This morning, I opened the official fringe of Conservative Party conference: The Freedom Zone, hosted by the excellent Freedom Association.
On a panel with Mark Wallace, Sam Bowman, and Christian May, I spoke about the importance of a free social media - however bad the riots this summer may have been.
However bad the riots were, I am deeply uneasy about the Police restricting Blackberry messenger and other social media.
In August, the Government hinted that they would “look to ban people from major social networks” if they were suspected of inciting violence online. They were under immense pressure to do this. But it is a slippery slope. In fact, Chinese state media welcomed the news, and agreed that censoring the Internet was a “positive new attitude” that would “help appease quarrels between East and West”. Interestingly, Mubarak’s last tactic in the Arab Spring was to shut down the Egyptian Internet; the Syrian Government is currently doing the same, as it tries to choke off any news that is hostile to Bashar al-Assad; and Robert Mugabe is trying to ban Blackberries from Zimbabwe.
Fundamentally, I believe in a free Social Media, because...
- Social media is a measure of our freedom. Just as The Economist uses the price of a MacDonald Big Mac to measure a country's prosperity, so too, the level of a country's democracy could be determined by the level of its Blackberry usage. During the Arab Spring, one of the first actions by Middle Eastern autocracies was to ban Blackberries, because the regimes could not access user's details such as messaging and other data.
- We can be tough on crime, without being totalitarian. Now before I go on, I just want to say that I am no namby pamby on recent events. I favour the toughest measures possible (whether it be plastic bullets, water cannon or whatever) and the harshest punishments possible, in order to ensure that we never see a repeat of the riots. But, I feel deeply uneasy about 'the Government' or 'the authorities' regulating, restricting - in effect controlling - the use of social media or the use of Blackberries - both on grounds of political precedent and on practicality.
- We should be worried about the ratchet effect. Let's look at political precedent first: the problem with every curtailment of liberty - however noble the intention - it always has a ratchet effect. Once you start restricting the Internet in this way, it becomes so much easier to restrict it for other reasons. We may have a benign government now, but a future government might seek to use these powers to restrict social media on simple grounds of legitimate criticism. You might think that such a course of action is far-fetched - and you may be right - but the problem is that any curtailment opens the door to further infringement. As the saying goes, liberty is hard won but easily lost.
- Banning social media just wouldn’t work. Second, let's look at practicality. How on earth do you ban the use of Blackberries et al in this way? Can you really curtail specific people from using Blackberry Messenger (BBM), given that they will just obtain another Blackberry with a different identity, or use other mobile networks, or other Internet services? True, you can block off mobile phone signals in a particular area, but that hits not only the innocent, but also can be dangerous for those caught up in riots trying to contact the emergency services.
- Banning social media is censorship, by another name. Is the state really going to expand its power to such a degree to monitor every Facebook account, or force Research In Motion (the maker of Blackberries) to hand over trillions of gigabytes of data)? It is just not feasible. Bad people will always take advantage of technology for evil purposes. Ban BBM and they will soon find another method to try and destroy our society. Technology - especially mobile technology - is Hydra's head writ large. We have to face the fact that it is pretty difficult to contain: instead let us do all we can to make sure that more people are using it as a for good rather than a force for bad.
- Social media isn’t the root cause of the riots. Blaming social media for the riots is a bit like banning beer, because some people get drunk in Town Centres on a Saturday night. Another example is the Molotov Cocktail principle. We don’t want Molotov Cocktails, but does that mean we should ban glass bottles? It would be much better to deal with the root causes of the riots, and prevent these individuals from abusing social media in the first place.
- The UK needs social media: to boost our democracy, and our economy. It was a big loss last week, when Twitter announced that it would establish an international headquarters: not in London, but in Dublin. We need to prove that Britain wants to be a hub for social media, with competitive tax rates, and to prove that the Government can see social media as a force for good. Let's remind ourselves of the good that social media and mobile phones can bring in terms of empowerment, communication and the portabilty of the Internet.
- Social media was used by our Emergency Services and communities, to organise the clean-up. This was one of the main points made in evidence heard by the Home Affairs Select Committee, after the riots – particularly that Blackberry has revolutionised email across the world - to make it accessible without the need for any computer, and affordable for the many. Why not strengthen our democracy, by encouraging mobile communication rather than stifling it? It is a challenge, yes, but one well worth taking.
by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com
