Editor,

RE: "Was Uganda right to shutdown social media during elections?” (The New Times, February 25).

The writer’s insight is much appreciated as always. The question now becomes: what does shutting down social media change in the likely event of mass riots?

People have been organising and protesting even long before this tool was invented. If the 60's are any indication (and the 70's, 80's…), I doubt that folks who are unhappy about a particular political issue will abstain from organising and participating in mass manifestations—peaceful or otherwise just because there is no social media to facilitate organisation.

That should be the very duty of the security forces. And a well governed country understands this. Rwanda is a prime example.

Ali Baba

***************************

I totally agree with the writer and I liked the example of the London riots.

However, real experience has shown that western media watchdogs will for instance approve PM David Cameron's statement as legitimate, and protest against President Yoweri Museveni's concern as suppression of media freedom.

Talk of double standards?

Gerald Mbanda

***************************

I was living in London when the riots happened and have followed the story closely. I disagree with the author's statement that the "average Londoner’s life was altered in one way or another as a result".

David Cameron made reactive statements in the immediate aftermath of the riots when politicians and the authorities hadn't had time to look into the real causes of the rioting.

The UK authorities also did not shut down social media sites or turn off services pre-emptively as the government did in Uganda. Instead, they reported accounts or people who were seen to be spreading untrue messages to the social media services so that they could be dealt with using established feedback mechanisms.

It is worth quoting David Cameron's statement made to the UK Parliament just after the riots: "A lot of those rumours were circulating. Although the use of social media helped gangs to do bad things, it also helped the law-abiding to know what was happening and how to react and stop it."

Later, journalistic investigations and academic studies showed that, in fact, social media messages did not cause the London riots. Instead, in most cases, events happened and then social media reactions occurred afterwards.

So the riots were not caused by social media as some suggest.

Stephen Abbott