G20 Summit Effects on Open Communication

During the most recent G20 summit in Toronto, the sending and receiving of text messages in the city was delayed by 40 minutes to protect the heads of state gathered for the conference. As one of the fundamental underpinnings of open communication, the ability to instantaneously share ideas through mediums like text messaging has no filter. This quality, which enables organizations to quickly adapt to changing circumstances, has also led to some concern among law enforcement agencies and government institutions. What is the appropriate balance between open communication and the prevention of violent acts?

Arguably, open communication over a long span of time ultimately reduces violence. This is partially because many violent movements are founded on false information and fear. If information is readily publicly available, movements that make extraordinary claims as a basis for organized violence will have difficulty attracting a significant number of followers. Conversely, badly run governments have a more difficult time misconstruing or hiding problems from their constituents. As a permanent policy, open information strengthens both the community and their relationship to the government, encouraging both parties to act responsibly and to take the initiative for solving problems.

In the short term, blocking communication as a method of corralling perceived threats produces mixed results at best. Although this policy effectively neutralizes random disturbed individuals for very limited windows of time, the broader effect of choosing to ground the communications of an entire region for the benefit of a small group of people negatively impacts public trust and, in the case of Toronto, the local economy and property.

In addition to delaying electronic communication, the G20 summit also shut down entire sections of the city, effectively preventing the city of Toronto from communicating with itself. This decision led to the generation of millions of dollars of lost revenue and property damages, prompting the federal government to issue a statement saying it will reimburse businesses which lost money or incurred damages due to the conference. Many Toronto business owners have lodged complaints alleging that if they had been allowed to operate their businesses and communicate effectively, they would have been able to prevent violent individuals from damaging their property. They argue that the community prevents violent acts simply through the strength of its numbers.

While no citizen wants to experience the effects of spontaneous violence as orchestrated by malicious instantaneous communication, the trade-offs between allowing a community to defend and maintain its integrity versus an attempt to artificially control open communication must be examined more closely. Unfortunately, the potential for violence will always exist within any society. However, so will the opportunity for prevention of that violence, as long as all of the members of society work together to solve communal problems.