Most western nations wouldn't consider shutting down the major broadcasters during something like London. The media is firmly entrenched as part of the establishment, and is more than happy to provide spin that's in favor of the politicians in a time like that. And they needed the spin - the negative public sentiment about the riots was probably a real factor in thinning out the crowds.<p>Of course they're worried about social media. US/EU actors have been practicing the twitter and facebook provocateur thing for more than two years now - Tehran '09, Bangkok '10, .cn #jasmine '11 and of course MENA this spring. The IRGC similarly had a pretty good run at it in Bahrain. They are pretty worried about the same thing happening at home, because they know it works. The US doesn't want an Internet kill switch for nothing.<p>So, I guess it's unfair, but what else is new? It's a pretty impractical idea anyway, it's not like the UK would have any success blocking traffic - and any US company that voluntarily did it voluntarily would likely see a substantial backlash world wide.
The difference is social media cannot be controlled. TV news can. It's a valuable tool for governments to have at their disposal in a time of crisis. Especially in the era of media consolidation a government might only need to influence a few large companies into spinning the story towards a particular direction. Naturally in a time of crisis with no other information the media is more likely to repeat official government information/opinion in any event. This is exactly why TV & radio stations are often among the first targets during a foreign invasion or domestic power struggle.
Here's an idea, if a dozen people manage to take control of a few planes, let's make it an extreme hassle for everyone to fly and harass millions of innocent flyers each and every week, for the rest of history (then copy that approach to other modes of transportation).<p>Technology doesn't manufacture the evil in society, it just makes it really obvious and puts it in the foreground. Maybe the evil needs to be circumvented far earlier on a more fundamental level instead of trying to hide it away.
Can we really not differentiate between the two? TV, on its own, is a one way medium. Social media is interactive and allows two way communication. This is going to get some people up in arms but it is a realistic knee jerk reaction to think about shutting down social media when your populace is organizing mayhem using these networks. Even if shutting down the networks is an exercise in futility.
I can't really find a connection between social media and tv news in regard to how they had an impact on the riots. What made social media a problem was that it connected individuals and allowed them to communicate/organize. The TV news, however, is a one-way street. They're delivering information about a situation, not helping others to do harm. I think in general there's a bit of frustration here because during a situation as severe as the riots, the media as a whole tend to get in the way. Regardless, no need to abolish/limit people's access to media. Way too dictatorial.
As I've said before, with all that money being made on the internet, do you think for a second they will allow it to remain free?
News is a commodity. The newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations are all in the advertising business. Coincidentally, so is google, facebook, and twitter. Get the captive audience into their seats, and tell them what to buy. You want to change the world? Make advertising illegal. It's all coercion anyway. Don't we have a right to life without coercion? Think about it.
Turning off Social Media during unrest won't have the desired effect: people will use their cellphones instead. Turn those off too, and they'll start distributing underground papers (like in WW2). Or maybe they'll just use their voices to shout out.<p>The only thing that really helps to control the crowds is spraying Soma gas on them during times of unrest. Or maybe mix Soma in the tap water.
Turning off social networks won't prevent riots. It doesn't even prevent them in Egypt.<p>There is nothing gained from inhibiting this kind of free association and speech.