Recently there have been a couple of examples in the news where governments have blocked social media websites. Their main argument for doing this was to control the population. I’m wondering if this is a positive or negative ability of the government.
One of the more famous examples is of course China. They are known for blocking websites whenever they feel like it. We discussed the Wikipedia blocks in class already and some of you might know that they are also giving Google a hard time. They say it these website contain information that is offense or not suited for the citizens in some way. Most of you will probably agree with me that blocking websites for these reasons is wrong.
However there might also be an positive side to the ability to block content online. Last week I read an article about riots in India. As in many other countries, a lot of moslims in India were angry about the anti-Islamic video posted on youtube. The government feared that there would be big riots in the Kashmir Valley. They decided to block Youtube and Facebook, to prevent people from organising riots. In the neighbouring country Pakistan over 20 people died in similar riots, in India there were no casualties. Does this mean the government acted correctly? Not everybody agrees on this. Many inhabitants complained that they weren’t given any information on the reasoning behind the ban, or when it would be lifted. This caused a lot of anger towards the government.
Personally I think it’s never a good idea to start blocking websites in today’s world. People have gotten used to having access to information and their freedom on the internet. Taking that away from them, even for a good cause, will only serve to seed distrust towards the government among inhabitants in the long run.
The article: http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/10/did-a-ban-on-facebook-and-youtube-save-lives-in-kashmir/?ref=socialmedia
