The November 2015 terror attacks in Paris threw the social media community into a frenzy.
A fire hose of information, opinions, and news streamed through Twitter, Facebook, and
other networks. Some of it real, some of it false, and a lot of miscommunication. In fact,
social media has made disaster response more complicated, yet often times more effective.
So, exactly how has social media changed disasters?
Well, in any disaster, especially one producing casualties, there are two things that people
want to know: what is going on, and are my friends and family safe? Before the internet
was widespread, those questions were answered by legacy news sources, like television and
radio. The whereabouts of loved ones would likely be dependent on a series of phone calls.
But today, the game has completely changed. As soon as a major event occurs, a flood of
information from hundreds, if not thousands of sources springs up, readily available to
anyone with internet access. It has even transformed the nature of journalism, with citizen journalists
sometimes providing the most up to date and accurate information, while traditional reporters
scramble for sources. But with this overwhelming amount of information, there is a glaring
problem: who can be trusted? In the days following the Paris attacks, a picture of a Sikh man
holding an iPad was photoshopped to look like a man holding a Qu’ran, and wearing a bomb
vest. He was purported to be one of the attackers.
This is where another major factor comes in: crowdsourcing. While people post information,
there are dedicated groups fact checking, referencing, and supporting those ideas. Companies
like Grasswire are able to collect huge numbers of tweets and photos, while following up on
stories and checking with experts, all in real time. The faked photo of the Sikh man
was almost immediately flagged as “fake” by Grasswire, preventing it from gaining as
much traction. The internet’s ability to regulate itself can even lead to even stronger
journalistic standards than in staffed legacy news networks.
But at the same time, crowdsourcing information isn’t always the best idea. During the hunt
for the 2013 Boston Bombers, the crowdsourcing media website, Reddit, attempted to figure
out the bombers’ identity. A sort of witch-hunt based on weak evidence led to multiple innocent
people being targeted in the media and online, despite having nothing to do with the case
at all. Clearly, is it important that there be some editorial standard and organization,
or a crowd can run amok with the wrong information.
But social media has also made it fast and easy to reassure everybody that you’re alright
during dangerous events. Facebook’s new “Safety Check” feature lets you, or someone
else, mark you “Safe” in a natural or human disaster. Instead of having to create
a phone tree, you’re able to reassure anyone interested in your well being, and deal with
the disaster at hand. Public officials are also able to reach as many people as possible
by providing directions and updates online, thereby potentially saving lives.
Despite some drawbacks to having a barrage of information, social media has actually
made disaster response more effective, and under the right organization, more accurate.
As technology changes the way we interact with the world, it is important to continue
regulating and adapting to new tools.
If you want to learn more about the power of one social media platform — you might
have heard of it — check out this video about Facebook. Thanks for
watching TestTube News! Special thanks to Grasswire for collaborating with us on this
episode. Make sure to check out the links to their social channels in the description
below. And as always, don’t forget to subscribe to TestTube News for new videos every day.