Internet Rumours
You heard it on YouTube so it must be true. But how can you be sure? Because it all makes sense. But where did the YouTube user get their evidence from? From individuals who were involved. But how can you be sure? Because it’s all on video.
Social media websites give users the ability to post content without having to prove anything. Users think they are not restricted by law so they say what they want.
I’m less concerned with whether the statements or stories are true or false. I’m more interested in why the rumours are created and the possible ramifications. Take the Lord McApline rumour. Twitter users were quick to tweet and retweet that has was a paedophile. It wasn’t true and the users were sued.
It’s easy to believe what you read or hear on social media about celebrities and public individuals. But it might be worth doing a bit of research to confirm a story. One of the popular rumours on YouTube is that JayZ and Rihanna are devil worshippers. I’ve had a number of conversions with individuals where I have challenged this rumour with 3 simple questions.
- Can you confirm the authenticity of the source of information in the video?
- Have you done any other (non-YouTube based) research?
- Did you consider that these rumours might, in fact, create more publicity for the individuals in question?
Consider the stringent questions you would get from a law professional to prove yourself. My point is simple. Know your facts and consider all possibility before spreading Internet rumours as truth. Consider whom the story will benefit. Consider if the evidence would stand up to newspaper reporting standards and do some proper research which can be backed up.
Interesting article on the BBC website today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257 entitled ‘Twitter users: A guide to the law’. This relates to categories of law on which social media users need to be aware of.
High Court rules that Sally Bercow tweet about Tory peer Lord McAlpine was libellous. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22652083
People need to be aware that the existing law is sufficient to handle so called ‘libellous’ social network posts, even when no specific statement is made.