? Sounds unworkable to me. Y'know in China groups aren't even allowed congregate. If you have too many people over at your house you may have the cops around. Putting checks or limits on this is the digital version of that.
Against.

My understanding is that there is some consideration going on about the ability to disable servers if required.

Personally I think it is a terrible idea, but on the other hand our notions of free speech and expression very much come from a bygone era when it might well be OK to stand and rant and call a bunch of similarly minded fringe loonies (or rioters) from Hyde Park corner and get little result, whereas with interlocking overlapping text groups you can very quickly get a 'swarm'. The technology does make a difference.

[pcCoder]

If peer-to-peer mesh networking ever becomes a big/usable thing, with peer-to-peer tweeting, etc, simply disabling servers wouldn't have much use.