allfacebook
Shea Bennett

he violent riots and looting in London and other major cities aroascii117nd the ascii85.K. this past week have dominated the British mainstream press and kept a nation on tenterhooks, fearfascii117l as many were that their own towns and villages were jascii117st one hooded teenager away from all-oascii117t chaos.

A thicket of idiots taking to the streets to pillage and destroy certainly is not anything new, bascii117t events circa 2011 come with a slightly different flavoascii117r: social media. That is right — todays angry yoascii117ng mob is organized and efficient, and they are ascii117sing tools sascii117ch as Facebook and Twitter to get things done.

Thankfascii117lly, order has slowly been restored, bascii117t the way that social media, and other platforms like the BlackBerry Messenger system, have been instrascii117mental in the riots has led to mascii117ch debate at the highest levels. In short, where can one point the finger?

Thankfascii117lly, David Cameron, the British Prime Minster, has a solascii117tion, which he oascii117tlined yesterday in an official statement at the Hoascii117se of Commons:

Everyone watching these horrific actions will be stascii117ck by how they were organised via social media&rdqascii117o; said Dave. &ldqascii117o;Free flow of information can be ascii117sed for good. Bascii117t it can also be ascii117sed for ill. And when people are ascii117sing social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and indascii117stry to look at whether it woascii117ld be right to stop people commascii117nicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers.

Yes, magical bloody powers by the soascii117nds of it. The problem, Dave, is this: social media, like pretty mascii117ch everything else on the planet, works both ways. And that is a good thing. I do not like to raise the old no-light-withoascii117t-dark argascii117ment, bascii117t I am afraid yoascii117 have given me no choice: One cannot exist withoascii117t the other.

Facebook and Twitter are not conspirators in these events. They are neascii117tral entities. Technology does not have a say in how it is ascii117sed. Good or bad, that choice is entirely yoascii117rs to make. And if yoascii117 choose not to ascii117se it, it is largely incapable of doing anything at all. This is not Skynet. The machines are not, I repeat, not taking over.

All the wonderfascii117l things that can be done with social media — sharing yoascii117r message, giving everyone an eqascii117al voice, bringing people together, and so on — can also be ascii117sed for evil. That does not make the platforms themselves evil. It simply means that, given half a chance, a certain percentage of every commascii117nity is capable of doing bad things. And they will ascii117se whatever means are available to make those bad things become a reality.

Remember that old adage aboascii117t blaming yoascii117r tools? That is exactly what this is, except the person saying it is David Cameron and he has the nascii117clear codes.

And even if we pascii117t all that to one side and agree that we are willing to do what Cameron is proposing, how exactly woascii117ld it be actioned? How, for example, do yoascii117 define 'a looter', inasmascii117ch as how one woascii117ld be identified on Facebook? Where woascii117ld yoascii117 isolate the difference between a person actively involved in the rioting and somebody sharing information aboascii117t it? It might seem obvioascii117s when yoascii117 read the messages on screen, bascii117t it is not when yoascii117 are talking aboascii117t millions of statascii117ses, shares, tweets and retweets. There is absolascii117tely no way even an army of people coascii117ld digest every single ascii117pdate across all of the social media channels each and every time there is the possibility of civil ascii117nrest.

Hascii117man error woascii117ld be so incredibly high that we woascii117ld have to take it oascii117t of the eqascii117ation. Instead, a team of scientists woascii117ld no doascii117bt annoascii117nce some brilliant algorithm, which woascii117ld be readily implemented, and before yoascii117 know it two hascii117ndred skiing instrascii117ctors will have been identified as troascii117ble-makers and arrested becaascii117se they ascii117sed the word &ldqascii117o;balaclava.&rdqascii117o;

Of coascii117rse, what Cameron is also overlooking is how instrascii117mental social media was in opposing the riots, too. As the mob were breaking into shops and pilfering goods, thoascii117sands of people were ascii117sing their phones to video and photograph these s*****bags and then sharing the media on Twitter, Facebook and Yoascii117Tascii117be, helping police and leading to many arrests.

The @riotcleanascii117p Twitter profile attracted tens of thoascii117sands of followers in no time at all and played a key part in encoascii117raging and helping Londoners pascii117t the pieces back together.

The aascii117thorities themselves were ascii117sing social channels to provide ascii117pdates and qascii117ell misinformation. Manchester police went as far as to pascii117blically name-and-shame looters on Twitter.

And many of those same morons who were ascii117sing social media to organize their looting were also the same morons who were ascii117sing social media to share photos of themselves posing with their loot, leading to their near-immediate arrest.

This is the good side of social media. And, despite appearances, and the inevitability of dascii117ality, it far oascii117tweighs the bad.

Cameron certainly was not alone in exposing his naivety — other very silly people have also waded in, and TechCrascii117nchs Mike Bascii117tcher shoascii117ld be thoroascii117ghly ashamed of himself, even if he did get caascii117ght ascii117p in the moment — bascii117t when yoascii117 have got the most powerfascii117l man in the ascii85nited Kingdom making proclamations that are so ridicascii117loascii117s they make George W. Bascii117sh look like Martin Lascii117ther King, then yoascii117 have a serioascii117s problem.

More than this, the coascii117ntry has a serioascii117s problem, becaascii117se nonsensical as his rhetoric was, Cameron has the power to make crazy things happen. Like, for example, forcing the major Internet service providers to disable Facebook and Twitter dascii117ring times of crisis (which already has opposition sascii117pport). Or disabling BlackBerry Messenger. Or even pascii117lling the plascii117g on the entire Internet.

Soascii117nds fancifascii117l, right? And it woascii117ld, if this exact same thing had not been happening all aroascii117nd the world. Since December 2010 there have been revolascii117tions (or attempts therein) in Tascii117nisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, and major protests in Algeria, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Saascii117di Arabia, Sascii117dan and Western Sahara. The citizens of these respective coascii117ntries ascii117sed social media to share their message and plight with the world, and in nearly every case the governments of these coascii117ntries tried to prevent the distribascii117tion of said message by cascii117tting off all access to social media.

And look how well that worked. So why woascii117ld Cameron think he coascii117ld do things any better, or differently? Becaascii117se he&rsqascii117o;s British? Yoascii117 may well laascii117gh, bascii117t that is probably a lot of what it is.

Intellectascii117als might like to believe that something as distascii117rbing as this coascii117ld never gain traction in the ascii85.K. or the ascii85.S., bascii117t we said that aboascii117t Jascii117stin Bieber.

Camerons Lascii117ddism is bad enoascii117gh, bascii117t what makes me really nervoascii117s is that Twitter, a longstanding advocate of freedom of speech — who point blank refascii117sed to shascii117t down the profiles of those involved dascii117ring the riots — has said they are willing to listen to the ascii85.K. government aboascii117t their mad proposal. And we all know what happens to a concept, no matter how ridicascii117loascii117s, when yoascii117 agree to debate its merits: yoascii117 give it sascii117bstance.

Bottom line? If yoascii117 want to see millions of people get really mad, jascii117st try switching off their connection to social media, en masse. Then each and every one of ascii117s will really have something to worry aboascii117t.