Some European politicians are making
well-intentioned calls, with the massacre in Norway and street riots in England fresh on the public conscious, that networking sites and commentary refuse made-up names or (pseudo) anonymous contributions in order to prevent circulation of hate-speech or organizing chaos. Some instigators have always cowered behind anonymity when disseminating destructive suggestion to avoid catching any of the blame when things end badly, and though most faceless pontiffs only go so far, speech and expression are protected, for one, to keep tyranny in check. The paradigms of the Arab Spring do not owe their existence solely to tweets and spasms but the democracy movement certainly would have
managed a different pace without networking tools and the privacy that the internet can afford. Mobilization of thuggery, as characterized by some, is a frightening thing but internet crowd-sourcing and crowd-control has not completely managed to transform the population into lemmings.
Those motivated for a cause can discern between leadership and cowardly advocates. Meanwhile, this
Orwellian crack-down has already come to pass, autonomously--without discussion or policy-debate, locally enacted without a higher-mandate, which is illustrative of the mindset of some people, over the weekend on the platforms of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in and around San Francisco, California. In response to the killing of two passengers by BART officers--which is another disturbing insight into the mindset of some, when a bus driver is licensed to kill--supposedly a protest rally had been organized. Though the planned rally did not take place, wireless services were disabled to prevent further, real-time coordination by the unruly mob. These broad powers to take a group or individuals offline because they might incite a riot is disturbing. No one wants authority figures to decide what is seemly and warranted--and I suspect that most listened when their mothers admonished, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..."--but it certainly seems even more dangerous to let a protest escalate into a violent confrontation with multiple bystanders with no way to call for help.
Those motivated for a cause can discern between leadership and cowardly advocates. Meanwhile, this Orwellian crack-down has already come to pass, autonomously--without discussion or policy-debate, locally enacted without a higher-mandate, which is illustrative of the mindset of some people, over the weekend on the platforms of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in and around San Francisco, California. In response to the killing of two passengers by BART officers--which is another disturbing insight into the mindset of some, when a bus driver is licensed to kill--supposedly a protest rally had been organized. Though the planned rally did not take place, wireless services were disabled to prevent further, real-time coordination by the unruly mob. These broad powers to take a group or individuals offline because they might incite a riot is disturbing. No one wants authority figures to decide what is seemly and warranted--and I suspect that most listened when their mothers admonished, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..."--but it certainly seems even more dangerous to let a protest escalate into a violent confrontation with multiple bystanders with no way to call for help. 
