
In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban - ojbyrne
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/11/london.riots.social.media/index.html
======
zeteo
> when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them.

Is this the same Cameron who criticized Libya when they shut off the Internet
against what, in their view, were violent protesters?

~~~
sliverstorm
They seem like different issues. I don't think the Libyan protestors were
looting, burning, attacking & robbing bystanders... In other words, in Libya
they had protestors, in the UK they have rioters and mobs. I could have the
wrong impression; I live in neither Libya nor the UK.

There were also accusations that Libya shut off the internet to mask actions
of their armed forces against the protestors. Once again, seems like a
different beast.

~~~
doctoboggan
But the fear is that given that power, the government will be able to make
subjective calls on situations they deem important enough to intervene. There
is definitely a line between justified Libyan protests and the violent riots
here, but where does that line fall? Do you trust the government to make that
call today and (once it's law) forever into the future?

It's a tough question, I know I don't know the answer.

~~~
sliverstorm
Fear indeed! I am quite surprised at the vehemence with which my speculation
is being quashed.

------
Joakal
It's sad how the British government is responding compared to Norway.

Norway: First) Provides support to anyone who needs it. Problem) Mentally
unstable bomber/shooter. Solution) We'll continue supporting. Security will
get reviewed but not that necessary to implement new laws.

Britain: First) Cut back support for bringing up people. Problem) Surprised
people riot. Solution) Slam down authoritative fist. So far; 1) Increase
police from 20,000 to 26,000. 2) Consider restricting internet further (This).
They believe the cure is apparently better than the vaccine, better parenting
and government assistance.

~~~
jdminhbg
I don't think censoring social media is a good idea or even remotely helpful,
but these comparisons are beyond ridiculous. The Norwegian attacks were
carried out by one person who is already in custody. The British riots arise
out of amorphous groups of thousands of individuals who are still at large.
They're completely, utterly different.

~~~
Joakal
It wasn't a comparison of problems, it was a comparison of solutions to
serious problems.

Nurturing vs authoritarian.

~~~
jdminhbg
Different serious problems require different serious solutions. The comparison
to Norway isn't useful.

~~~
aik
I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought
experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a
situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and
add police, or look deeper to the root causes?

~~~
fourspace
It really isn't an interesting exercise. It's comparing one bombing by one
person to thousands of acts of vandalism and theft by thousands of people.

It's fairly self evident that "looking deeper into the root causes" is not
going to prevent rioters from destroying private property in the next 24
hours.

~~~
aik
Sorry let me clarify -- again I'm not focusing on the comparison of the two
acts. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in
this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally
there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look
at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I
find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often
enough.

Does this make more sense?

In addition, clearly "looking deeper" won't resolve anything on its own as I
feel you are suggesting -- what counts rather are the actions that could
result from gaining better understanding through the act of looking deeper.

------
csomar
If you have a good number of citizens that, when some instability happens,
goes to the street and fire cars, houses and rub shops, you have a much more
serious problem than 100million GBP in loses.

During the Tunisian revolution, the police was ordered to leave a 1 million
citizen city that I'm living in after a tough day where the ruling party
locals where burnt. Although without any security (and before people gather
and create groups for protection), the city was relatively stable.

There was theft, but theft existed before that day. Also there wasn't that
kind of violence in the thefts that happened. When I went to the center of the
city the day after that, I saw no signs that a private property was abused.

~~~
awakeasleep
I thought about this sort of thing. It almost seems like the underclasses in
Britain are less civilized than the people of the countries that have had
recent revolutions.

However, I also believe that the riots in Tunisia weren't limited to lower
class people, and maybe involving a larger section of society in them caused
them to be more civilized.

~~~
cormullion
Everyone is starting to generalize wildly about 'Britain'. London + Birmingham
is not the same as Britain. The problems of urban Britain are not the same as
the problems of Britons outside the major cities. London has 13% of the
population. As a member of the underclass in Britain, I resent being called
uncivilized. Well, I would if I didn't have a sense of humour.

Now, where's my nearest Apple store.

~~~
forensic
You write too well to be part of the underclass. The underclass is uneducated,
mentally ill, has limited access to social services.

The real underclass doesn't come to Hacker News; the real underclass typs lik
dis- u no- txt speak

~~~
cormullion
Oh, that underclass. Thought you meant the looters:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8696977/London-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8696977/London-
riots-Straight-A-student-Laura-Johnson-faces-being-thrown-out-of-
university.html)

But yes, I agree with you.

