Censorship Won’t Change the Psychological Impact of Social Media

Chavez must not have liked his experience using Twitter. He began tweeting earlier this year to improve his public image and offset opposing points of view. But he made the mistake many businesses do; thinking that social media networks follow the rules of the one-to-many communication model where the sender can control information. This is not how the social media environment works, as he found out. Now Chavez wants to control information the old fashioned way, through government censorship.

This is going to be hard to do in a country with 100% mobile phone penetration and one of the highest Twitter subscriber bases in the world, just behind Brazil and Indonesia, not to mention a rising pro-democratic public sentiment. This situation is a pretty apt description for a social media landscape in general: many-to-many messaging that is socially, demographically, geographically and temporally unfettered, where anyone who is willing, can speak up. If Chavez succeeds in imposing his plan for government censorship over social networking sites, however, it won’t change the psychology of Venezuelans. That has already been revolutionized by social media technologies. Social networks drive a psychological and cultural shift. Not only do they create an increasing expectation that individuals can speak up, a networked society also produces a growing expectation that individuals will be heard and responded to by those at the top. And not with a jail term or handcuffs.

Is it possible to shut down social media networking countrywide? China is an example of how censorship is only partially possible. In a networked society, there will always be ways of getting around a firewall, finding a proxy server, or creating cell relays. In Venezuela, a country that is already engaged in social media and is doing it with mobile devices, trying to shut everyone down would be a practical and political disaster.

Social media has infiltrated our lives at every levels–political, business, social and entertainment–all the way down to mundane daily tasks. A lot of people worry that we would be incapable of stopping using Facebook or Twitter, as if those tools were in some way the instigators rather than the facilitators. Of course people could stop using them–people can do anything for the most part–but it’s not about the tools. It is, however, the equivalent to asking them to stop connecting with friends, getting information when they need it, and going about the business of life. Aside from the loss of economic productivity and serious erosion to Chavez’ standings in the public opinion polls, shutting down social networks would create a devastating loss of social connectivity. This strikes at a core of human drive–the need to be social.

China, as one of the poster children for censorship, has been only moderately successful at keeping the Great Fire Wall intact and they have a lot of practice. They’ve been trying to censor new forms of media from the very beginning, at considerable financial and social expense. However, what Chavez proposes is even more difficult. He is trying to take something away that people already have: communication patterns that have been assimilated deeply into their daily lives. This isn’t about Facebook or Twitter. These and other social media tools only exist to support human goals and needs.

Could Chavez close down the Venezuelan Facebook access? Yes. But, imposing such censorship would not only be socially divisive, it would be widely ineffective. It is not possible to close down the need for the social activity. Nor is it possible to isolate and control information: What happens in Venezuela will not stay in Venezuela.Social networks are not just linked locally; they are linked globally. This kind of event would be fuel for Twitterers and social rights activists around the world. The Iran elections are one example of a cautionary tale.

Government intervention and censorship would just drive networks underground. Solutions would be continually created, fueled by the ingenuity and passion of people driven to find another way to achieve the same goals. It’s very hard to silence people in the face of injustice. It’s even harder when you’re trying to shut down social connection.

Previously published on Psychology Today’s “Positively Media”