Blog Entry: How the London riots showed us two sides of social networking
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/08/the-two-sides-of-social-networking-on-display-in-the-london-riots/
According to the blog entry about the role of social media on civil subjects, Peter Bright and many other politicians suggested that Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger, in particular, had a role to play in the violent riots that occurred in London in 2011.
The article also states that social networking mediums were responsible of publicizing the major events of the London riots in a chronological order. In social media, these updates were proceeded by thousands and thousands of people, and each post consisted of images and thorough descriptions.
HOWEVER, problems and issues might arise when one is not taking their 'morals' into consideration. For example, a few were apparently foolish enough to upload pictures of themselves posing proudly in front of their rioting accomplishments.
I don't know about you, but I would feel guilty taking a picture of those riot scenes, and I would feel even more guilty taking a picture of an officer in that situation! Bright described Twitter as being a tool of collective action.
IT IS TRUE; twitter did unite people of London together. But is this always a good thing? Mmmm....I'm not so positive on that one..
In London, police officers and government officials were blaming Twitter and other social networking websites at the peak period of protests and riots in the year of 2011. This is because countless organizers of protests used Twitter to formalize and promote their actions by using a simple #hashtag of some sort.
Some journalists say that Twitter and other social media like Facebook and Instagram created UNNECESSARY HYPE over this riot in London. I totally agree with this statement, because young people might misinterpret and view this entire occasion as a COOL THING TO DO and simply just as a TREND TO FOLLOW.
Although rioters continued tweeting, people slowly began to use BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) instead of iPhone messages or even Facebook messages. According to Bright, "the rioters appear to have been setting their BBM statuses to tell their friends that they were out looting, and messaging each other to decide the best places to attack."
The police officers also blame BBM for the London riots, because BBM is famous for providing a closed system for its users; BBM is entirely private. BBM messages were useful when deciding where and when to meet up for the riot. However, because BBM is entirely private, the police officers had less control over surveillance..
I strongly believe that TWITTER and BBM created these overly-reacted situations. I know for myself and understand that social networking is an integral part of our lives! But we should always remember that online activism (AKA slacktivism) is usually a RISK-TAKER. ONLINE relationships built within a community or a subject can greatly affect the NON-ONLINE society...
To sum everything up, Peter Bright made sure to mention and emphasize one fact: "Social networks are just a tool. Like any tool, some will us them for ill ends, but many others will put them to positive uses."
Our mode of communication is a tool; let us not misuse it!
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/08/the-two-sides-of-social-networking-on-display-in-the-london-riots/
According to the blog entry about the role of social media on civil subjects, Peter Bright and many other politicians suggested that Twitter and BlackBerry Messenger, in particular, had a role to play in the violent riots that occurred in London in 2011.
The article also states that social networking mediums were responsible of publicizing the major events of the London riots in a chronological order. In social media, these updates were proceeded by thousands and thousands of people, and each post consisted of images and thorough descriptions.
HOWEVER, problems and issues might arise when one is not taking their 'morals' into consideration. For example, a few were apparently foolish enough to upload pictures of themselves posing proudly in front of their rioting accomplishments.
Do you think it is morally correct to take out your phone and take a snapshot of a burnt vehicle, when everyone else is worried about the survival of the passenger?
Do you think you would feel no guilt doing this in front of an officer when there is a huge FIRE flaming behind him?!
I don't know about you, but I would feel guilty taking a picture of those riot scenes, and I would feel even more guilty taking a picture of an officer in that situation! Bright described Twitter as being a tool of collective action.
IT IS TRUE; twitter did unite people of London together. But is this always a good thing? Mmmm....I'm not so positive on that one..
In London, police officers and government officials were blaming Twitter and other social networking websites at the peak period of protests and riots in the year of 2011. This is because countless organizers of protests used Twitter to formalize and promote their actions by using a simple #hashtag of some sort.
Some journalists say that Twitter and other social media like Facebook and Instagram created UNNECESSARY HYPE over this riot in London. I totally agree with this statement, because young people might misinterpret and view this entire occasion as a COOL THING TO DO and simply just as a TREND TO FOLLOW.
Although rioters continued tweeting, people slowly began to use BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) instead of iPhone messages or even Facebook messages. According to Bright, "the rioters appear to have been setting their BBM statuses to tell their friends that they were out looting, and messaging each other to decide the best places to attack."
The police officers also blame BBM for the London riots, because BBM is famous for providing a closed system for its users; BBM is entirely private. BBM messages were useful when deciding where and when to meet up for the riot. However, because BBM is entirely private, the police officers had less control over surveillance..
I strongly believe that TWITTER and BBM created these overly-reacted situations. I know for myself and understand that social networking is an integral part of our lives! But we should always remember that online activism (AKA slacktivism) is usually a RISK-TAKER. ONLINE relationships built within a community or a subject can greatly affect the NON-ONLINE society...
To sum everything up, Peter Bright made sure to mention and emphasize one fact: "Social networks are just a tool. Like any tool, some will us them for ill ends, but many others will put them to positive uses."
Our mode of communication is a tool; let us not misuse it!
No comments:
Post a Comment