The immediate aftermath of an extreme act 鈥� terrorism, for example, or a mass shooting 鈥� often includes widespread scrutiny of a perpetrator鈥檚 social media pages. Although this can sometimes provide context or clues to motive, it may just as easily fuel conspiracy theories, encourage copycats, or even misidentify a suspect.
It鈥檚 no surprise, then, that the social media records of people accused of such acts . The power of social media companies to act was demonstrated after the recent attack at the YouTube headquarters in California by .
Removal was very fast. Aghdam was a YouTube creator of minor fame, with multiple videos extolling the virtues of veganism, animal rights and bodybuilding. Within hours of walking into the company鈥檚 premises in San Bruno and shooting three people before killing herself, her , including her presence on YouTube, Facebook and even her webpages. Most people would see that as reasonable.
Advertisement
Social footprint
But accounts can be deleted in less clear-cut circumstances. Political opinions, religious extremism and brief nudity have all been cited as reasons for removal from various networks. And as , the potential arises for an offence on one service to lead to exile from multiple social hubs. The biggest worry would be that what is portrayed as a fair process with clear rules becomes anything but.
As the role of social technologies continues to expand, banishment can affect far more than the ability to share selfies. Increasingly, businesses and governments have begun to see a social media footprint as a core representation of an individual. Many businesses will scour a job candidate鈥檚 social media looking for potential problems.
Examination of content is also now in some cases a part of the border security for international visitors to the US. The danger is that signs of a deleted account, or lacking a social media presence at all, could soon be seen as suspicious.
An 鈥渦n-person鈥�
Moreover, for many individuals the content of their blogs, Facebook pages, or Twitch videos is their most powerful medium for self-representation. It has long been a cornerstone of the argument for the power of the internet that these technologies enable anyone to have a global platform 鈥� in most countries at least. Such media offer the only real opportunity for the vast majority of people to talk about themselves in their own voices.
Removal from a single social media platform might, at worst, be considered equivalent to shunning, the practice of treating an individual in violation of social norms as if he or she simply was not there. Being removed from every (or nearly every) social media service, however, should be seen as something even more dramatic: being made an 鈥渦n-person鈥�.
As our digital shadows become fundamental representations of who we are, the outright elimination of someone鈥檚 online presence may even be considered the loss of their identity.
In the European Union, there are laws guaranteeing a 鈥渞ight to be forgotten鈥�, a right to request personal information be deleted from the internet. If social media platforms increasingly have the power to unilaterally make individuals digitally disappear, we may want to start thinking about a 鈥渞ight to be remembered鈥� as well.
Read more: Right to be forgotten online still divides the world;听Forever online: Your digital legacy