~~~
forensic
You missed this part: "One of her co-accused, Alexander Elliot-Joahill, is
from a deprived area of south-east London"

Also, anecdotes aren't data.

~~~
cormullion
I'm from Tottenham. It's not much better. But it was never an excuse.

------
Silhouette
I know half the Internet is going senationalist over this, but _please_ go and
actually watch the debate before the knee-jerking spoils this discussion as
well.

The tone of the debate was actually quite reasonable, and many MPs, including
the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry
affair.

Sadly, a lot of people are reading things into it that weren't actually said
and then turning them into senationalist headlines on sites like this where
the liberal crowd upvote them without bothering to check any facts.

~~~
_delirium
> liberal crowd

I think when it comes to free-speech, as opposed to things like taxation or
healthcare, there's not really a clear "liberal" contingent, just the
amorphous civil-liberties contingent. Includes many libertarians, liberals,
and anyone else who opposes the state exercising anything even remotely
approaching censorship, in any circumstance, whether it's against "nazis" or
"rioters" or "terrorists" or whomever else the emergency of the day is.

~~~
philwelch
Americans are somewhat unique among English speaking people for not
distinguishing between liberalism and leftism. Once you make that distinction,
the "amorphous civil-liberties contingent" is liberal by definition.

The culture of internet outrage that involves upvoting these things to the
roof _does_ get in the way of understanding and addressing the issue in a
reasonable fashion. I don't think it matters especially what specific
worldview someone has when they're in that mindset.

------
jwr
"free flow of information can sometimes be a problem" — I never thought I'd
hear these words from a British PM.

~~~
bradgessler
Yeah, wow, I'm dumbfounded.

If the British government follows through with this, the rioters will actually
have a new reason to riot: freedom of speech.

~~~
liedra
Not that I agree with the knee-jerk reaction put forward by Cameron, but
actually, _protesters_ will _protest_. There's a big difference between
rioting and protesting, and it's important to make that clear.

~~~
_delirium
By horse-charging and kettling peaceful protestors, the UK police have been
doing their best to blur the distinction, trying to meet every protest as if
it were a riot, and perhaps turn it into one.

~~~
liedra
That's a sweeping generalisation. I participated in the big march against cuts
and the police were very respectful and only moved to contain those who were
participating in violent behaviour (trashing shops, etc.). The vast majority
of protesters were peaceful, treated well, and not kettled or horse-charged -
a direct response to the previous condemnation of those sorts of tactics used
against the students in the previous marches.

~~~
Joakal
Look up agent provocateurs where both sides can be innocent but played against
each other.

~~~
liedra
I know what they are, but I don't think that any such thing justifies the
sweeping generalisation the previous commenter made. The police have been
employing a range of tactics, and some have worked better (in terms of public
opinion too) than others. Kettling, as far as I have seen since the public
outcry over its use in the student situation, has not been used against
_peaceful_ protesters since.

------
dendory
To us, Libya protesters are freedom fighters, to the Libian government they
are criminals.

No surprise that when the protests happen here, governments swap position
right away.

~~~
estel
This is a slightly tired and broadly awful analogy. The rioters this week
haven't shared the same motivations, determination or moral conviction of
"rebel" (but now recognised) Libyan Government. If I were Libyan, this
comparison would be frankly insulting.

~~~
zeteo
>The rioters this week haven't shared the same determination

Are you saying you'd have liked the rioters better if they didn't give up so
"quickly"?

~~~
anigbrowl
Misquoting to make your point is antithetical to honest debate. Flagged.

~~~
zeteo
What's the misquote? The parent makes three points ("motivations,
determination or moral conviction"), and the middle point is invalid.

~~~
Radix
I agree with Anigbrowl. The middle point doesn't stand alone and was not meant
to. You've gaken it out of contest which is disingenuous. Given your phrasing
he claimed with motivation and moral conviction, determination to achieve
their goal would have him liking the "rioters" more. Though rioters would
doubtfully be the correct word in that case.

------
techiferous
"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and
security,"

There is no other word for this than stupid. Free speech is not in opposition
to security. You can have free speech _and_ safety. Unless you're too stupid
to figure out how.

------
mrmaddog
I am firmly against blocking any communication tool on the internet, though I
am all for prosecuting those that incite violence and illegal activities
should they be dumb enough to use a website that can be linked back to them.

------
scrrr
Think about it. This makes sense.

People who are in power of course are threatened by new, fast ways to share
information just as much as established businesses are threatened by
ecommerce-sites like Amazon. This threat is real and the danger is justified.

