Vietnam's newest law

In honor of it being Thanksgiving, I think we can all agree that we are thankful to be living in America, one of the freest countries in the world. Vietnamese officials just passed a new law which will fine or imprison anyone who criticizes the government on social media. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1367302/vietnam-announces-big-fines-social-media-propaganda . If anyone is caught criticizing the government in Vietnam, they will be fined 100 million dong (US$4,734) or sentenced to jail. Not only will they fine for criticisms, but if someone posts a map of Vietnam that is inconsistent with the country's sovereignty claims, they will be fined as well.

We are fortunate enough that we live in a place where we (as citizens) would never let our government do this; it also helps that we are guaranteed this right by the 1st Amendment. Of 90 million citizens in Vietnam, 1/3 of whom use the internet, 20 million of them have Facebook accounts. I'm not sure what the government could do if all 20 million people spoke out against the government at once. 

This kind of reminds me of Egypt when the social media was taken away and the people took to the streets where a revolution occurred. I just wonder how long the Vietnamese people or world leaders will allow this kind of treatment to continue. In the digital age, it is not good for a country to be known as an enemy if the internet, just as Vietnam is. This kind of treatment will only last for so long before 20+ million people take to the streets. 

A template for social media when big events occur

In remembrance of 50 years since JFK was assassinated, USA Today came out with an interesting story of what it would be like if social media was around when this tragic event occurred: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/rieder/2013/11/21/if-kennedy-had-been-shot-in-the-social-media-era/3663465/

What I find most interesting about this is that this is more of a template for tragic events that occur. Something of this importance will have people who report false information or who will report something as fact before having enough credible sources.

There will be a ton of speculation of what happened by both the media and citizens. People can instantaneously disagree or argue about what they think happened without having actually been there. Social media can actually make situations worst because of false information. In 1963, most people had to wait to hear a news update either from the morning paper or on the nightly news station. This gave the media more time to produce accurate information. If the President were to be assassinated today, a frenzy and chaos would occur because of all of the false information put out there. Also, people who did not support the president would make jokes about it (there are always ignorant people out there) which would cause fights between people. There would be so much confusion because of all of the different stories and speculations.

This article did a pretty good job of reenacting the JFK assassination in social media terms. In order for chaos not to follow in a similar situation today, the government would have to immediately come out with a statement and the mass media would have to be careful about what "facts" they tell people.

Anything you say on social media can and will be used against you in a court of law

I've previously written how the government tracking people's posts on social media can be a good thing in terms of cutting personnel costs and improving the efficiency of government. On the flip side, there are many negatives about the government being able to track people's posts. In the digital age where everything we post can essentially be seen by anyone in the world, one must carefully think before they post. In Texas, a 19 year old has been jailed for 5 months and faces a sentence of 2 to 10 years for a post he made on Facebook: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/teen-jailed-facebook-comments-out-bail-thanks-anonymous-donor-6C10619428 . 

Yes, his post was stupid and careless, but he was being sarcastic about the Sandy Hook situation. The authorities saw the post and arrested the teen for making a terroristic threat. I agree that any type of threat needs to be investigated, but for him to face these kinds of consequences for a sarcastic comment defies his civil liberties. 

Schools are even paying companies to track social media posts by their students in order to look at cyber-bullying and potential suicide posts. All of that is good, but when a kid gets expelled for dropping a few F-bombs in a tweet, the line has been crossed. If it does not happen on school grounds, I do not think the school has any business getting involved in these types of situations. At most, the school should alert the child's parents so that they can handle it the way they want to. Who knew that a child's parents could punish them better than the government/school? This gets to a point where the government is having too much control and access to people's lives. http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/careful-what-you-tweet-police-schools-tap-social-media-track-4B11215908

At any rate, people need to understand that whatever they post on social media sites can and probably will be seen by the government. If you've read George Orwell's 1984, this all may be sounding really familiar. It should not even be an issue, but people need to start thinking before they Tweet. If you make a threat of some sort, even if you are being sarcastic, the government will find you and punish you accordingly. 

Social Media During an Election

Social media during an election has its clear benefits, as successfully shown by President Obama in 2008 and 2012, but it also has its drawbacks, as shown by Anthony Weiner. This article, http://phys.org/news/2013-08-social-media-double-edged-sword-politicians.html , discusses how social media is a double-edged sword for politicians. Social media is a great way for a politician to get their message and name out there, but a negative tweet outweighs the benefits of a positive tweet. A negative tweet can be the difference between winning and losing an election, or can even cost a politician their career, as seen in Anthony Weiner's case (as discussed in another blog post).

A big problem for politicians and candidates is their social media accounts getting hacked. Even if they did not send the tweet, it reflects negatively upon them. If a candidate is leading in the polls and already has name recognition, such as an incumbent usually would, then it might be wise for them to not even have a social media account because one negative tweet could cost them an election. 

Last week, Obama's twitter got hacked by a Syrian group called the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA). The SEA posted a link on Obama's twitter that led people to a YouTube video about terrorism in Syria. Although the link was quickly fixed, it shows that even the President's twitter account is not completely hack-proof. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-twitter-account-compromised-syrian-group-hacks-link-shortener-article-1.1499201 . 

In addition to politicians and candidates' twitter's being hacked, news organizations have the same problem. This is actually more harmful to the public than politicians' accounts being hacked. If a politician's account gets hacked, then it just causes harm to that politician, but if a news organization's account gets hacked, it could cause chaos in public. In 2011, Fox News' twitter got hacked and the hacker posted that the President was assassinated. Although false, if people read this live, then it could create pandemonium. For these reasons, social media is a double-edged sword for politicians during an election.