Social media might rely on technology, but it behaves like a force of nature. We use it to talk with friends, collaborate, share ideas and build businesses, but no one is really in charge. Trying to guide social media as a whole would be like trying to steer a river — you would literally have to change the world to pull it off. Normally, that fact only troubles old-school PR types who can’t let go of their iron-clad message discipline long enough to see the benefits that come from being open to the crowd. While a lot of the stories we run in SmartBrief on Social Media are critical of that point of view, I think it’s smart to at least be aware of the openness of the medium and the risks that entails.
Reports of al-Qaeda using YouTube to spread their message of violence can serve as a chilling reminder of the medium’s power, as well as its openness. But it’s also worth remembering that this is a very old problem. Handwriting, the printing press, radio, television and the Internet all brought about huge shifts in the way ideas were shared, and they’ve all been used to disseminate ideas that were distasteful or even dangerous. Over time, we’ve learned to live with the dangers these old media present, but usually only after a few foolish experiments with regulation. As the potential dark side of social media becomes better known, it’ll be interesting to see how officials, companies and the general public react to realizing anew the risks that come with free speech.
What do you think? Does social media need to be baby-sat the way so many media were in their infancy? Should companies such as YouTube try to police themselves? Is there a role for individuals to play?
Twitter
Facebook
Linkedin
RSS
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by SmartBrief on SocMed, John Kosic. John Kosic said: The dark side of social media: http://ow.ly/LXEV (via @SBoSM) [...]
As an American who values my freedom of speech, I think the “social media” doesn’t need to be policed. As with all other information out in the world, people should have the ability to consume it if it’s out there for free consumption. Who should really be policing to avoid terrible things happening because information was posted on social media sources? 1) Parents–just as parents wouldn’t let their your child watch a rated R movie, they should be more aware of what their children do online and take precautions to teach their children what they should and shouldn’t view 2) Businesses should be watched by regulatory watch dogs that already exist or will be put in place so that they don’t use social media avenues to violate other laws and regulations just as advertisements are not legally allowed (in the US) to purposely mislead people. 3) Individuals and the global community should be showing their dissatisfaction with social media content that is offensive, harmful, meant to incite violence, etc. Speak out with positive information and care about others in your community and online so that they won’t chose to be influenced by al-Qaeda videos on YouTube or anything like that.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by sbosm: The dark side of social media: http://ow.ly/LXEV...
I agree – it’s a problem that’s always existed, just in fast motion now. From what I see, the public is policing itself – I’m part of several nonprofit communities and military support networks, and you do get fruitcakes who try to start trouble — but the public is calling these folks out themselves. More people are now able to recognize baiting, and they’re setting community standards for what can be said in their circles. Pretty successfully!
As for groups like Al Qaeda using it…they’re now leaving more crumb trails behind as they do more online. So let ‘em have their say for now – they’ll get caught as they post content that will lead back to themselves.
[...] The dark side of social media (smartblogs.com) [...]
As an American who values my freedom of speech, I think the “social media” doesn't need to be policed. As with all other information out in the world, people should have the ability to consume it if it's out there for free consumption. Who should really be policing to avoid terrible things happening because information was posted on social media sources? 1) Parents–just as parents wouldn't let their your child watch a rated R movie, they should be more aware of what their children do online and take precautions to teach their children what they should and shouldn't view 2) Businesses should be watched by regulatory watch dogs that already exist or will be put in place so that they don't use social media avenues to violate other laws and regulations just as advertisements are not legally allowed (in the US) to purposely mislead people. 3) Individuals and the global community should be showing their dissatisfaction with social media content that is offensive, harmful, meant to incite violence, etc. Speak out with positive information and care about others in your community and online so that they won't chose to be influenced by al-Qaeda videos on YouTube or anything like that.
I don’t think social media should be policed as long as nobody is breaking the law or putting other people in danger. Just because you’re on YouTube, doesn’t mean that you can break the law.
My recent post Security Issues on Social Network Websites
social media being "policed" is nothing more than an attempt by the few to control the many.
Controlled information is the cornerstone of mass manipulation.
Like it or not we are neck deep in the rising waters of information, any information, on demand.
This will ultimately lead to accountability and responsibility shifting to the individual.
In the end it will be a good thing but, short term it will be very, very messy.