Why Blocking Social Media During Civil Unrest Is Never the Right Choic

[Waqas 48]

This post reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of Mashable as a publication.

David Gorodyansky leads the execution of all business operations at AnchorFree, makers of HotSpot Shield, an application that secures a user’s connection on public networks and allows them to access any website from any location, and was featured as one of Inc’s 30 Under 30 in 2011.

When people come together and gather their collective minds, they can accomplish nearly anything. On the other hand, this capacity can apply to situations both great and terrible. For instance, the sheer power of numbers can be dedicated to raising awareness for a worthy cause, or it can be used to fight back against a repressive regime, only to devastate the streets in a violent riot.

Thomas Jefferson said that the government should fear the people. Especially when those people are capable of powerful acts of defiance, it’s not surprising to see the government act on that fear by attempting to prevent the mobilization of a frustrated collective.

SEE ALSO: Should Governments Monitor Social Media to Prevent Civil Unrest?

Lately, these efforts at quashing unrest have targeted the tools people use to communicate and coordinate, specifically the social media that has become indispensable for mass communication. The censorship of Facebook and Twitter during the Arab Spring might have seemed tyrannical to Western onlookers, but media communication censorship has occurred elsewhere.

The UK government called for the suspension of the BlackBerry Messenger service during this month’s London riots in an effort to prevent the populace from thwarting police efforts. And San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit system (BART) blocked cell service at four of its stations to circumvent protests.

The problem with such attempts to block social media is that they are reactionary measures made through fear. The actions neglect to address the issues underlying people’s unrest, potentially harm the innocent, and ultimately fail to accomplish the intended goal of repressing the momentum of an uprising. Shutting down social media is not the right choice, unless the government’s aim is to reinforce its already Draconian presence.

A modern society is built upon the unification of people from diverse backgrounds, nationalities, genders, races and religions. We have come far to reach a balance of coexistence, based on the ability of different peoples to freely exchange ideas and opinions.

As social media is the outlet of choice for today’s community-minded citizen, silencing it is detrimental to societal growth, no matter how temporary the measure. Censorship defiles the freedoms that benefit civilization. Worse still, it gives the impression that a government is willing to impede the communication of its entire populace in order to hinder the efforts of a select few.

Communication is not inherently good or evil, neither harmful nor benign. However, by manipulating communication tools to indulge one’s own agenda, or by shutting down the tools themselves, you demonize their inherent potential for good. These actions demonstrate a shortsighted concern with how dissidents are coming together, while neglecting to address why they feel oppressed in the first place.

Furthermore, social media is not the only tool in the arsenal of the malcontent: Dissenters will find ways to dodge online censorship and utilize alternate networks of communication. By blocking the quickest, easiest and most open forms of communication, a government effectively pushes offending communication further underground, where it will be nurtured by the most dedicated members of the opposition — those most likely to take extreme actions.

SEE ALSO: How Users in Egypt Are Bypassing Twitter & Facebook Blocks

Still, if shutting down social media can stop the spread of dangerous violence, isn’t that of greater immediate benefit to the general public than free and easy communication? Again, the answer is no. The suspension of communication tools disregards innocent bystanders subsequently impacted by the loss of vital social media. More harm will be done to your unintended targets than to those engaged in protests or rioting.

In times of fear and uncertainty, citizens rely on each other for news and information. People are likely to seek out social networks for news on avoiding unsafe areas, on finding safe havens in the event of injury. By blocking this flow of information, you increase the chance that a commuter blindly stumbles into a looting riot, you incense a panicked bystander trying to reach his cordoned-off street, and you prevent a parent from confirming that her child is safe.

Shutting down social media increases risk, while solving so few of the problems of civil unrest. It is the wrong choice during a time of crisis. While open communication may allow the circulation of dangerous ideas, we cannot allow paranoia to outweigh its positive benefits, namely, our continued growth and survival as a connected society.

Images courtesy of iStockphoto, peepo, Flickr, deep_schismic, Xabier.M

More About: censorship, Opinion, politics, social media

For more Social Media coverage:

• Follow Mashable Social Media on Twitter
• Become a Fan on Facebook
• Subscribe to the Social Media channel
• Download our free apps for Android, Mac, iPhone and iPad