The use of social media communications has been thrust into the minds of the general public of late. Civil unrest and the London Riots have seen social media take centre stage in political debate.
But what role did social media have to play in the riots? Should it be blamed? Can we regulate the use of social media and should we?
Popular news channels reported how the use of systems such as Blackberrys BBM (private messaging system) were instrumental in allowing the riots organisers to communicate away from prying eyes.
In contrast to BBM the use of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter provided the authorities with an information trail that led them to many individuals involved in the riots. If one thing can be said of social media systems, it is that they tie our information to our identity for years to come.
Roughly 175 million people use Twitter, while Facebook has a staggering 600 million users. Should the civil liberties (freedom to communicate) of the majority be belittled due to the actions of a minority? Or is action in-fact necessary to “protect” this majority during times of civil unrest?
When considering the role of the individual in the media the term “citizen journalist” springs to mind. The recent civil uprisings across North Africa are a prime example of this; it was impractical if not impossible for the powers at be to cut off completely the flow of information in and out of a country, due to citizen commentary facilitated by open networks of communication. This contributed to arguably positive social change? Would we have argued that we should cut off the use of social media in this instance?
Whatever ones opinion it makes one thing very clear; that the balance of power between the citizen and the state is in flux, creating a turbulent social landscape and fresh areas of debate.
On a practical level it is often difficult to legislate against the use of technology, due to the rapid pace at which it evolves. New methods and opportunities for communicating in open and convergent ways are constantly developing.
For the state to maintain order, at least in its current structure, it requires a level of control and regulation over the media. While regulating traditional media channels has been possible due to the centrality of such organisations; social media and other forms of open communication fragment the media landscape.
The negative sentiment generated around the subject of social media as a result of the riots has prompted scare mongering and popular reactions from politicians such as David Cameron. But are we considering the broader context of the issues? Or undergoing knee jerk reactions to events that as yet are not fully understood?