Poll finds two thirds in favour of social media blackout during unrest

"During unrest do you want to be 'left in the dark' with no information that can help you avoid those unrest areas?" - NO

"During unrest do you want these unclean leech anti-whatever free-loading scroungers to be stopped from using the internet to trash your neighbourhood?" - YES

These two questions are the same question, phrased differently. Two thirds of people would say yes to anything, if the question is phrased in a way to get them to say it.

Buzzwords like "safety", "inconvenience", "leeches", "free-loaders" and "costs" have always been great buzzwords to undermine people from participating in their democracy. Democracy was never designed to be as convenient fascism.

Anyone remember the Evening Standard Seller who got stuck, then bashed by police mistaking him for a G20 protestor? If he had a cell phone and stayed in the loop about protest developments, he might have left his work post early enough to not have been trapped in by the police - and then beat by one crazy cop.

Is this new "switch of social networks" even going to work? Or would protestors out think this block as quick as they make it? I mean a protestor could simply release a series of links that bounce off of mirrored multiple servers where update sources change every 5 minutes and aren't abled to be shut down by the government quick enough. This would keep protestors informed and chatting, and the public so far out of the loop they wouldn't have enough information to avoid whatever chaos might be around the corner.

Also the cops use the Social networks to figure out what is being planned anyways... so shutting them down in unrest would mean the cops would be out of the loop and less able to be where they need to be to prevent more unrest.

Really flawed idea. Really flawed question. Really flawed strategy.

While I wouldn't want to see a repeat performance of the riots that took place in August, I would be totally against the government having the power to shut down the social networks as did the Egyptian authorities during the revolution in Egypt earlier this year.

With the Occupy Movement gathering strength on a daily basis, social media has played an important part in its spread and in reporting the truth of what's going on out on the streets. Social networks have allowed the protestors to have a voice and to make practically instant reports when it looks as if civil rights are being abused (as in the case of tear-bombing the protestors in the US). We can't rely on the media to give an unbalanced view of what's going on - a case in point being a recent video that I watched here on Current. While some of the print media had reported that a large percentage of the tents at St. Paul's were unoccupied, some of the protestors hired the exact same thermal imaging camera (from the same source) as the newspaper claimed to have hired. They then conducted their own experiment showing what appeared to be an "empty" tent when, in fact, about half a dozen people emerged from it. Who's to say that the government won't at some point decide that this movement constitutes a riot, with the traditional media backing them up. I just don't trust the government or other authorities enough to believe that they wouldn't abuse this power if it suited them. This is what the Occupy Movement is all about - it's the 99% trying to get a fair deal - the government members are definitely not part of the 99%.

When the internet was shut down in Egypt during the revolution I was extremely concerned for the safety of friends who are living and working in Cairo. We had been communicating via Facebook and I knew they were safe. There was then quite a long period with no communication whatsoever - during which time their friends all over the world were worried sick about them. I had people from other parts of the UK phoning me expressing concern and I actually phoned a friend's mobile phone in Egypt a couple of times, leaving voicemail messages in a bid to find out what was going on.