Social media communication has been rapidly expanding and evolving, giving humans access to things they may or may not want access to. Some of us find it addicting, the ability to engage and be a part of something we see or read online. After watching a documentary on a 2012 murder case, I concluded that our ability to interact and say what we want online, can and has been taken too far.
In early 2012, a young man, Luka Magnotta, posted a video of himself murdering cats, sparking outrage from animal activist communities. This community created a Facebook page of people dedicated to figure out who the currently unknown culprit was. Modern technology enabled them to download his video in a frame-by-frame manor, to find any clues that could lead to a suspect. They went as far as figuring out where the vacuum in the back was sold, and even further details that the public took the liberty of investigating. The suspect then posted another video killing more cats, likely a result from the attention and outrage he received, they he so enjoyed.
The Facebook group found a lead, and ended up publicly accusing a man of the crimes committed. While he proved not the be the suspect, the messages and posts about him via Facebook did not come to an immediate halt. During this time, that man committed suicide. Though this view was never addressed, my immediate thought, was did these self-appointed investigators go too far? And does their freedom of speech protect the words that could have motivated a man's self-inflicted death? Another issue that I noticed, after the suspect anonymously posted a video of a Facebook member leader's workplace as a threat, was the issue of privacy. When users are given access to information that they can't resist to become involved in, specifically an intense and dangerous one as such, is this platform and access to information endangering users? Magnotta's final video, before getting caught and detained, was of himself murdering a man named Jun Lin. I would argue that the progression from one video, which brought him attention, to the second cat video, increasing the attention and the hunt that drives a killer, played a huge role in motivating Magnotta to kill a human. The entire purpose for posting the initial video, was a cry for attention, to which prevailed. Therefor the question is whether or not the Facebook community acting as investigators, commenting however they please, and giving him the attention he lived off of, lead to Jun Lin's murder.
Ultimately, the Facebook page members ended up assisting law enforcement in naming the suspect, all through intense screening of videos and posts, enabled by Facebook. However, they persisted in locating Magnotta, but ultimately played no part in his capture.
No comments:
Post a Comment