Live data from Hacker News

In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

cnn.com

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#51

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 the…

> many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair

I find this sort of thing almost more disturbing. It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit - oh look, social media had a good side that balanced out the bad side, let's not ban it. This time. So what if the authorities decide one day there is no good side? Or just that they don't like the good side that might exist?

This kind of statement sounds good but is actually an argument FOR censorship in disguise.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#52
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

How is it at all interesting if it isn't a fair comparison? What you are suggesting isn't what you are defending here: you're suggesting that we compare two entirely different scenarios and then defending it by saying it is worth doing an entirely different thought experiment.

(For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't think you're making any sense here).

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#53

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 th…

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

It really was the best Harry Potter.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#54
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monitoring is far worse than banning.

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.

> I don't really see how anyone could object to a government monitoring it

Because of small thing called 4th amendment which in part reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

While a USA constitutional amendment is based in British law. And in case you question; yes, I consider my electronic communications/records to be "papers, and effects". And if you question the wisdom of that particular right, I don't have time to explain, reference history for the supporting evidence.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#55
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.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#56
post #3

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…

I don't believe that they can "stop people communicating via these websites" in any sensible manner. They could use other websites, phones, or in-person meetings, not to mention countless other alternatives. The headline may be a bit off, but the suggestion is still absurd.

This is just a politician trying to be seen "Doing Something" when he has no real solutions to offer. Embarrassing, really.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#57
post #51

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 the…

> many MPs, including the PM, were vocal about the benefits of social media during this whole sorry affair I find this sort of thing almost more disturbing. It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit - oh look, social media had a good side that balanced out the bad side, let's not ban it. This time. So what if the authorities decide one day there…

> It implies that whether we should allow totalitarian measures merely depends on a judgement of case by case merit

To some extent, all effective government is necessarily conducted based on case by case merit. Even what we think of as fundamental human rights can never truly be sacrosanct, for the simple reason that sometimes they conflict. One obvious recurring example in recent years has been the tension between security (right to life etc.) and secrecy (right to private life).

Should we protect some values more than others? Sure. Should some principles be considered too important for the administration of the day to legislate them away without going to the people explicitly first? Absolutely. Can you ever codify that in a reasonable way without allowing some degree of case-by-case judgement? I doubt it.

> So what if the authorities decide one day there is no good side?

Then you move onto the next of the four boxes of liberty. If lots of people agree with you, then one way or another, either the authorities will back down or they will be removed from power.

The more I think about these issues, the more I conclude that the law can only ever be an instrument of a civil society. If you reach the point where one significant group is not behaving in a civilised fashion and the rest cannot persuade them to do so through reason, then ultimately it rarely matters what the law says until that disagreement has been settled by force. On a small scale, that is called policing. On a large scale, it is called civil war.

If you accept that premise, then it only ever makes sense to balance the law favourably for the civil case, on the presumption that the legal system is operated in the interests of justice. If it is not in a few isolated cases, you treat the deviants as criminals themselves and you provide an appeals mechanism for those who have been treated unfairly. If it is not on a larger scale, then the law doesn't really matter anyway, because your only recourse is to bring down the system and build a new one. You can do that by voting out the government, through civil disobedience that puts unbearable pressure on the system, or on a more fundamental level as we've seen in several former dictatorships over the past year.

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, seem…

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.

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

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#59

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 th…

From V for Vendetta (2006) :

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes?qt=qt0450655

Re: In wake of riots, British PM proposes social media ban

#60
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.

Post reply on HN