Recent uprisings in Libya, Syria etc. put fear in the hearts of western
politicians, too. Rightfully so. The world must and will change as a
consequence. I think in more profound ways than we can predict yet.

Of course they don't react rationally because they don't understand it. They
also make the mistake that the voters actually would like a social media ban.
Of course they don't.

------
dmor
Maybe they should focus on enforcing the laws they have, not forming special
committees to write more. I have to believe it is against the terms of service
of all these apps to conspire to commit crimes or participate in criminal
activity using Twitter, Facebook, BBM, etc. Would they propose shutting down
telephones, text messaging, and all other forms of communication (snail mail,
singing clown telegrams, monkey butlers) which have been used for good and
evil since their existence?

~~~
mojuba
Just yesterday some commentator on Sky said it's the television to blame in
the first place, for spreading a message that looting gets away without
punishment. Internet and mobile communication came into play only after that.

------
andylei
i don't agree with Cameron, but CNN's headline is a bit sensationalist.

> "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these
> websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and
> criminality."

he's not saying facebook and twitter should be banned, just that it should be
monitored (and potentially block users). again, i disagree with Cameron, but
its hardly the same as a ban on social media.

~~~
mattdeboard
Monitoring is far worse than banning.

~~~
ig1
Twitter's a public medium, I don't really see how anyone could object to a
government monitoring it, given any individual could do the same thing.

~~~
abstractbill
Twitter has both public and private messages. If anyone is taking about
monitoring communications on it, I would assume they're talking about the
private ones.

~~~
ig1
Why would you assume that ? - a large amount of the "incitement" that took
place caused problems in a large part because it was public in a one-to-many
form.

~~~
mattdeboard
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where they said they would only monitor
Twitter? Or am I remembering correctly where they used the broad, sweeping
term "social networks", which would include Facebook, and I'm sure BBM chat.

Do you live in a fantastical world where governments pass very strictly
limited, narrowly defined laws that precisely target one specific problem?
Because here on earth the rule is overbroad laws made by ignorant legislators.

~~~
ig1
No, but the OP specifically mentioned twitter.

More generally I think we should wait until the government comes out with a
formal proposal rather than getting all hung up on a soundbite.

------
epaga
Best comment I saw regarding this was on Twitter: "Urban rioting existed
before SMS/social media. You know what didn't? Large-scale community cleanups,
spontaneously organized within hours."

------
petercooper
How did the riots spread to so many disparate areas? Copycat activity based on
seeing riots occur _on TV_. So, sure, turn off Twitter and Facebook for a
while, but be sure to turn off Sky News and BBC News at the same time, since
that's where people are seeing the most sensational videos that encourage
people to join in. Or.. perhaps just leave it as is, eh?

------
ck2
Makes about as much sense as groping millions of passengers before they fly
and take away their water bottles because a dozen people managed to take over
a plane.

------
rflrob
This is completely ignoring the potentially positive effects of social media
during the riots. @metpoliceuk was helpful in spreading news and tamping down
false rumors.

~~~
fexl
Or this: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14475741>

(twitter tag #riotcleanup)

------
linuxhansl
Right that's the solution.

When there's civil unrest, why try to fix the problem that caused it when you
can just stop people from organizing the unrest?

------
ximeng
See also MP Louise Mensch's twitter feed:

[https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/10175449570018508...](https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/101754495700185088)

"And really, stop w/ all the dramatics. Nobody is talking about "shutting down
Twitter". It's about listening to police & a couple hours off." amongst other
opinions.

------
Vivtek
Wow, and that worked so well in North Africa!

------
daveoh
OK lets look at the facts here. Blackberry phones have become widely used by
the urban poor because they are free on cheap tarrifs. BBM is essentially free
text messaging and so also widely used by the urban poor. Its should come as
no surprise that the riots were co-ordinated by BBM. Its just text messaging,
quick and easy. I find it hard to believe that the rioters running round
London was browsing facebook and twitter.

The comparison should not be made with social networking sites (which the term
social media is synonymous with), just because BBM uses the internet, rather
the comparison should be made with text messaging. I like how the term 'social
media' has been used here. What is social media? Anything that is used for
communication? So are we talking about controlling text messaging, phone
calls, email? Because to organise this amount of organised theft and vandalism
these avenues of communication are more likely to be the methods of choice.

------
Tichy
I think it is really people that is the problem. People should be banned.

------
msabalau
One might have hoped that a leader in a democratic society would have thought
carefully and fully before suggesting that a type of media be regulated or
restricted. It is sad that Cameron instead chooses to indulge in irresponsible
speculation about the value of such measures.

