GZERO Media logo

Are Social Media Bans A Good Idea?

Are Social Media Bans A Good Idea?

After terrorists killed more than 300 people in coordinated attacks on Easter Sunday, the Sri Lankan government immediately shut down social media. The official explanation: Temporarily cutting off platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, Viber, and YouTube is essential to halting the spread of false information that can further inflame an already tense situation.

The measure – which remains in effect as we go to press – has sparked a debate about the wisdom of shutting down social media during times of crisis. Here's our cut at the best arguments on both sides.

A temporary social media ban is a good idea because:


It weeds out a lot of dangerous garbage. Sri Lankan officials are right. Blocking these platforms knocks out the major pathways for fake news, conspiracy theories, and other inflammatory content that can create a false sense of panic or incite people to violence. Flipping the switch can save lives.

If tech firms won't do it… Tech companies haven't policed their own platforms effectively enough. Government blackouts like this should, in principle, force tech companies to do better. Tiny Sri Lanka may be just a blip for the tech giants, but India – where social media gets blocked much more often – should receive much more of their attention.

Even a temporary ban is a bad idea because:

Alternative sources of information aren't always informative. In Europe or the US, a social media shutdown is an inconvenience, but there are other high-quality sources of news. In Sri Lanka, where press freedom ranks a lowly 126 out of 180 countries, the traditional media channels are suspect. The truth is that in many countries, social media sites – for all their faults – are the primary and most dependable way for people to get real news.

A ban is never air tight. More sophisticated internet users can skirt these prohibitions with Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). So while shuttering social media certainly narrows the flow of potentially harmful information for the broad public, those who know how can still get, or spread, inflammatory content.

It's a bad precedent. One government's genuine crisis is another's opportunity to squelch dissent. As press freedoms and civil society come under increased pressure around the world, it's a dangerous thing to normalize the practice of shutting down what is, from a social perspective, critical infrastructure.

What this debate misses: Questions about the wisdom of cutting off social media platforms focus only on the supply of "fake news" and other forms of misinformation. But the ugly reality is that there is strong demand for inflammatory conspiracy theories that confirm the biases and suspicions that all human beings have. Doubtless, social media piques those impulses in deeply polarized societies – but they aren't exactly offering a product that's hard to sell.

What do you think? In the event of a massive terrorist attack in your city or country, would you favor a temporary social media ban to stop the flow of fake news? Or do you feel confident that you, and those on the other side of town, can separate fact from fiction, allowing you to rely on these sites to tell you what's happening and to connect you with friends and family? Let us know here.

Chapter 5 of Eni's Story of CO2 is left unwritten, as the world must decide how to move forward with the use of fossil fuels. Though doing nothing is not an option, using natural gas is. A safer alternative to fossil fuels that releases half as much CO2, natural gas can meet the world's energy needs as we wait for renewable technologies to advance and scale.

Learn more about the future of energy in the final episode of Eni's Story of CO2 series.

Call it a counter-counter-revolution at the ballot box. One year after mass protests over election irregularities drove Bolivia's long-serving leftist populist President Evo Morales from office, his preferred candidate has won the presidency — possibly by a landslide.

But can the country's new leader, a soft-spoken economist named Luis Arce, move the country beyond the political trauma of the past year?

More Show less

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take:

Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. Yet another exciting week in the run-up to the US elections. Not the only thing going on, though, not at all. I mean, first of all, coronavirus continues to be by far the biggest story in the US, in Europe, as we have a major second wave, and indeed in many countries around the world. Also, we're seeing a lot more instability pop up. I mean, we've had every Sunday now for about three months massive unprecedented protests in Belarus. They're not slowing down at all. We see major demonstrations, including anti-royal demonstrations in Thailand, Pakistan. You've got significant instability right now, of course, we'd seen in Lebanon over the past months. Why is this all going on? Is this a GZERO phenomenon?

More Show less

Build that wall... in Greece: The Greek government has finalized plans to build a wall along part of its eastern border with Turkey to prevent migrants from staging mass crossings to reach European Union territory. The move follows a March standoff between Athens and Ankara when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared he was "opening" the border because Turkey could no longer cope with so many migrants fleeing Syria. Since then, migrant flows via Turkey to the EU have declined dramatically due to the coronavirus pandemic and tougher policing, but Greeks and Turks (as always) remain at odds over what to do with the migrants: Greece wants Turkey to do more to stop migrants crossing, while Turkey says Greece is sending back migrants who arrive at Greek islands in the Aegean Sea. As the two sides continue to bicker over this issue — and over energy rights in the Eastern Mediterranean — the only thing that's clear is that Greece won't demand that Turkey pay for the wall.

More Show less

Download PDF


Three years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of COVID-19, a different kind of virus spread around the world: a piece of malicious software code launched by a nation state. It paralyzed computer networks in hundreds of countries, disrupted global shipping, forced pharmaceutical factories to shut down, and inflicted an estimated $10 billion of economic damage.

On the physical battlefield, a widely accepted set of rules, backed by international law, governs conduct, with the aim of protecting soldiers and civilians. Establishing common rules or guardrails is much harder in cyberspace, where borders can't be easily defined and the tools and tactics of combat are always changing. But it has never been more urgent.

More Show less
UNGA banner

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's Newsletter: Signal