Why are social media and UGC sites getting their ear bent and being called the 'dark side' of digital?
Over recent weeks there has been an increasing number of headlines taking a swipe at many of the social media sites, from Bebo to YouTube, as stabbing games and attacks are posted online (Aug 08). In no way could anybody condone the behaviour of the individuals involved, but should the sites be censored as a result?
The crimes reported have been committed by an irresponsible few. It is these people who should be the focus of the news reports, not the sites themselves.
Personally, I struggle with this negative reaction to what is an inevitable development of a media that gives people the ability to communicate with each other, even if it is to expose the 'bad' things we do.
Street reporting is now becoming the norm as everyone has a camera on their mobile phone. Who isn't paparazzi these days? You only need to ask Pete Docherty, Amy Winehouse. They are being papped more times by the people they know rather than the 'traditional press'!
The question is: why is this reporting so bad?
Perhaps it is the 'traditional media' industry that is the one running scared? Surely these stories are better finding the light of day rather than never surfacing and being swept under the carpet. There are many things I don't know the truth about, but social media sites are bringing an on-the-ground honesty that isn't dressed up for entertainment and doesn't look for approval by ratings or sales figures.
So what is with this talk of censorship?
