No Ban on Social Media after Use in Riots

Initially, politicians considered restricting social media due to its alleged role in organizing violence. However, the government later decided against seeking additional powers to control these platforms, recognizing the impracticality and potential negative implications of such actions. Social media is seen as a tool for citizen empowerment rather than repression. Despite some individuals being charged for using social media to incite trouble, its overall impact during the riots was positive, aiding communication and cleanup efforts. A post-riots summit emphasized improving relations between social media companies and the police.

What was the initial reaction of politicians towards social media's role in organizing violence?

• They praised it for its positive impact.

• They considered restricting access to social media sites.

• They ignored it completely.

• They encouraged more use of social media.

Why did the government decide against controlling social media?

• They had no interest in technology.

• They believed social media was irrelevant.

• They wanted to be like Iran or China.

• They realized it was impractical and didn't want to be seen as repressive.

What was the government's view on social media during the Arab Spring?

• They were indifferent to its use.

• They saw it as a tool for repression.

• They applauded its use as a tool for freedom.

• They banned its use entirely.

What did the analysis by journalists conclude about social media's role during the riots?

• The positives far outweighed the negatives.

• It was mostly negative.

• It had no impact at all.

• It was the main cause of the riots.

What percentage of tweets were related to the riot cleanup?

• 8%

• 50%

• 25%

• 15%