Is social media responsible for your safety during a disaster?

This is a more challenging process with new media platforms, because of the different ways that users share information. While traditional media would stop broadcasting any outdated information, social media posts can still be shared well after their accuracy has expired.

Some research has suggested that users have been able to police each other’s social media and hashtag usage during disasters.

But the cost of failure — whether it is the sharing of false or outdated information — can be tragic if it results in a diversion of resources from where they are truly needed.

Facebook’s lack of transparency makes it difficult to know how its social algorithms are geared to facilitate accurate communication in times of crisis.

As tempting as it may be to trust Facebook’s service, we do not know if posts from users in emergency zones are treated any differently by its algorithm than posts about ice bucket challenges or Kardashians, or how widely-read a user’s call for help might be.

There may also be legal ramifications if a platform’s algorithms favor posts that are outdated or misleading. Courts in Australia and Germany have held Google responsible for defamation. Will platforms that engage in crisis communications also be liable for their technological failings?

If Facebook aims to become a go-to service for its users during natural disasters, the effectiveness of its algorithms must be a key concern.

Trial by fire?
So while we’re yet to see how Safety Check works in action, some of its features seem potentially problematic.

Safety Check doesn’t seem to allow users to report themselves as unsafe, only that they are safe or outside of the affected area

At first blush, this bears resemblance to the social media guides of emergency management organizations, emphasizing more traditional communication methods where there is immediate danger.

It also helps position Facebook in a way that minimizes its users’ expectations of Facebook’s role as an emergency service provider.

The system also has a basic, on/off-style understanding of safety. The design of the system might be focused around the types of disasters that Facebook’s developers see more of, such as earthquakes, where safety can often be quickly and easily established after a tremor or series of tremors.

Fires, floods and cyclones, on the other hand, can be long and unpredictable events. Floods can last over a number of days or weeks, or in the case of bush fires and cyclones, their path may change as the disaster evolves.

This raises questions about how and when Facebook will disseminate safety notifications. If a bushfire is occurring near a major population, for example, at what point do users in the affected area receive a notification?

Safety Check’s main problem is that in spite of its celebrated launch, it seems to be a hobby-style project for Facebook — as the tool was designed at a “hackathon,” not in consultation with any emergency management organizations.

In spite of our concerns, it is encouraging to see an organization such as Facebook taking responsibility for its users and entering the crisis communication space.

A tool that helps family and friends during a crisis, and facilitates easy communication is a welcome development.

Andrew Quodling is Ph.D.Candidate at Queensland University of Technology; Emma Potter is Ph.D. Candidate at Queensland University of Technology. This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).