Social Media: Dilemmas When Used For Political Purposes

It all started when photos were removed from an Egyptian blogger's Flickr account. The pictures were of the policemen in Egypt and were removed because the photos were not taken by Mr Hossam El-Hamalawy himself, which are one of the rules when posting onto Flickr. However, he feels as if he was personally singled out. He uploaded these photos to encourage other Egyptians to come forward with any information they might have about police members who abuse others and hopefully bring these men to justice!

This brings to my attention a bigger problem at hand. Social media sites are now being used for political purposes, and although this is helpful when concerning "pro-democracy forces and activists", it creates an important question: how do these social media sites remain neutral and keep to their policies?

In 2007 YouTube took down videos showing an Egyptian being beaten by the police. Eventually, YouTube restored the videos, especially since the man who posted them was doing it (in my opinion) for a good cause, to show opposition to the torture occurring in Egypt. In class we discussed how YouTube videos clearly have some impact because people are watching them. They help build supports whether for a campaign or for starting riots. The hard part is knowing exactly what type of impact we want them to have.

Facebook is now struggling with this dilemma as well. Activists in the Middle East use Facebook to connect rebel groups together and "mobilize protests." Facebook has now been involved in the Israeli-Palestenian conflict and "has been pushed to defend its neutral approach" The Israeli minister of diplomacy contacted Mark Zuckerberg asking him to remove the Third Palistinian Intifada page (which i discussed in my previous blog post).

A spokesman for Facebook stated "We want Facebook to be a place where people can openly discuss and express their views, while respecting the rights and feelings of others." This raises a question: How do these social media sites "[balance] the existing rules and terms of service...with the new ways activist's [use] these tools" Should a company stay neutral even when their content could offend others, or put people in danger? What if the content can help one group significantly? Where do these social media networks draw the line?

Based on a NY Times article