Colin Philpott: Don’t blame social media for fuelling the flames of riot

These are no doubt well-intentioned calls from politicians (including the Prime Minister) faced with the thorny issues thrown up by the recent disturbances.

Our political leaders need our support as they try to come up with solutions so that we don’t see such dreadful scenes on our streets again.

But there are many reasons why this particular idea shouldn’t get our support.

First, it’s the height of hypocrisy. Politicians from Britain and other western democracies were the first to salute the role of the web and social media in the Arab Spring.

So the free flow of information around the globe unhindered by governments is fine when the governments in question are someone else’s.

I also seem to recall our leaders criticising the Chinese Government for blocking access to the internet.

Yet here are the self-same politicians clutching at fairly flimsy media straws – remember Margaret Thatcher’s comical ban on Sinn Fein voices being heard on TV during the 1980s?

What’s more, it’s a dangerously undemocratic idea. While it might seem justified to shut down means of communication to frustrate people who many will regard as pure criminals, how would we feel if the same thing happened when peaceful, legitimate demonstrations were taking place against government policy?

Whether or not you agree with the TUC’s opposition to public spending cuts or the Countryside Alliance’s opposition to the hunting ban, I imagine most of us would defend both organisations’ right to hold a march.

Once the idea of shutting down communication networks gains ground for one reason, there must be a danger that an unscrupulous government might extend the idea to shut off communication channels in order to protect its own party political interests.

Then, how will it work? At what point does it get shut down? Who decides? What area is covered? A particular set of streets, a whole neighbourhood, an entire city, the whole country?

Police do apparently have powers to shut down the mobile phone system during emergencies so as to keep it free for emergency services and other priority users who have special Sim cards.

This happened in one part of London during 7/7 and it was widely criticised for increasing rather than decreasing panic and confusion.

Once you introduce the idea that social media can be shut down, you open a hornet’s nest of practical, legal and technical issues to which there are no straightforward answers.

In addition, those calling for a shutdown are ignoring the positive aspects of social media during the riots. While social media might well have spread some misinformation and it might in some cases have provided an effective means of quick communication for those intent on causing trouble, it also helped organise the community response in the aftermath.

Some of the best examples of people banding together to clean up their neighbourhoods after the riots or to hold peace marches were organised on Facebook.

I also imagine that the police might question whether a shutdown would be a good idea.

It appears that police gained very valuable information from social networks which helped them prevent trouble in some places and also helped them track down perpetrators.

So, as with any technology, social media can be put to good or bad use. The real issue is people’s motivations, not the technology at their disposal. If someone misuses social media, the force of law can be brought to bear on them as with the man sentenced to four years in prison for inciting a riot via Facebook.

And a final thought. If we’re going to switch off social media, are we going to switch off the TV? As I watched the riots unfold on the BBC’s News Channel there were some questionable editorial decisions which allowed continuous live coverage from a helicopter of the looting of an off-licence in east London.

It seems to me that this sort of coverage is much more likely to have caused copycat behaviour than a few posts on Facebook.

The genie is out of the bottle. Once we only had word of mouth; then newspapers, the telegraph, newsreels, radio, television; now the web and mobile. At the arrival of just about every one of these new sources of communication, voices were raised about the supposed dangers.

When the BBC started radio in the 1920s there was widespread opposition – not least from newspaper owners – to the idea of the BBC carrying news!

I fully sympathise with those whose homes were burned or whose businesses were trashed and I understand why, had I been a victim, I would be looking around for any possible solutions. But healthy societies rely on a free flow of information. Sometimes some of that information won’t be reliable and some will be downright damaging but ’twas ever thus with old as well as new technologies.

Let’s get tough on the rioters and, to paraphrase another Prime Minister, get tough on the causes of the riots but don’t shoot the (Blackberry) messenger!

* Colin Philpott is a director of the National Media Museum in Bradford.