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.

Is WhatsApp safe?

WhatsApp had a crazy hack! Hackers were able to get on your phone just by calling it. That's been patched but it's a reminder nothing is ever completely safe in 2019.

Why didn't Uber's IPO perform as promised?

Because they're losing tons of money. Because Lyft didn't do that well. Because their expansion into international markets, where they planned to go, has been harder than expected. Tough times at Uber.

Will cutting Huawei off from American technology hurt?

Trick question! Will it hurt Huawei? Yes, definitely. Will it hurt the American companiesthat supply Huawei? Yes definitely. Will it hurt consumers everywhere? Probably. Unless it changes the dynamics of the U.S. - China trade relationship in such a way that helps everybody, which is possible.

Should more cities ban facial recognition technology?

There's a tradeoff between privacy and safety. San Francisco just blocked facial recognition technology to help privacy but I think most cities are going to care more about their police departments being maximally effective and will choose safety.

In recent years, the accelerating cross-border flow of migrants fleeing violence and poverty has remade the politics of Europe and the United States. A startling new study from Stanford University warns that the conflicts we've seen to date may just be the opening act of a much larger and more dangerous drama.

Here's the study's argument in brief:

More Show less

President Donald Trump again dramatically escalated the stakes in the US-China rivalry on Wednesday with a move that made headlines in the US while landing like a grenade in Beijing.

The US Commerce Department announced yesterday that Huawei, China's leading tech company and already the source of major controversy, has been added to a list that prevents US tech suppliers from selling to Huawei without a license. That's even more important than the executive order, also published yesterday, that bans US telecom companies from using Huawei equipment.

More Show less

Voters in Australia head to the polls tomorrow to elect a new government. Though few outsiders closely follow politics in this country, this election tells interesting stories about three of the most important issues in today's world: Immigration, climate change, and managing changing relations with China. It's also a country with a steady economy—but lots of political turnover.

Consider:

More Show less