Been researching something lately and I have come to ponder this question.

Having been aware of the riots in the UK recently and the link to facebook, I can’t help but wonder if civil unrest could be caused and perpetuated by sites such as facebook.

If face book can cause the kinds of unrest we saw in this country, could it also be used to cause it elsewhere in the world?

I saw a post on Facebook recently trying to organise a game of “Urban Laser Tag” for employees of the post office.

Don’t think it ever got going though.

Short memory ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-15756260

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18536940

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-four-years-disorder-facebook

it has been hasn’t it?

Isn’t that why the egypt facebook revolution is called the egypt facebook revolution?

year late?

Actually I was hoping for an intelligent discussion on this subject and some more information.

I haven’t been on STW lately so thought I would ask this question get some feedback and then gain a better perspective of the question and other peoples view points on it.

So we agree that a precedence has been set that facebook can be used to create civil unrest and violent crime?

Does anyone not agree or have anything else to add?

I remember a ‘free the Asda bike rack one’ campaign that had the potential to go global.

kaesae – Member

So we agree that a precedence has been set that facebook can be used to create civil unrest and violent crime?No. Facebook can’t be use to “create” civil unrest. It can, however, be a communications medium for an unhappy community to organise themselves to take action.

So if facebook can be used to create or escalate civil unrest what is to stop unscrupulous or politically motivated individuals from using it as a tool to influence the global political landscape.

The riots in the UK proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can be abused, what can be done to ensure that this does not happen again?

It has been in the past but it was proved illegal to incite civil unrest in the UK and those that did were charged and found guilty, as they should be. IMHO

Perhaps you are correct druidh, however if we say that a lot of the individuals who got involved would not have been involved without mobile phones or access to face book.

Then can we not say that the portion of civil unrest that was caused as a direct result of facebook / mobile phones was created by these factors?

what can be done to ensure that this does not happen again?

Nothing.

It’s a form of communication.

Like talking, or writing letters.

It’s just that it’s easier to reach a wider audience, faster.

No. “Civil unrest” exists within the mindset of the individuals. Facebook is merely a communications vehicle.

The Toxteth and Brixton riots took place before the advent of social networking sites.

I think we may be able to say that the spread of the civil unrest was due to both the traditional and social media.

Actually – going back to the title of the topic – No and Yes.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

The question boils down to “can a communications medium be used to communicate?” to which the answer is, of course, yes, otherwise it’d be a pretty crap communications medium.

If some people choose to use it to, say, incite civil unrest, that’s not a fault of the medium (directly, anyway, arguably there should be T’s & C’s and active moderation to prevent it).

But that’s not what you asked exactly is it. You asked if Facebook can cause civil unrest, whether that was intentional or not I don’t know, but it’s leading wording. Facebook can’t cause anything in and of itself. Can television cause civil unrest? Newspapers, radio, instant messaging, spam, a targeted leaflet campaign?

Actually I was hoping for an intelligent discussion on this subject

I think that was rather optimistic. 😉

I think that they influence the speed of development of unrest,by making co-ordination easier,but would someone join a riot just because it was arranged on Facbook? I don’t think so i.e I think the conditions leading to unrest have to already be in existence.

So people in Egypt will join a revolution, but people in the UK wouldn’t join a riot?

Even though people in the UK after being notified on facebook and via mobile phone, did join a riot?

I’m not sure I understand that argument or the reasoning behind it!

I’m not saying that K,I think that the people who rioted were unhappy with their social lot and inclined to do something about it,Face book just made it easier to organise.

Try thinking about it in reverse,would you join a riot if informed about it on Facebook?If so,what difference would it make if you heard about it in a pub,orsomeone rang you to tell you about it?I think you are trying to blame the messenger,not the message,a common mistake.

Face book just made it easier to organise.

I agree with that but I don’t think Facebook can be held accountable for the actions of its users.

I agree with you Matt,unfortunately governments of many political hues do not share our beliefs,and will inevitably try to impose controls on these media,sp Peoples Republic of China.

I disagree facebook is already being used by the US government in ways that are questionable, the question for me is what is the extent of the US security services involvement with facebook?

How much access do the security services have to the information on face book and also how much more access and influence will they have if they continue to use national security and terrorist attacks as an excuse to alter legislation?

facebook is already being used by the US government in ways that are questionable

[Citation needed]

if any assumption is being made that your data in facebook is in any way secure – it’s a false one. It’s not just governments you need to worry about accessing it.

I don’t have an account. Glad its still optional 🙂

K it would be normal behaviour for governments,not just the US,proving it can be difficult and dangerous to one’s health sp Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

if facebook can be used to create or escalate civil unrest what is to stop unscrupulous or politically motivated individuals from using it as a tool to influence the global political landscape.

We are not all sheep above to be easily manipulated like puppets on a string? We are not all on FB, we are a bit lazy, it cannot be used to brain wash etc.

I disagree facebook is already being used by the US government in ways that are questionable, the question for me is what is the extent of the US security services involvement with facebook?

Perhaps they were bored after faking the moon landings and orchestrating 9/11 so they thought they would do something else?

I am not sure this forum is the place for you to discuss conspiracy theories as we tend to not buy into them to the same degree you do

i am sure there will be a suitable forum on conspiracies out there somewhere…it would be a rich irony if it was run by the CIA to track you all down but I doubt it somehow.

the question for me is what is the extent of the US security services involvement with facebook?

