The Voices Can Never Be Drowned
I was checking up on my Twitter feed and I was amazed at the rate my friends tweet. As you scroll down your list, you will be updated on a mix of on-goings, ranging from breakfast-cereal flavours, interesting sights on the way to school, daily musings to good music and video links. Basically harmless day-to-day happenings. Twitter is created for social networking and micro-blogging, as an easier mean as compared to sending emails and instant messages, which is being made available to those who follow up on your feed, hence less hassle for both parties.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070701162.html
However, Twitter seems to be posing as a potential lethal threat as a surge on bans are being placed on recently. Likewise for Facebook. The US Marines has banned Twitter for fear of unintended leak of unnecessary information that could be proved worthy to adversaries and being exposed to viruses or Trojan circulating. Other countries such as, Iran, Syria and China have also banned such social networks for political reasons. As quoted from CNN, “" The mechanisms for social networking were never designed for security and filtering. They make it way too easy for people with bad intentions to push malicious code to unsuspecting users," a Stratcom source told Wired.com”
China has prohibited the use of Twitter a few days before the 20 th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre to prevent stirring up of emotions within the netizens and subsequently Facebook was being banned after it was used as a channel to incite strong protests within the Uyghurs around the world as a Facebook group “ Worldwide Protest in Honour and Support of Uighurs Dying for Freedom.”
Despite China’s constitution claims on freedom of speech, the government engages a "subversion of state power" clause to penalize those who criticize them. But do such bans really prove to be effective in silencing the citizens’ voices? In 2007, a service similar to Twitter called Taotao was being introduced. Chinese users pledge allegiance to their own online mediums and if censorship is implemented whenever sensitive national events were to happen, it would simply spell the means of more SNSes to come. Besides, there are also other outlets which can be used to express disagreement and disgruntlement. I personally feel that prohibiting such SNS can only supress that much. (Which isn't much at all).
So, what say you?
Labels: communication models, facebook, SNS, twitter
posted by cheryl at
11:57 AM
22 Comments:
Hey Cheryl!
Great choice of topic as Twitter has indeed been hot these few months!
There are so many different forms of interactive models of communications like you pointed out in your commentary, Twitter being one of them. However, my take is that Twitter is perhaps the most popular now because of its novetly. Yes, it costs almost nothing and can be sent to people simultaneously but can an email not do that too? Whats more, an email can be sent with more than 140 characters!
Any form of social network sevice (SNS) will always be a potential breeding ground for terrorists. That is one challange that many countries grapple with these days. Like you said, the more countries try to suppress these, the more they will try to get through to the masses. Could not agree with you more! However, from the government's perspectives, they are simply trying to protect the country's security.
Overall, an interesting piece!(:
I recognise the need to ban these social networking sites as they pose as potential avenues for conflicts like racism etc. In addition, these sites are prone to hackers and important information can be lost or disclosed.
However, I think that banning thses sites might not be effective as poeple can still look for other alternatives. People can set up new networking sites or look for ways in which information can be spread more rapidly. Thus, I think banning these sites does not solve the root of the problem but instead perpetuate the problem.
Wow! I never knew Twitter was so involved in politics!
I do know, however, that president Obama did use Twitter, though I cannot remember what the purpose was.
Regarding your question Cheryl, I think if the authorities silence Twitter, another will just take its place. Given the proliferating expansion of the internet, many other forms of communication would definitely emerge in the future.
To your question above, I guess it also applies to Singapore. Being quite a conservative country, we are not allowed to talk or make comments about the government. Such communication will result in you getting you in trouble with the law. I guess its our nature to be a deviance as we tend to do the opposite of the norm. With that said, more social networks,forums will start to be introduce to Netizens which might spell more trouble for the government.
Valerie Chua; Hopefully Twitter is a novelty cause it sure got me hooked; an outlet for my incessant whining and complaints. But I also see my friends promoting their music and remixes so I won't deny it is a good advertising outlet. Plus it's free! And yeh the government puts in effort to suppress these voices to minimize the potential for any strong protests to occur. But it only serves to suppress not eradicate; I'm sure they will find alternative ways of making their cause known!
com101sq: Yes I agree with you! Just as what I've just typed to Valarie, I feel that it only serves to suppress these people, but not to eradicate the problem at all. End of the day, new outlets will be created for them to gather their supporters. The government should not only skim past the surface of things, but in the meantime, get down to the root of the problem as well!
rocknstone: Yes.. supposedly things that are seemingly harmless can create the greatest harm suprisingly. Moreover there is only a limited amount of control the government can have when it comes to the new methods of communication: the Internet. and well.. the netizens in China have indeed came up with alternative forms of Twitter already!
Kandidkester: I think in Singapore, the media is under high surveillance and whatever information is highly disseminated with their correlation being forced upon us.. it feels as though the powerful effects theory is more in place here; despite outlets such as forums for opposing views, we have so deep into letting our local media brainwash us right from the beginning
Hi Cheryl!
What an appropriate subject for communication! Twitter is definitely on the rise not only with us common folk but with companies in their marketing strategies as well!
It is an interesting interactive model of communication as "messages" are sent out to several people at one time but only those who want to reply to those messages which is then sent out to several people again! It is a quick way to update all your friends on your ongoings. However, I feel that it may soemtimes cause friends to have a false sense of closeness? After all, not everyone would tweet about everything, especially personal things. Meeting face-to-face is still the best of course!
About your point on Twitter becoming a threat to security, I think it is a valid point. On the Internet, you can be whoever you want to be and terrorists may become so advanced that they would take advantage of this anonymity eventually and take down a country from the inside without the people even knowing they've been used. This would be one of the great disadvantages of the Internet.
Also, China silencing its people through banning these networking sites can only work for so long like you said. They should sit up and listen to what the people have to say before it's too late and they turn to illegal means to make their voices heard.
What Sundaytv said was thought provoking:
For China, I suppose they are engaging every method they could to block off any potential threats to the government, hence even if it was a temporal way out, they would still resort to doing so. In the meantime, it is quite impossible to silence these voices in a long time. As long as any forms of media persist, they will always find their ways to propagate, through hidden meanings via posters that might seem harmless at a glance. If the people want to get their message across, they will always find ways and means to and the government can never supress that. in the meantime, they should work and resolve the root of the problem instead.
In my opinion, I feel that if we want to use these social networking sites, we should use it the right way and not try to create some trouble or post some negative views that is not appropriate. Furthermore, these sites may be prone to cyberterrorism too as the use of virus to cripple the whole system is possible. Therefore, countries would definitely want to take measures on these sites to protect their country. All in all, I think we should be responsible for our own actions.
Breda
I think its very intriguing, how the uprising generation are increasingly feeling the need to "shout out" and be heard. It's like, they feel the need for people to hear them. Why is it that the whole world needs to know? Why do we feel the need to know what the world is doing?
With more upgrades in technology, globalisation is closing up the gap, not only from country to country, but also people to people. Is it the attention we yearn from those who read our tweets, fb walls etc, or is posting/tweeting just a form of therapy? Do people really need to know the intricate details of our lives despite theirs being complicated enough?
Much as this form of communication helps us to close the gaps between friends whom we haven't met for the longest time, does twitter/facebook etc then takeover our words when we meet face to face- to the point where, when we meet these friends, we only ask to know more- the classic "how is everything" and the awkward silence before breaking the news... have we lost the words to express them verbally?
I never saw these networking sites as tools for political agendas before. I always saw it merely as a source of entertaining and connectivity to people around you.
Perhaps this shows how censorship is put in place where the government interferes with the kind of information that they wish to reveals and also how they adopt these networking sites to achieve what they have in mind.
On a side note, censorship in banning facebook, msn and twitter in the workplace or in schools also show how these organizations take action to achieve higher productivity and lesser distractions.
I believe that banning twitter or any other forms of social networking sites is really redundant. Like what one of your commenters have mentioned, another site will be set up just as quick as one is banned to replace it. Besides, anyone with access to the internet can gather or disseminate information. It is a futile effort in 'drowning the voices of their people.'
However, I do feel that the ban is important in places like the military, and other places which deal with information that is vital to the masses or country. I wonder how this can be done though. For example, camera phones are banned in the Singapore's military, and this is very understandable. But how can twitter be banned if we can update through simple sms-es? Should twitter be eradicated altogether or should people who hold certain jobs in society never bring their cellphones to work?
Hi Cheryl!
Twitter is indeed an amazing communication tool, but one drawback I find about it is that one has to constantly be online to be updated by tweets! Anyway, I do not think that the China citizens opinions can ever really be silenced, like what the China government is trying to do by banning twitter. There will always be other means for the Chinese to voice their thoughts! But twitter can be dangerous still in the sense that once one person poses something emotional on the net, the whole country will know.
Rachel: Well, the thing about Twitter is that the tweets can be locked up to protect your privacy, however it is really a good tool for propagandizing your agenda. There are so many tweets constantly being updated, it is hard to keep track who is twitting what or should they be any underlying messages especially. Thus it really does pose a huge threat. Other than that, I think it brings about more benefits than it will do for harm.
Also, technology has enabled us to be connected to Twitter, as long as you have the mobile application for it! This is how technology has allowed us to be one step closer to new media communications such as the Internet, allowing it to be so accessible and handy to carry around (smartphones)
Adeline: I think the issue here deals with a greater issue than just banning Twitter. Yes, banning Twitter might only be effective to a small extent, a very small one in fact, considering how the Internet is a "free world' and new applications (they already have came up with that) to take over Twitter and it is impossible for the government to keep tabs and tracks on these newly sprouted sites to begin with. Banning these sites only help to suppress the voices of a few, and only for awhile. I guess they do their best to suppress any oppositions, whichever means they can think of.
blacksticks: But theoretically, there is no law stating that it is illegal to pose their views on a matter. There is not right or wrong to someone's viewpoint at certain times, just that it might come into conflict with the government. These are the only outlets which they can turn to, for their suppressed voices to be heard. Sometimes what the authorities implemented on them really puts them in a bad spot and thus they are calling for the like-minded to appeal for their cause. This might cause some dispute and conflict but end of the day, i feel that they deserve this chance to fight for their rights.
itsmorethanjustwords: Yes, you have got a point there, it definitely means less distraction, especially in workplaces and for those who are addicted to the games on FaceBook. However, this "muting of their voices" is forcing the authorities shared stereotypes on the people, I guess this is the works of a communist state and the authorities were just doing their job. But I feel that sometimes they deserve to be heard as well, and the Internet is the quickest and easiest way (despite also the most dangerous) to gather those who are like-minded, to fight for a cause which really puts them in a disadvantageous position.
fedeltaura: Numbers do equate to power sometimes. Should they gain the sympathy and support of people from other nations, it might benefit them in terms of aids financially but ultimately, is to create a pressure on the government. Once there are those from outside China/ whichever country is being influenced and motivated to join the movement, we will be fighting for their cause as well. Especially since their government can't implement their rules on us, so one shouldn't underestimate that fact. Imagine we can start boycotting products from that country, which will lead to a detrimental effect on their exports. In turn, they government will be pressurized to take action regarding the issue at hand to appease the people.
razzlemates: Yes, instead of merely implementing short term temporal measures with little effects, they should look into the root of the problems that are causing so much dispute and antagonizing the citizens instead!
sundaytv: Ditto on the part whereby a false sense of closeness is developed. It has its disadvantages and advantages here. SNS can provide a medium to bring people together amidst their busy schedules and to bridge overseas distances too. This prevents two friends from drifting apart and keep their bond stronger and consistent. Also on one hand, it helps for people who are overtly shy in reality to make friends through SNS and build up networks for people, of course they have to be aware of those who are up to no good and discern what to or what not to disclose. Moreover, SNS are great words for advertising events, much quicker way than word of mouth. However through these SNS we have made a lot of acquaintances in the meanwhile and might have developed a false sense of closeness. Face to face is still end of the day the best and confirmative way of affirming a friendship. Despite having multimedia conferences which duplicates this transactional model of face to face interaction, there is still a sense of division between the parties.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home