This weekend I have been very upset about Baby P. As a mum, I struggle to understand how anyone can fail to protect and cherish your own child. A child’s love of its mother is unconditional. A child is powerless. A child just wants to be loved, sheltered and protected. A lot of mums feel overwhelmed by the sadness of this story, it seemed to be the biggest topic on the social-networks last weekend.
One group on Facebook (with over 5000 members) used it’s collective investigative power to expose the identities of the mum and ‘carers’ of Baby P. Another group which was less investigativly inclined was entitled entitled “Death is too good for [the mother's name], torture the bitch that killed Baby P.” Instinctively I felt that this was deserved retribution. But then I wondered how this could be a good thing.
Do Facebook vigilantes or any other social network have the right or power to bring justice to those who ‘deserve’ it? Is it a case of mob rule or just desserts being served? Is this the downside to a democritisation of media?
Most Facebook groups focus on the benign and trivial: I was amused to see a group who want John Sergeant be their granddad. This is Britain at its eccentric best. A disrespect for the rules of “Strictly Come Dancing” may be a bit of harmless fun, but what happens when Facebook communities start to openly challenge the rule of law?
The role of social networks has changed. No longer are they restricted to being a ’social utility’ connecting friends for a big night out. Facebook’s users are a collection of single-issue political-parties, each akin to the gun or knife-control lobbying groups.
Once upon a time, you needed to be in position of power to make things happen. Now, you and me can make a change for better or worse simply by asserting opinions online - on anything we believe passionately about. Whether its to bring back Laura back to the X Factor or or to send a virtual lynch-mob after the villain of the moment. Social networks are proving themselves as serious enabling tools that put power into groups who were once considered to disparate, too obscure or too apathetic to become involved with a political process.
But are we witnessing technology enabling democracy at its best?
‘But are we witnessing technology enabling democracy at its best?’
I’m not soo sure. In the case of ‘Baby P’. I have to wonder if all those people who are on social networks promoting violence to be handed down to the the parents of baby P are not just as perverse as the accused.
Who is going to strike the first blow on those who harmed baby P?
Who will draw first blood? and will we classify the person as any less offesive and perverse because the subject of their violence ‘deserved it’?
The only thing social networking groups are doing, is magnifying what already exists.
I’ll use an ‘old school’ example to illustrate the point.
Facebook was not around when lynching parties were happening.
A point very well made. Sites like facebook are magnifying, accelerating and encouraging a much greater number of people to be involved. However, nothing will bring back Baby P or erase the misery he had to endure in his short interrupted life.
I suggest it’s a British thing. Genetically or lawfully unable to protest (just look at the French), the Great British Public go on a virtual rampage, and only feel powerful when attacking easy targets. Perhaps the economic downturn has made them more liable to pick easy scapegoats such as lower class criminals, swearing celebrities and televised dance competitions.
Its interesting what you say about people’s behaviour changing in an economic downturn. I can really feel a greater sense of community in these times and i guess that has negative and positive aspects. After the second world war, there was a great sense of community- people often unite around a common enemy. The enemy now is the fat cats in wall street.