Many are beginning to question whether social media is good or bad in the event of a riot. Some people argue that social media is what fuels the riots. The riots that accrued last August in England are a great example. The riots began in London and spread rapidly into other cities including Manchester and Birmingham. Blackberry messenger was the primary source of social media used to spread the rioting along with social media sites such as facebook and twitter. Many locals that were interviewed all concluded that social media, epically Blackberry messenger, were to blame. On the other hand, many believed that social media may have helped during the riots. Police officers said that monitoring the rioting allowed them to track and prevent the spread. Many locals agreed that social media gave them fair warning of the rioting which allowed people to find safety in what appeared to be a warzone. The question raised is whether social media should be blocked or shut down in rioting situations. There are two opposing sides that both raise good points. I personally think it would be wrong to shut down these networks because in a time of crises one would need to have contact with family and friends. I do think that televised news reporting should be clear, accurate, and not misconstrue the situation to local viewers.
I agree with you in that I think the social media is partially to blame for the continuation and spreading of riots because without it, word would definitely not spread as fast.
ReplyDeleteI never actually thought about this before and it does raise a good point and you discussed both sides of it well. Without it, it would be diffucult for the cops and law enforcement to stop it as well if there was no social media writing about it. Therefore, I have to agree with you that it should not be shut down
ReplyDelete