Social networking - a necessary evil?

BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

With yesterday's use of social networking being cycnically used to spread someone's extreme views in the most extreme and lurid way, how do we / is it even possible to curtail technology without wrecking civil liberties?

«1

Comments

  • Did I miss something? Has DF3 been back on here?

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭

    I don't use social networking much, so I don't know what you're referring to!

  • are you referring to the Woolwich murder yesterday?

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

    Yes I am - the way in which the witnesses were encouraged to film and spread the word

  • Barkles wrote (see)

    With yesterday's use of social networking being cycnically used to spread someone's extreme views in the most extreme and lurid way, how do we / is it even possible to curtail technology without wrecking civil liberties?

     

    No - you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

  • Now that this technology has been given to the public, and bearing in mind the morbid curiosity humankind has with tragedies and gore, I think the answer is no, it will be very hard/impossible to curtail now.

    What also doesn't help is the publicity that these two guys wanted, was given to them not only by the witnesses, but by the media as well.

    The whole technology and system gives terrorists the perfect way to get the publicity they want. They know that in this country, something like this will be splashed out all over the news, whereas if this had happened in Afghanistan, Syria or somewhere else, this wouldn't have had anywhere near the same publicity/reaction/anger

  • The only debate is how far mainstream media shoud go in an effort to "keep up" with social media.

    There is a debate on the Guardian website at the moment on whether it (and other newspapers)  was right to publish photos of the suspect with the meat cleaver.

  • PhilPubPhilPub ✭✭✭
    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    The only debate is how far mainstream media shoud go in an effort to "keep up" with social media.

     

    This is a good point.  I think we were discussing this during the Boston Marathon bombings; "news" reports are suddenly transformed from editorially succinct periodic updates with summaries about what has recently happened, into 24/7 media reporting commentaries, inevitably and rather clumsily mixing up reportage, actual news, masses of speculation, desperate time-filling with reporters stating the bloody obvious, big fat slices of voyeurism and the occasional factual update.  I suppose editors of commercial news stations will be happy with the ratings because they know people love a bit of rubber-necking at car crashes, but it does turn supposed quality news broadcasts into twitter with pictures, IMO.

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

    The public certainly has an appetite for up-to-the-minute images, but yesterday's was at a whole new level.

     

    The fact that the perpetrators were actively encouraging it just seemed to make the whole thing worse.

  • I've not seen a great deal about the murder on Facebook and I don't do twitter, obviously we are discussing it here, but most of my information has come from the mainstream media.  I think an event like this would always be reported adn would always attract attention.

    Are you suggesting some kind of repeat of the banning of Sin Fein politicians from broadcast in the 80s, which led to the rther comical dubbing of their speeches by actors?

    The main difference these days is that everyone has a video camera in there pockets, so reasonable quality footage is easily available adn quickly distributed.

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

    I'm not suggesting a banning order, but do feel that the way the social media was used yesterday, along with the broadcasting of the footage of a murderer covered in blood, holding the cleaver has taken things to a whole new level.

  • This is the thing isn't it - how far do you go before something becomes censorship? Or is it more important that 7 year olds don't see stuff like this on the front of newspapers when they go in to buy sweets?

    It's difficult. I don't know what the answer is.

  • Yesterday, I saw a few tweets from the police asking people to avoid speculating on the incident until facts had been confirmed. Obviously, it didn't have much impact.

    PhilPub wrote (see)
    Screamapillar wrote (see)

    The only debate is how far mainstream media shoud go in an effort to "keep up" with social media.

     

    This is a good point.  I think we were discussing this during the Boston Marathon bombings; "news" reports are suddenly transformed from editorially succinct periodic updates with summaries about what has recently happened, into 24/7 media reporting commentaries, inevitably and rather clumsily mixing up reportage, actual news, masses of speculation, desperate time-filling with reporters stating the bloody obvious, big fat slices of voyeurism and the occasional factual update.  I suppose editors of commercial news stations will be happy with the ratings because they know people love a bit of rubber-necking at car crashes, but it does turn supposed quality news broadcasts into twitter with pictures, IMO.

    Phil, that sounds like every single Fox News broadcast ever image

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Media news. Just another facet of the entertainment industry.

    🙂

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭
  • Was this a question in one of your exam papers, Barkles?

     

    what's the model answer?

  • BarklesBarkles ✭✭✭

    No model answer, sadly.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Thought the post was going to be about whether or not you had to be on Facebook, Twitter or something similar.

    No-one bothers with this stuff in our house, not even the 16 year; the only lad his age who declares he has no use of a phone, especially as there's 'A' levels to be worked on.

    Its like living with Adrian Mole sometimes.

    As a side issue. What would losing your iphones be like? would it be for some of you a bit like losing the use of, hmm, everything?

    🙂

  • SuperCazSuperCaz ✭✭✭

    I've heard a lot of other people complaining about the footage available on FB and the bigoted opinions of some of their friends.  However, I've not seen a single status that reflects either of these.  Maybe thats because I already have a form of censorship on FB.  Its called defriending anyone that I don't want to associate with.  It works quite well.

    Shame I can't do the same with some of the morons I work with

  • I can't lose my iPhone as I have a blackberry from work. It's shit so I've never got used to having an actually smart smartphone.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Sat opposite a guy who had three blackberries on the go at once. The explanation was that one was for work, one for family and the other was for, er, other things.

    He seemed distracted. 

    🙂

  • Yeah, me too, this explains how I had no idea what the OP was about.

    I don't think social media is any worse than the media media.

  • MuttleyMuttley ✭✭✭

    But social media is not media. It's having a chat and a laugh with your mates and family but in electronic form. The real "meejah" is a very different thing.

  • Is it though Muttley? News events are increasingly being recorded and posted by private individuals.

    The evidence seems to be that there's now a large area of crossover.

    Look at the plane engine fire today. The only piece of footage was recorded by a member of the public from a car.

  • WilkieWilkie ✭✭✭
    RicF wrote (see)

    ...

    As a side issue. What would losing your iphones be like? would it be for some of you a bit like losing the use of, hmm, everything?

    I don't have an iphone (or similar).  I just have an old-fashioned mobile phone which does calls and texts!

Sign In or Register to comment.