Nina Bicket on the rise and fall of social media's reputation for freedom of speech.

As we enter 2012, a year post-Arab Spring and under #occupation, a year in which the inhabitants of most countries have become used to the sight of protest marches every other week and camps in the middle of cities, it seems that one thing is clear: politics has moved from the official sphere into the hands of the people.

More and more ordinary citizens have given up the apathy that is so stereotypical, especially of the youth, to become involved in the condemnation of politicians and big businesses, ongoing revolutions, and the rebuilding of their governments.

One of the more surprising changes that has occurred amongst this global turmoil has been the re-emergence of social media as a significant tool for the politically active. No longer just a medium through which your estranged second cousin can liveblog his progress through the queue at Starbucks to purchase his venti double-shot extra hot caramel macchiato (with whipped cream), Twitter has become synonymous with the Arab Spring, a source of news in a situation where there is no other, and a method of organisation.

Solidarity can be shown with hashtags, and political pressure can be applied by bombarding your local politician with questions. Because they’re on Twitter, too; everyone from the Hon. MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup to Barack Obama is tweeting these days (or, at least, their team is doing it for them), and are more accessible than ever.

Over on the other side of the internet, Facebook was once solely a tool for finding just how much a “friend” you’ve never met before likes “jammin’ with my mates” or pushing the boundaries of personal privacy by trawling through pictures to find out whether your ex’s new girlfriend looks better in a bikini than you.

Admittedly, these are all still the most popular uses for the ubiquitous site, but recent months have seen members making use of the page and event features to raise awareness for causes, and to mobilise groups of like-minded people.

Events such as Slut Walks and occupations can and have been instigated by the simple act of clicking “join”.

Social media has become a key tool for the plethora of political movements and the new generation of the politically active, thanks to its accessibility to huge numbers of people, its ease of use, lack of institutional bias found in many news organisations, and ability to easily bring together groups of people and give their message a voice in countries where state censorship and harsh punitive laws mean that there is no other means to achieve this.

But like so many good things, this was not to last. Facebook’s heavy-handed policy of removing pages and groups it deems inappropriate is already quite well known. Even in the UK the company has been known to delete pages about spending cuts and events organising protests. Now, however, Twitter seems to be getting in on the act. On January 26, on their blog, Twitter announced that it would be allowing country-specific censorship of certain tweets.

The system would work on an individual basis, with tweets being removed following a complaint. The tweet would continue to be visible in other countries, but in the country where the complaint was made, all that would be visible is the phrase “Tweet withheld”.

In their announcement, Twitter cited France and Germany, both of which ban pro-Nazi content as a defence of their new policy. Despite this, critics of censorship have taken to the internet in outrage, pointing out that Twitter’s free-speech credentials have been, until now, very impressive.

Whether or not Twitter feels it can justify their new system with examples of anti-Nazi censorship, the fact remains that they have come under huge amounts of criticism for the move.

As a site which has become incredibly influential in many global political movements, and which has been a beacon of free speech in countries where no other option exists, can they really defend snatching away the revolutionary spirit they have helped to foster in so many of the previously apathetic, and the voice which they have given to so many of the voiceless?