Friday 12 August 2011

Tweet Me Right

In typical knee-jerk fashion yesterday, David Cameron made the suggestion that BBM (Blackberry Messenger) and 'other social media' could, in future, be turned off in the event that services were being used to harm. Twitter is my drug of choice and I have given much thought to its role (and the role of similar instant messaging services) in the riots.

I acknowledge the role that it played in escalating the violence and focusing trouble. Throughout Tuesday there were mad rumours circulating. Some people claimed things were happening when they weren't and others said there was trouble in places where there was none. Social media undoubtedly made it easier for people who were up for it to know where to go thereby swelling the numbers of rioters, and social media also allowed the criminal element to communicate and organise. If Twitter, BBM and Facebook hadn't existed, would the riots have happened? Surely the answer is yes. Riots happened in the past, long before the invention of mobile phones, never mind internet and social media. If social media had not been available, the rioters would still have communicated, but it would have been word of mouth and by telephone, text message or email.

Furthermore, if it's important to recognise the role of social media in instigating and escalating the riots, it is also important to recognise the positive role it has played. For me, Twitter was something of a double-edged sword. On one hand it allowed me to keep up to date with what was going on but on the other hand knowing what was going on was frightening. I have wondered several times if I would have been better off without Twitter that night; if I hadn't seen the news and didn't monitor Twitter I would probably have been completely unaware of the scale of the violence. I follow a lot of local journalists and broadcasters on Twitter so I was getting a lot of updates and while the flow of information reassured me, it also worried me. On balance, however, I would much rather have information and be able to make a choice, than be cut off. In all likelihood, on Tuesday night, even without Twitter to keep me informed, I would still have been aware of what was going on and I can only imagine how much more terrifying that night would have been without a steady stream of updates.

In addition, we should also recognise how useful social media has been in the aftermath of the riots. The public clean up effort was organised almost entirely on social media. Over the past week, hundreds of people have turned up, broom and bin-bag in hand, to reclaim their media from the hoodlums and show how much they care about their cities. Let's also not forget how social media is now being use to catch the perpetrators. Greater Manchester Police have a constantly updated Flikr stream with photos of people wanted in connection with the riots and have actually been able to catch and charge people because of the information they have published on social media. Even Blackberry Messenger, which is an encrypted service, is considering handing-over details of those that have used the service to incite, organise or boast about rioting and looting. If social media had not been available during the riots, think of the wealth of evidence that would be lost to the police.

I do understand the argument that says shutting down social media would have made the task of containing and policing the situation much easier but it's a mistake to think that should take priority over the good that can come from social media and, I suspect, is a reaction based on a lack of understanding and perhaps even fear of something which is perceived by some as the province of youth. The fact is that millions of people of all ages use social media to communicate, debate and keep in touch. It is a tool and nothing more: A brick can be a lethal weapon but it doesn't stop us from building houses. Let us also be reminded about free speech. I for one do not want to start down the road that allows my government to control what I say, even via one forum. Who's to say that some time in the future a government wouldn't use these powers to stop a legitimate protest, or similar, because they simply didn't like it.

What we need now, instead of rash conclusions is a measured analysis. We need cool heads and clear thought and time to digest what has happened and we need to make sure that the steps we take now move us in the right direction, not towards a future more ominous than the present. If social media poses a problem to policing public order offenses, new tactics and new ideas are required, rather than the technological equivalent of a rubber bullet.

No comments: