Liberal Democrats signal opposition to restrictions on social media networks

David Cameron said users of social media networks like Twitter could have their access to services blocked. Photo: Jonathan Hordle/Rex features

The Liberal Democrats to oppose David Cameron's proposals that people suspected of inciting violence during social unrest could be banned from social media network.

Tabled an amendment to the party's autumn Conference, that if voted through, would put pressure on the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to withstand Cameron's plan.

Signs of increased tension between the coalition partners appeared acting police Metropolitan Commissioner Tim Godwin, told the Home Affairs Select Committee Tuesday that he had considered asking the authorities to turn off social media networks.

He said he had considered steps, because, although they were often a source of information that Web sites could also be misleading.

Details about Conference amendment came as Clegg tried to propose its own policy response to the unrest, with the different philosophies coalition parties begin to come into the foreground.

Tuesday morning, he announced a "riot payback" scheme to make the looters and arsonists are confronted with their victims, along with support to help EX-offenders to find jobs.

The scheme would mean looters performs community service in riot-hit neighborhoods.

They have to wear orange clothing to make them visible, and money is provided to enable the victims who want to do this is to confront the people who burned their homes or plundered their businesses last week.

The announcement put some of the policies, including checks on social media networks, the section object by Cameron in the wake of the riots.

Differences between the coalition partners surfaced over the weekend as senior Lib Dems urged to "kneejerk" reaction by politicians. The party's deputy leader, Simon Hughes, insisted long-term solutions lay in supporting communities by providing opportunities and redistributing wealth, not undermine assistance from the State.

In the past, Cameron has made positive and liberating effect social liberating media can be central to his vision of the "post-bureaucratic age".

Texts and BlackBerry Mobile Messenger was critical in planning the riots and, in last week's recall of Parliament, the Prime Minister said users of social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry Messenger, could have their access to services blocked.

He said he had instructed the intelligence services and police to investigate whether it was "right and possible" to intercept them "to plot violence, disorder and crime".

On Monday welcomed the Chinese Government official news agency Xinhua, proposal, saying it marked an improvement from Cameron's comments in February.

He was then invited to Egypt and other North African Nations to allow freedom of expression after they attempted to restrict the use of social media.

Xinhua said: "for the benefit of the public, proper web monitoring is legitimate and necessary.

"We can ask why Western leaders, on the one hand, tend to indiscriminately accuse other Nations in the monitoring, but on the other, take for granted their steps to monitor and control internet".

Evan Harris, Vice-President of the Lib Dems ruling Federal Policy Committee, will propose an amendment at the party gathering.

By this spring conference was a vote on a Lib Dem amendment a u-turn on NHS policy as Clegg came under pressure in order to reflect the Lib Dem grassroots views.

The amendment, entitled "protection of the essential freedom of the Internet", calls for "additional guarantees for online freedom of expression be in place".

It reads: "oppose additional powers to the police or the Government to restrict access to the Internet or to social media or to order its suspension.

"[We must] makes it clear that the Government will not allow a two-tier internet, and will keep the principle of net neutrality, possibly through regulation."

The amendment is likely to get wide support. On Monday wrote backbencher Julian Huppert also against blocking any contemplation to close social network.

He said: "some people in this House and elsewhere has chosen to focus on the use of social media in these riots. And David Cameron has responded by announcing a revision designed to examine whether it would be right and possible to turn off social networks or services in the mobile phone during times of unrest.

"Even if we look at these riots in isolation – always a dangerous approach to policy formulation — the idea that we should prevent communication via these networks is obviously ridiculous.

"The brilliant response to the riots on Facebook, Twitter and the wider internet, embodied most clearly by site Riot Clean-Up, has arguably done more to bring communities together than anything else.

"There is little evidence to suggest this is a problem that needs to be tackled, and even the Government appears to give serious consideration to curb freedom of expression-message in a way that would make it much harder for the good things that have come from this unrest either to continue or to happen again.

"This authoritarian knee-jerkery is a reminder of the bad old days. Those who cherish freedom, of all parties and none, must now defend these important new forms of communication. "

View the original article here

Social networks under fresh attack as tide cyber-sweeps us scepticism

An American student control on his smart phone. Critics of social networking to say, it has an insulating effect on users. Photograph: Najlah Feanny/Corbis

Way, as desperately people communicate online via Twitter, Facebook, and instant messaging can be seen as a form of modern folly, according to a leading American sociologist.

"A behaviour that has been typical can still express the problems, once caused us to see it as pathological," writes MIT professor Sherry Turkle in her new book, alone together, which leads an attack on the information age.

Turkles book, published in the UK next month, has caused a sensation in the Americas, which is usually more obsessed with the merits of social networking. She appeared in the last week on the Stephen Colbert late night Comedy Show, The Colbert Report. When Turkle said, she had been at funerals, where people controlled their iPhones, Colbert leave: "We all say goodbye in our own way."

Turkle's thesis is simple: technology threatens to dominate our lives and make us less human. Illusion to allow us to communicate better it actually isolate us from real human interactions in a cyber-reality is a bad imitation of the real world.

But Turkles book is far from the only work of its kind. An intellectual backlash in the United States calls for a rejection of some of the values and methods of modern communications. "This is a major setback. The various forms of communication, people are using has been something that frightens people, "said Professor William Kist, expert training in the Kent State University, Ohio.

The list of attacks on social media is long and come from all corners of the academic circles and popular culture. A recent bestseller in the United States, the legislative proposals, by Nicholas Carr, suggested that the use of the Internet changing the way we think, to make us less capable of digesting large and complex datasets information, such as books and magazine articles. The book was based on an essay, Carr wrote in the Atlantic magazine. It was very clear and was headlined: is Google making us stupid?

Another strand of thought in the field cyber-skepticism is found in the net of delusion, by Evgeny Morozov. He claims that social media has produced a generation of "slacktivists". It has made people lazy and enshrined the illusion, clicking a mouse is a form of activism equal to real world donations of time and money.

Other books include the Dumbest Generation by Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein – in which he claims "United States intellectual future looks dim" – and we have met the enemy by Daniel Akst, which describes problems with self-control in the modern world, where the proliferation of communication tools is a key component.

Downturn has crossed the Atlantic Ocean. In Cyburbia, published in the United Kingdom last year, James Harkin inquired of the modern technological world and found some dangerous possibilities. While Harkin was no clean cyber-skeptic, he was found many reasons to be concerned, as well as happy about the new technological era. Elsewhere, is the hit film social network was seen as a thinly disguised attack on the social media generation, suggests that Facebook was created by people who could fit into the real world.

Turkles book, however, has triggered the most debate so far. It is a cri de coeur to put BlackBerry down, ignores Facebook and Twitter disclaimer. "We have invented, inspiring and improving technologies, yet we have allowed them to reduce the US", she writes.

Colleague critics point to numerous episodes to back up their argument. Recently, focused media coverage of his death in Brighton by Simone back on a suicide note she had posted on Facebook, which was seen by many of her "friends" 1,048 on site. Yet no one reads help – instead of the traded insults with each other on her Facebook wall.

Turkles book has also hit home, because her earlier works, the other Self and life on the screen, seemed more open to technological world. "Alone together reads as if it were written by Turkles evil living twin," joked Kist.

But even setbacks now have a setback with many kreering in defence of social media. They point out that e-mail messages, Twitter and Facebook have led to more communication, no less — especially for people who may have trouble meeting in the real world because of the great distance or social difference.

Defenders say their is just another form of communication, as people may have difficulty in getting used to. "When you walk into a café, and all is silent on their laptops, I understand what she is saying about are not talking to each other," said Kist. "But it still communicates. I disagree with her. I can not see it as so black and white. "

Some experts believe that the debate is so sharp, because social networks is a new field that has yet to develop rules and etiquette, as everyone can respect and why events such as Simone Back death appears so shocking. "Let's face it, I see no signs of any link," said Kist. "But, perhaps, we need to involve a ' Netiquette ' to deal with the whole".

He also pointed out that the "real world", as many social media critics hark back to never actually existed. Before all raised on the bus or train with their heads buried in an iPad or a smart phone, traveled the normally only in silence. "We do not see people spontaneously talk to strangers. They just keep itself, "said Kist.

View the original article here

What effect have networks had on celebrity?

Colin Firth arrives with his wife, Livia Giuggioli to Golden Globe Awards last week. Photo: Matt Sayles/AP

It is the season for Hollywood to celebrate itself in a sycophantic flourish Statuettes, tiaras and tear-stained banalities. After the Golden Globes comes this week's Oscar nominations and shall increase the underemployed up ballgowns and DJs their designer friends to get on the front pages of the celebrity spotting in Greece periodicals. But it will not only be papers and magazines check nominations announcement; across much of the Internet, a wealth of celebrity-obsessed blogs, forums and Web sites will also predicting and predicating, perpetuating our bizarre cultural obsession with all kinds of gossip.

As the editor of heat magazine's website, Samuel Pinney, tell me, have gossip always existed. "It used to be about her at number 42, instead of the latest x factor drop-out."

Web pumps out gallons of weirdness on both the x factor, dropout, and her at number 42 speed of a Google search, so it is not surprising our hunger for useless gossip has actually taken advantage of by a sea of online services, will get our attention. But beyond this proliferation of gossip sites the web has transformed our relationship with celebrity. Although the Star system is still crucial in the design, which is the subject of magazines, have destabilised relations between web media and audience. "It has transferred power over who decides if a person is a celebrity out of the hands of a few Select" Pinney says.

Media appliance, same Ascent of special personalities to public recognition were highly structured even 15 years ago, according to sociologist P David Marshall, author of Celebrity culture Reader. A person "people" drip tray-fed designed then carefully nuggets of information to a Roster of approved outlets. Secure, scandals happened and tongues wagged, but now, thanks to the long camera lenses and a free access publication platform, reaches around the world, digital technologies have upset the balance in a highly strung industry.

It is because the web working outside their organization's consent. The audience is free, armed with a smartphone and a wi-fi connection. This makes us potentially more dangerous to celebrity than ever before. Then was the worst, George Clooney may have met a buses of foreign armed with star maps they got from a hawker in Sunset Boulevard standing outside his guarded fortress in Beverly Hills. Fans can now zoom in on Clooneys backyard on Google Maps or report his latest location at justspotted.com. And in addition to the personal integrity of the questions, we have also got more control over their career: then, the duration of their fame was determined by a story arc produced by a studio Executive; now have a second by second studios litmus test for a celebrity worth.

But not only has web transformed how we interact with our idols, we the public has also FRELIMOs the power to create celebrities from the traditional star-makers. We can now act outside the system, promote us using similar techniques as studios, by means of carefully placed pieces of media and growing following among specifically targeted communities. We can also Thrust unsuspecting people in the Spotlight by posting a video on Twitter or Facebook for our friends to watch and pass. Web fame is a moving target and totally unpredictable.

David Weinberger, fellow at Harvard Berkman Centre for Internet & society, do you think people who are successful at chasing online fame makes by searching 15 followers, rather than 15 minutes. At a Conference on internet trends in 2008, he said, it was about cultivating these personal connections by engaging with Communities and gets mentioned on important blogs to your special shtick.

Unfortunately, support the network built-in experience with offline celebrity that helps protect the asterisk from the baying plenty not place on-line and cues fame sometimes associated with successful memes or accidental "cewebrities" can often be problematic. Notorious is a strange bedfellow frådede bizarre responsibility over the people, all of a sudden can become known for being the only person followed on Twitter Kanye West, as was the case with Coventry students Stephen Holmes in the summer of 2010 or for registration of an unsuccessful video of yourself pretending to be a Jedi knight, as happened to Canadian Ghyslain Raza in 2003. Such accidental celebrity can cause unexpected hardship for the person who now doorstepped of the global media or bullied into repulsive.

Web offer carte blanche to attention-seekers, regardless of whether they are already famous, or want to be. Yet online fame still only second best. Star Wars Kid will never nominated for best supporting actor. But then again, he would forever have a kind of after online and a small, but steady income based on guest appearances by supermarket openings. Take a look at the driver has maximum career vision some of this week's awards nominees, in fact, it could be the same after all.

View the original article here