The Economist is today launching an ad campaign in London Underground stations asking travelers where they stand on the issue of social media censorship.
The Economist’s ‘Where do you stand?’ brand campaign was originally launched in 2010 to drive debate and discussion on key issues covered in the weekly magazine. Its latest initiative includes a double-pronged approach to inspire heated debate around the question: Should social media be censored?
‘Challenge misconceptions’
The campaign presents arguments for and against each topic and will run until the 20the of February. The Economist says it wants to continue “challenging non-readers’ misconceptions of the brand by demonstrating its wide-ranging editorial content”. Posters also offer potential readers a free copy of The Economist through a text code.
The anti-argument says:
- Authoritarian governments often shut down social networks. If democracies do the same, they can hardly preach to dictators.
- Rescue services increasingly rely on social networks for real-time information during emergencies. Any restrictions could cost lives.
- Nobody supports blanket censorship for books, films or the press any more. Social media are no different in principle from other media.
The ‘social media should be censored’ arguments are:
- Social media can be used to organise mass violence: instant messaging services fuelled the London riots.
- False rumours can spread like wildfire and sow panic. Tweets about gunmen attacking schools in Mexico allegedly led to 26 car crashes.
- Parents can choose to block adult websites on a child’s computer, but they can’t currently block pornography on a social network.
The Economist will also be running a second campaign along the same lines, asking whether drone strikes are justifiable. The ads coincide with Social Media Week which kicks off around the world next week.
The Economist is launching a series of activities to run concurrently with the event to promote its Facebook and Twitter accounts – over 940,000 people now Like its Facebook Page, and over 1.5 million follow its Twitter feed. Part of its plans include a discussion on the two ad topics, asking readers to consider where they stand on each issue on Facebook, and a poll on Twitter asking people to choose between the compelling arguments on both sides.
With a global readership of 4.5m people, The Economist is one of the most widely recognised current affairs publications. The paper covers politics, business, science and technology, and books and arts, concluding each week with the obituary. Its website offers articles from the past ten years, in addition to Web-only content such as blogs, debates and audio/video programmes. People can tweet and join in the debate here.
Really interesting article and I look forward to reading about your findings in the study.
I reckon it is a double edged sword. Social media is a wonderful thing, power to the people but there is also a sinister side that is yet to be reported in the British press. In LA gangs are grooming young adults into the culture and in the UK there is an underground network of criminals (and weirdos/mental health) with fake profiles claiming to be mainly celebrities (footballers, music, celebrities) on Facebook.
The celebrities on Twitter mostly are real as easier to get caught but not Facebook! Very sinister side to social media but hopefully the good will outweight the bad. The law is in place now in regards to actions on social media and Facebook is becoming more responsible to report fake accounts.
Social media is a good and a bad thing. It has made the world become smaller and the problems seemer bigger than the past.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like