Forum Moderators: rogerd
However, in the context of a global pandemic -- where media networks are doing their best to spice up an already serious threat -- having millions of people wrap up all their fears into 140 characters and blurt them out in the public might have some dangerous consequences, networked panic being one of them.
I think it's only a matter of time before that the next generation of cyber-terrorists -- those who are smart about social media, are familiar with modern information flows, and are knowledgeable about human networks -- take advantage of the escalating fears over the next epidemic and pollute the networked public sphere with scares that would essentially paralyze the global economy.
One of the least discussed elements in the cyber-attacks that struck Estonia in 2007 was psychological operations. There was, for example, a whole series of text messages aimed specifically at Estonia's vast Russian-speaking populations urging them to drive their cars at 5km/h at a specific time of they day; quite predictably, this led to a hold-up in traffic
Swine flu: Twitter's power to misinform [neteffect.foreignpolicy.com]
What is far more interesting to me than the content of the article is the source of the article: Foreign Policy Magazine.
@bakedjake I just coughed. Icky.@bakedjake I feel kind of warm. Checking thermostat.
@bakedjake OMG! Must be #swineflu!
Seriously, a medium like Twitter can spread accurate info very quickly, but also bogus info. If a prominent Twitter user with tens of thousands of contacts put out a Tweet saying, for example, that the CDC was covering up dozens of deaths, how many times would that get retweeted? And how long would it be before a credible refutation was issued?
Internet accounts of events are almost without exception third party interpretations - so they require the reader to evaluate them closely - or it isn't really useful as a source of information at all.
My knowledge is only as good as my ability to evaluate the source of that knowledge.
I think most internet sources may leave a strange picture of things for future generations - and even the readers of a few weeks later ;)
A member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims that more than 150 people have died from swine flu, saying it has officially recorded only seven deaths around the world.
Sydney Morning Herald: Only 7 swine flu deaths, not 152, says WHO [smh.com.au]
Yearly Flu Deaths - 36,000. That equals about 100 deaths a day. #SwineFlu killed about 180 in a week. RELAX!
Twitter Search: #swineflu [search.twitter.com]
Perhaps this is the evidence we were looking for of a massive government cover up Roger? ;-)
Again, I'm not making any judgments about twitter - as I have folk with unreliable information email me every day... the medium is not to blame. My interest was really that Foreign Policy Magazine was covering it, which means that it is definitely on the radar of governments and policy wonks. These aren't the folk who are hip to the latest Web 2.0 trends, generally.
Government interest can lead to government regulation - look at how the law treats email discovery these days and retention laws with respect to SOX.
Internet accounts of events are almost without exception third party interpretations - so they require the reader to evaluate them closely - or it isn't really useful as a source of information at all.My knowledge is only as good as my ability to evaluate the source of that knowledge.
which is why the reader has the responsibility of checking several sources that cover both sides of the story to consume an objective account of the situation.
;)
Interest, however, remains strong on sites like Twitter, where as of this writing, the Centers For Disease Control has added roughly 30K more followers since Friday.
nonetheless, has all this buzz helped educate people on the virus?
Additionally, the use of H1N1 to describe the virus has increased.
Has Swine Flu Social Buzz Peaked? [blog.nielsen.com]