Indeed, it would seem that the spread of the rioting and looting can most
easily be explained by people watching television and seeing others get away
with such crimes.

------
GeneralMaximus
No no no. You're doing it wrong. What you need to do is ban socket() on all
computers everywhere. That's the only way to fix this problem.

------
dasil003
The mere suggestion of this is proof of how impotent the government really is.
How do they really think it would help? Shutting down this channel or that
channel is meaningless in the age of easy communication. Unless they shut off
the internet and cell phone networks entirely it will have little effect.
Pathetic really.

------
a3_nm
If this could encourage people in Britain to use alternatives to Facebook and
Twitter, then this could be a pretty good thing for the health of the social
media ecosystem.

------
xedarius
It's strange because this is not getting reported at all in the UK (and by the
UK on mean on the BBC).

------
alexholehouse
I implore everyone commenting here to;

a) Listen to the actual statement [1] (or even better debate) - DO NOT take
what CNN, Metro or anyone other news outlet says for granted. Journalists want
to sell newspapers/adspace, parliamentary debate is often not the most
glamorous thing in the world, so there is a certain need to spice things up.
Reporting can be factually accurate while remaining bias or even misleading.

b) Do _NOT_ draw unconditional comparison with incidents in Libya, Egypt or
Norway. It's ignorant and more than anything belittles events in those
countries.

c) Understand that the reporting of these riots by the international
community, or more importantly the profiling of those involved, has been
unreasonably flattering. The absolute majority of people in the UK have no
sympathy for these people. This is not a class, race or age issue. Clearly, I
cannot speak for all British citizens, but the only people I've seen with
anything complementary regarding those involved in the riots (and I say riots,
which are separate from the initial protests, which are a whole other kettle
of fish) are ill informed and closed minded. This is not an uprising of the
social underclass - it's rioting by a tiny fraction of people who have been
systematically failed by elements of multiple governments' social, economic
and education polices, but that does in no way give them to right to behave as
they have. Many thousands more are in the same situation and did not
participate, but rather displayed horror at the events.

This is not meant to be inflammatory - there are many problems which need to
be addressed, both in terms of policy, as well as the more worrying collapse
of morals and underlying social detritus which again is very much not a class,
race or age factor. These riots are symptomatic of that.

However, in no way did David Cameron (who is not my favourite person in the
world) propose an all out social media ban, and I feel that by omitting the
("... for rioters") in this title is somewhat misleading. The government will
discuss the situation with the companies at hand (initially RIM/Twitter and
Facebook), and if a workable solution presents itself, this will be debated in
parliament. David Cameron is not an expert on social media, but would you
expect him to be? That is the reason for these meetings. That is how democracy
works.

This is not a knee-jerk and blanket reaction (as seen in Egypt/Libya) but one
that will go through proper process. There is already an e-petition which has
attracted enough supports to force governmental debate on the subject of
removing benefits from rioters [2], a poorly thought out move in my opinion,
but one that will nevertheless be debated by parliament. People are angry, and
the government must respond to that without being too heavy handed. This is
not straightforward, but equally a lack of review regarding social media's
impact on the riots would be irresponsible.

d) (And not really relevant here at all, but it's been winding me right up)
BlackBerry is a brand of phone. RIM is the company that makes that phone.
Officials cannot talk to "BlackBerry", they talk to RIM - it's like saying
officials will talk to "BigMac".

[1] - [http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-
in-...](http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-england/)
[2] <http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337>

------
dkersten
Because nobody ever rioted before facebook.

~~~
rvschuilenburg
exactly. And after blocking it all down, the rioters will be all like "huh,
what now? Oh well, we better not start a riot then".

------
Havoc
Good luck enforcing that.

------
chailatte
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now,
orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on
their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of
conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to
meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the
truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the
freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and
systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your
submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly there are
those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but
again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into
a mirror.

~~~
josephcooney
I love that movie. I've watched it every 5th of November for about the last 5
years.

~~~
dublinclontarf
It really was the best Harry Potter.

------
m0wfo
What worries me as much as the double standard, i.e. scorning Iran, China etc
for their crackdown social networking sites is that the conservatives have the
unequivocal support of Labour on this issue.

Not only is there no criticism coming from the political left in the UK, but
their obsession with deploying intrusive computer systems during their
previous period in office suggests a power like this would have been enacted
far more quickly were they still in charge.

------
pointyhat
It won't make any difference. A lot of the rioters had PMRs as do the police.
Even ground.

------
Naga
ored

