Social media and democracy

  

.

Social media and democracy

Many people are glad because Donald Trump banned from Facebook and Twitter. But the question is would that man be banned if he would win the elections and got the second period as the President of The United States? When we are talking about the problems with social media companies.

We must ask what the limits of the trolls in social media are? How social media companies make decisions about who banned from their platforms? So what is fake or harmful information, what should deny sharing?

And what should show to the entire world? We know that in many nations in different ways to see the freedom of speech and publish. If we are thinking about the situations in some undemocratic nations. The thing that governments of those nations are certainly hoping delivering information on how the authorities are treating the opposition stops. Are things like international relationships things that should not comment? Or are the things like some options of bosses like a leasing car with unlimited kilometres and the house at the beach of the lake also things, what should not tell to the entire world?

Another thing is that there are many gangsters and other kinds of people. Who hopes that social media will shut down. Social media uncovers many things, which we don't want to show to people.

Social media is a good place for sharing opinions. And show how wonderful some people are if some person praises for good opinions that person might want to show how good those opinions are to the entire world. Social media is the right environment to show how fine those opinions are.

The problem is everybody can use social media, and in the same way, everybody can make an account by using a fake identity. The fake identity can create simply by using some YouTube film. The user can simply stop the film, make a screenshot of the face of the actor. And then make it look like a passport picture. Then that person can make the fake Id to Facebook and other social media account.

Or the person can simply steal the image of some other user of the Social Media channel and then open a new account for that identity. Then that person can start to send messages around the Internet that the account of the original person is stolen. So that thing can cause very much trouble for the victim of the identity thief.

The problem is that what if somebody uses the picture of government officials? And what if somebody is playing the cop on Facebook, and tells that things like police violations are accepted? How much that kind of thing can destroy the reputation of the authorities? And what happens if it is done in the eyes of the community that they should serve and protect?

Would that thing cause more violence in the community, because people are losing their trust in the police? Otherwise, there is always a possibility that some officers or security guards are using unnecessary tough touch in their work? When somebody has shot by the officers of the law. There are always two stories. The first story is the story, what the suspect tells, and the story that the witnesses are telling.

The fact is that when we are starting to make crimes against some people, we are thinking that they are bad persons. That kind of way to think is making crimes easier to make. And delivering the wrong information can cause death. The fact is that if the person feels other people as a threat. That can low the level to use of deadly force.

But how social media companies have defined the limit of delivering information that is touching criminal activities? What is the border between the information that should deliver? And what is the information that should not share? What if somebody is starting to claim that some other person is let's say about serial raper without evidence? Or what if some person starts to claim that some pornographic actor or actress has AIDS, and then those persons lose their career?

Or what if some person lost the marriage when somebody delivers fake information about the history of that person? And entire life when somebody claims that this person has made serious crimes?

The mind is trying to protect itself when a person has committed a crime. The imagination creates scenes that the person has the right to violate another person.

When people are arrested by violence, their brains are trying to make the justification of the case. "There was an armed man" or "there was a gun anyway" are the first thoughts, what those people are the first thinking. They are trying to find the reason for their actions. If the victim is an officer, the shooter is trying to think that the officer was not showing the bench.

And the police are trying to cover or fake the evidence is the thing. That comes to the head of the victim. When the family members or close friends of the victim are under interrogation. Those people are thinking "oh it cannot be our son or husband whoever carries the gun".

We cannot ever think that our family members or person in our social network made a crime. There are many variations of this kind of protection reflex. If the victim is unarmed and the shooter was an officer, that shooter is always trying to prove to themselves that there was a gun, but other gang members are taking it away. And then those things are written on social media. Then the rumors are starting to grow, and then that thing turns to mass execution.

Image: https://www.nps.gov/stli/index.htm

 https://curiosityanddarkmatter.home.blog/2021/01/22/social-media-and-democracy/