Freedom of speech always presents a problem when it is paid for with billions of dollars in advertising, royalties and national security.
The rising popularity of social Web sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube has added a strange side to the debate on social networking.
People who used to have little to no power can easily reach millions. This rise in social media is plaguing the military and anyone who owns a copyright.
This is the same problem that caused Metallica to file a lawsuit against Napster in 2000 and Prince a lawsuit against YouTube.
Recent examples of organizations that feel overwhelmed by social media can be found in the Southeastern Conference, an NCAA Division I Conference.
The SEC approved a media policy in August that banned ticketed fans from using social media to send out any account, descriptions, pictures, video and audio about any sporting event. Fans were also told they could no longer tweet during games.
After fans made enough raucous on sites like Twitter, the SEC reversed its decision.
Collegiate athletics is not the only area where social media was prohibited.
The U.S Marines Corps issued an immediate ban on social networking Web sites, and the Marine Corps Enterprise Network cannot use social media Web sites.
The order sates that ‘the very nature of SNS [social network sites] creates a larger attack and exploitation window, exposes unnecessary information to adversaries and provides an easy conduit for information leakage that puts OPSEC [operational security], COMSEC [communications security], [and] personnel’hellip; at an elevated risk of compromise.’
The main issue addressed in both of these stories is the nature of social networking sites.
This is important when the military and corporations are considering these Web sites as a threat to billions of dollars and national security.
These Web sites present a problem to anyone who attempts to define what they are, the implications of using them and how long they will last.
Social networking Web sites are constantly changing. The one certainty is they do provide users with freedom of speech. They will exist as long as people want to exercise this freedom.
The idea of reaching a mass audience gives users the illusion that they are reaching millions. In reality, the vast majority of them will reach no one.
Few care about users’ relationship statuses or how edgy they can be in a 140-character news feed.
Plus, the large amount of people who use these Web sites make it impossible for someone to patrol and monitor all these Web sites with the zeal of a scorned lover.
Despite the illusion that these Web sites offer, they still maintain a great deal of importance. Their lack of moderation provides users with the responsibility that comes with free speech.
This accountability allows users to decide how they define social sites and how to use them on an individual basis.
Travis Hensley is a philosophy senior and may be reached at [email protected]
‘