You should have asked that question then really ?

Rather than the one you did ask.

So we agree that a precedence has been set that facebook can be used to create civil unrest and violent crime?

So ‘we’ are putting words into the mouths of forum members, are ‘we’?
Is this the Royal ‘We’, by any chance, or is this your other personality coming to the fore?
No, we don’t agree that any kind of precedent has been set because there is nothing anywhere to suggest Fb has been used in that way, mainly because it requires real names, (although those can be alias, that is against Fb T&C), and it’s far too open to scrutiny, there is no anonymity on Fb, which even a complete idiot ought to realise.
What you should be looking at, if you actually had a clue, is the use of RIM’s BBS on Blackberry phones, and Twitter.
Blackberries were used extensively in London because of the security and anonymity they offer, and you really ought to be more aware of the use of Twitter in the middle east during the various uprisings.
You seem to have an unhealthy fixation with Fb, which is blinding you to other media which is being used extensively.
I could give you Twitter addresses from people in Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. who are involved in and reporting on the issues out there, but, frankly, I can’t be arsed; if you want the info, it’s out there to find in the same way I found it, and I’m not doing your research for you.

I actually think that on a broader level, facebook, twitter and all of these other social media do have a causal role in the revolutions of the last few years.

One of the tools employed by warmongers and despots is the dehumanisation of other people and populations. By creating a common enemy a populace can be controlled. Facebook and related social media allow populations to look straight through historical borders and into the lives of other people who were formerly thought to be ‘other’. They can now inform them selves of how others live and see that they are not so different from ourselves.They can see the rights afforded to others and can start to demand them for themselves.

Facebook may not be able to incite violence in an individual but it has contributed to a new cultural climate in which we no longer have to rely on our governments and our media for information and can see through the propaganda. Not so important here, but vital in places like Egypt and Syria.

On second thoughts… 😉

Hello Barnsleymitch, how you gettin on?

Havent read all of that, but regarding the people who went to prison for starting pages calling for people to go and riot – did those pages lead to people going and rioting? I know that they didnt in Dundee, but the folk still went to prison.

Try thinking about it in reverse,would you join a riot if informed about it on Facebook?If so,what difference would it make if you heard about it in a pub,orsomeone rang you to tell you about it?I think you are trying to blame the messenger,not the message,a common mistake.

Probably no difference to most people, but that rather misses the point. If only 1 person in a hundred can be encouraged/enthused to take action as a result of any given message, getting a good turnout becomes a numbers game. Social media is a broadcast medium. Conversations in a pub, telephone calls etc are not.

For me the content of the messages and posts being circulated in this issue of war and similar issues and incidents around the world are of paramount importance!

Facebook should be forced by law to make all information pertaining to acts of violence or civil unrest available to an international commitee for independent evaluation.

Far too often of late the website facebook has been mentioned in wars and other global matters, this is far too much responsibility in the hands of a select few in my opinion and is unacceptable, all of these websites should have all available information evaluated by independent means!

The riots in the UK proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it can be abused, what can be done to ensure that this does not happen again?

What’s the problem with civil unrest, bit soft minded are we? Or are you scared because you’re a rich city boy from London and suspect the rest of us might murder you in your sleep À la French Revolution? Or are you a ‘safety’ lemming, who spends the whole of his day worrying about the threat of terrorism, crime or SARS and what the government can do to save you from a horrible death at the hands of monkey aids or left wing anarchists?

Civil unrest can be a good thing – see Burma, Libya, Free France, The American Revoloution etc etc etc for further details.

For details on controlling mass media and stropping the free flow of information to stop civil unrest, see the Soviet Union, Mussolini, Tito, Nazy Germany, Franco, China, North Korea etc etc etc.

Far too often of late the website facebook has been mentioned in wars and other global matters, this is far too much responsibility in the hands of a select few in my opinion and is unacceptable, all of these websites should have all available information evaluated by independent means!

How the **** is it “in the hands of a select few” – it’s the ultimate form of democracy!

Fraaaack – seriously are you that blind? I really don’t get a lot of people.

How much access do the security services have to the information on face book and also how much more access and influence will they have if they continue to use national security and terrorist attacks as an excuse to alter legislation?

Oh so the Arab Spring is a CIA plot now? The Arab people get no credit, it had nothing at all to do with them? I mean Libya was lovely… they must have loved living under Gaddaffi! No way in hell you would rise up against a murderous dictator who kept one of the Jewels of Africa in permanent poverty whilst some of their neighbors flourished. Even if the CIA did goad them on a little, who gives a shit? Personally I prefer the CIA to eastern dictatorships.

Far too often of late the website facebook has been mentioned in wars and other global matters, this is far too much responsibility in the hands of a select few in my opinion and is unacceptable, all of these websites should have all available information evaluated by independent means!

F*****g hell! By whom? By the Chinese? By the Burmese? By the Russians? By the North Koreans?
Sweet Baby Jesus, I’m really getting the impression you’re a proper, swivel-eyed, frothing conspiracy nut who sees the dead hand of covert government departments in every fracking thing!
Cite the sources of your contention that

acebook has been mentioned in wars and other global matters

.
And don’t, for Christ’s sake, say the Daily Mail.

Facebook should be forced by law to make all information pertaining to acts of violence or civil unrest available to an international commitee for independent evaluation.

I don’t see how you can possibly think this would be a good idea- especially given that you obviously give this stuff a lot of thought.