Posts tagged social media and government
Should Google govern global free speech?
Sep 16th
The theme of my blog is Marketing, Social Media, Humanity. I can think of no more human issue than freedom, free speech, and security and all of these issues are coming to a head right now.
There are many emotional, political and theological issues embroiled in the tragic occurrences of the past week where an Anti-Islam film on You Tube was used as an ignition switch for bloody protests and death in the Middle East.
Google, the owner of YouTube said on Friday that it would not comply with a White House request to remove the video that has set off the violence in the Arab world.
Google said the video did not violate its own rules on hate speech, because it was “against the Muslim religion but not Muslim people.” It did block the video in India and Indonesia because it violated local laws, and in Egypt and Libya because of the “delicacy of the situation.”
Here are some issues I find absolutely fascinating:
- A single U.S. public company built on Internet advertising is governing global free speech.
- In THEORY, our taxes pay for our government to keep us safe and create a foreign policy that sustains our freedom. The government foreign policy experts for this region wanted the video to go down but Google said no, except in the cases their own company executives deemed as “delicate.” So essentially a company that exists to continuously increase its stock price is, in this example, determining U.S. foreign policy.
- The internal Google policy on censorship is built on the consideration of “cultural norms.” So Google is also interpreting the cultural norms of the world to determine what is fit and appropriate for public consumption.
- Google said in a New Times article that it does not police videos uploaded to the site because of the sheer volume — 72 hours of videos are uploaded each minute. In this specific example, the controversial video had actually been uploaded to YouTube in June.
I like Google’s products but I don’t necessarily trust the company any more than I would trust a government. Time after time, Google has been aggressive — and even unethical and illegal – in its pursuit of personal data that will help sell ads.
I don’t have any answers. I’m not sure I even have the right questions at this point. But I do know that I am uneasy having a single company wield so much power and determine what is “free speech” on a global basis. What have we gotten ourselves into?
Image courtesy of Funny Potato
Is social media contributing to political paralysis?
Feb 9th
I’m a student of history … probably half the books I read are biographies or something to do with a past era. So today I’d like you to oblige me while I connect the dots between the social media revolution and what appears to be increasing political paralysis in the U.S., India, Greece, and other nations.
My impression is that political leaders of past decades were no less competitive, egotistical, or power-hungry than the politicians of today. They were probably less demographically-diverse, less educated, and less in tune with constituents because of the lag time in communications before the Internet.
It’s hard to compare apples to apples, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there has indeed been a shift, and politicians today are less able to find compromise that helps keep a country moving in the right direction. How might we explain the change?
Could there be a paralyzing effect of social media?
Last year I had a fascinating discussion with a bright young man who devised a way to compare the political sentiment on the social web in Iceland with the public positions taken by his country’s politicians. He could then match the data to see which politicians had positions that most closely compared to the sentiment of the nation.
Once the politicians found out about this, they started stopping by his office frequently to compare scores … and change positions if necessary. Today of course, this is possible to do on a minute-by-minute basis.
There is a certain beauty in this. Politicians in a democracy are supposed to be representing the will of the people. Isn’t this real-time feedback exactly what they need?
But I wonder about the possible advantage in a political process 50 years ago when politicians had to use their best judgment instead of real-time “polling” to make a decision. I can imagine leaders in the 1950s locking themselves behind a door and pounding out a compromise without the shifting sands of social media sentiment to contend with.
Wouldn’t it be easier to keep their focus on an issue instead of jockeying for position on Twitter every day?
Wouldn’t it be easier to take an unpopular position (like cutting entitlement programs to balance a budget) if you only had to deal with the outfall every four years instead of every day?
So I could see both sides of this argument, but the one thing we do know is that the social web is not going to go away.
What do you think? In the long-term, will the constant “polling” of social media sentiment analysis contribute to debilitating political paralysis or more enlightened political accountability?







You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark Schaefer

