25 August 2011

Why Banning Rioters From Facebook Is Wrong

Image: Courtesy to GossipHat

I believe you did already hear or read about David Cameron’s chimeric ideas to ban the access of the UK nationals with antisocial behaviour, also known as rioters, to Facebook.

Why chimeric?

Well, first of all, such a ban would constitute a serious and disproportionate interference with subjects’ right to privacy and free expression  and, second, the ban would prompt them to seek alternatives to the most popular social network.

In fact, Prime Minister’s proposal did not surprise me in terms of the potential human rights violations.

Such violations can be countered quite successfully and it is very, very likely that the British government

would end up in a fiasco

should it opt for the ban.

I rather wonder why the government of the appealing David Cameron would voluntarily give up its convenient

opportunity to monitor

those against whom it claims to be fighting?

It is common knowledge that Facebook cooperates with the law enforcement authorities, and the same is valid also with respect to Google and – presumably – to its newly launched social network Google + in particular.

But what would happen if the rioters focused on alternatives which are more difficult to monitor and hence less convenient to control?

Could that be the plan of the young conservative politician?

Well, that sounds like a

real conspiracy

and I can hardly imagine it.

It is rather a political shot in the dark, the implementation of which is likely to intensify the problem instead of solving it.

Your thoughts?

Comments (6)

  1. 25 August 2011

    […] ще взема да блогна по темата и на английски, пък белким ме  чули на Даунинг […]

  2. 2 September 2011
    Raseel said...

    Yup it would deal a great downpour on Facebook’s democratic policy, freedom of expression and even business. People would think Facebook as some sort of bias. Facebook would not agree on this policy.
    Raseel recently posted..Pharmacy Tech

  3. 3 September 2011
    Zepaniah said...

    I don’t absolutely absorbed your point. Hope you’ll dig deeper concerning the issue but I’ll just give few words according to my little comprehension. Facebook never says that they’re in favor of something that has been posted. They just provide a specified “channel” in where we can let the whole world know what we really feel but I guess not to the extent of promoting violence and entice chaos.
    Zepaniah recently posted..warts on hands

    • 3 September 2011
      Emil A. Georgiev said...

      Dear Zepaniah

      thanks for coming by and commenting on the Reguligence Weblog.

      My point is not to indict Facebook for favouring what their users post, but to question the plan of the UK government to ban certain users from Facebook. My conclusion is that the government should not ban users, but rather take advantage of Facebook’s readiness to cooperate with law enforcement and monitor those (posting) activities that might be considered dangerous.


  4. 8 September 2011
    Augadha said...

    It is actually hypocritical to ban a certain segment of people, when there are many other factions spreading their ideology on certain Facebook Groups. May be its just a mere planned event to control a flow of information of a segment of society.

    Many people say that Facebook is used for data mining information around the world, which may be highly probable as you can never delete your account.
    Augadha recently posted..Preparing Site

  5. 12 October 2011
    Liane Markus said...

    We all have right to speak out and say what we want to share in public so long as we are not going to violate any rules and regulations. If people knows how to discipline themselves then they should think first of what they are going to say most especially on facebook wherein everything can be seen.
    Liane Markus recently posted..סוכות

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge