It may be intended to spark rage, but could graphic footage from Syria backfire? (Image courtesy Flickr user Freestylee via Creative Commons.)

The recent footage coming out of Syria has been brutal. The Syrian regime seems intent on making an example of the Free Syrian Army holed up in Bab Amr, the opposition stronghold neighbourhood in Homs. But it is innocent civilians who are taking the brunt of the punishment. Stories of shelling, shrapnel bombs, snipers and torture, all against civilians, accompany Twitter hashtags like #Syria and #Homs.

Both Andy Carvin and Anthony de Rosa have tweeted multiple video links with warnings about graphic content: the dead and dying, wounded children, the maimed. It’s obvious that the content is affecting Carvin, who tweeted: “After everything that happened with Hamza this week, the video of the 2-yr-old really shook me up. Dammit. #homs #syria”

Blogger Zeynep Tufecki wrote in support of Carvin’s choice to tweet graphic video links, saying that Twitter curators are changing the content of news that we view. She argues that by tweeting links to graphic content that would have never made prime time news, we are now able to obtain a more accurate picture of what is happening in countries like Syria. In addition, because curators like Carvin react personally to these videos, it brings a human face to the conflict in a way that new anchors do not. Tufecki says this “anti-playstation effect” is in contrast to sterile mainstream news reporting which distances viewers from the human reality of war.

But while I agree with Tufecki, I also wonder what long-term effect Twitter will have on the way we view news.

While I understand that there are terrible atrocities being committed in Homs, I have already begun to avoid clicking on links sent out by Carvin and others like him. The warning tells the content, and I’d rather not have my mind full of images of death and dying. Is this chicken of me? Possibly. Or it might just be human: some sights are simply too much to bear.

Will the majority of Twitter users begin, like me, to skip over graphic content? Or, if they view it, will they become numbed to it? Ostensibly, the goal of Free Syrian Army supporters, in tweeting out this kind of content, is to inform the world of the Syrian government’s actions and to draw support for their cause. But could they be shooting themselves in the foot? Will there be a breaking point at which Twitter users tune out and turn away? The evening news initially brought the same kind of horrified response. It had the power to move people and governments to action. Now, however, too many turn away with a feeling of powerlessness.

I suspect that graphic content overload coming out of Syria via Twitter will have the same effect of shutting viewers down, causing them to tune out and turn off. And that would be worse for the revolution than if the graphic content had remained unseen.

Image courtesy of Flickr user IsaacMao via Creative Commons

The furor over Twitter’s announcement last month that it would allow the geo-blocking of messages turns out to have been something of a tempest in a teapot.

The uproar arose out of a misunderstanding: that Twitter was going to filter all tweets and selectively block those with content offensive to repressive governments. In fact, it will only retroactively block tweets upon request. A recent announcement from Twitter suggests that it will block tweets only in response to legal obligations within the various countries into which Twitter is now expanding. However, the move has raised an important question: Is our trust in private corporations to provide our internet utilities misplaced?

A “Twitter blackout” in protest of Twitter “censorship” was mostly a fizzle. Now that the dust has settled, calmer heads have prevailed and some are pointing to Twitter’s move to partner with website Chilling Effects to transparently show which countries are requesting censoring of tweets, calling it a smart move on the company’s part.

It has been suggested that the blocked tweets – which will appear in a greyed-out box with a line stating where the tweet has been blocked – could even help draw attention to repressive censorship, thus shaming countries into better behaviour.

However, the more important issue Twitter’s new policy raises is that it highlights just how much the world has come to rely on the services of private corporations as human rights. We now believe that it is our right to tweet, to use Facebook and to upload data to cloud storage. We’re relying on private companies not only for our public utilities, but also to fuel revolutions and overthrow governments. We’re trusting that they have our best interest in mind. But since private companies are in the business of making a profit, is our good faith misplaced?

Much was made of the role of Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal’s $300 million December investment in Twitter in this the new geo-blocking policy. While it is unlikely that the prince’s 3 per cent stake is behind the new policy, it does raise a concern: What if someone like bin Talal had substantial control of one of these internet utilities on which the world now relies?

For what began as a largely community-based service is becoming increasingly corporation-controlled.

We now willingly upload private information, business presentations, and all manner of personal information onto the servers of corporations like Twitter, Facebook and Prezi. Increasingly, we are handing over our data for free without much certainty as to what protections will be given (pdf) to it now, or in the future.

Information is power. We’re more certain of that than ever before. Why, then, are we so willingly giving so much of it away?