In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

> 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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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?

See also MP Louise Mensch's twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/10175449570018508...

"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.

Wow, and that worked so well in North Africa!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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-... [2] http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337

Because nobody ever rioted before facebook.

Good luck enforcing that.

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.

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.

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

ored