The Independent (Work Experience): Does Twitter Need Moderation?

This article was originally published by The Independent on 22 March 2013. Available online here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/too-rude-for-its-own-good-twitter-needs-moderation-8545918.html

As Britain waited for his 2013 budget, a tentative George Osborne joined Twitter, the social micro-blogging site. The Chancellor must have been prepared for some degree of abuse on his interactions page. But the torrents of invective that flooded the site in the hours following Osborne’s new profile raise a serious issue about expressions of contempt.

Yesterday Twitter turned seven. Since 2006, the outlet has challenged its users to post succinctly and effectively in 140 characters or less, a bastion of free speech for the modern mentality. The communicative approach represents an intuitive paradigm shift: we are a nation on the pulse. Short updates from prevalent social figures drove the popularity of twitter as an en vogue medium of expression.

Yet we are increasingly carried away by the kind of short, snappy and sometimes rash outbursts that - when they catch on - foster the creative qualities that can make Twitter's top trending topics so brilliant. On Wednesday, for example, if you were to click on the trends of either “budget” or “George Osborne” a stream of abuse and harassment would have popped up on your screen.

Paraphrasing George Osborne’s first ever tweet, one user posted “Today I’ll present a budget that shows what a complete and utter useless cunt I am”. Another bemused tweeter argued “shouldn’t you be fixing the economy instead of fucking about on twitter?” Some took it upon themselves to cram as many insults as is possible into 140 characters: “you’re a first class bellend, you overpaid, overeducated fox hunting twat.”

Of course Osborne is not the first person to feel the wrath of Twitter users. In fact, the phenomenon is becoming more mainstream. Olympians felt the force of trolls last summer, with Rebecca Adlington receiving tweets comparing her to a whale, and Tom Daley being subject to inconsiderate tweets about his deceased father.

Abuse

Action should be considered, especially when we examine the number of high profile people deactivating accounts: from TV presenters Kirstie Allsopp and Helen Skelton to footballer Micah Richards and beyond, the impacts of twitter misuse are concerning. Perhaps these celebrities could provide part of the solution: with billions of followers, the likes of Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and One Direction could quite easily preach a better means of interacting on the Twitter platforms. Many of their followers are guilty of some abuse, whether it is sending threats to fellow fans, or mocking the artist’s contemporaries if their preferred singer doesn’t receive an award.

With the attacks happening at all levels – popular culture, political, racial, religious – is it time that Twitter invest in a scheme of censorship? When monitoring a site whose most defining feature is user interaction and integration, there's no easy answer. Twitter’s success is built off its ability to generate momentum on any topic at all.

While it might be impractical to impose a blanket ban on certain words or phrases, it is quite possible that Twitter could prevent certain terms becoming trendable, limiting the hashtag. The hashtag is a staple part in galvanizing a twitter movement and some of the more obscene trends get to the top in this way. #ReasonsToBeatUpYourWife and #fuckyouwashington are but two examples; another, #OnceYouGetMarriedYouCant, stems from our tendency to overshare (‘family friendly’ suggestions included: “sit on the toilet and clip your toenails wit the bathroom door open” and “keep those naked photos of your ex”).

Proactive approaches from Twitter developers may be the only means to tackle the problem of harassment. Despite the high-profile cases of breaking super-injunctions and jail sentences being served for mocking the adversities of our celebrities, users remain relatively unversed on the issue of acceptable Twitter actions. Crown Prosecution has issued a 14-page guide to social media prosecution and related laws, but there is still a tendency to believe that the blogosphere does not impact the physical world. Violent threats and campaigns of harassment are easily challenged in court.

Taking action

In fact, French anti-racism firms may have got the ball rolling by holding Twitter itself to account. The French Jewish Student Union and the J’accuse organisation have demanded a fine of $50million to be paid for Twitter not having handed over details of users whose abusive comments broke French law. The tag, #UnBonJuif (A Good Jew), instigated a string of abusive anti-Semitic posts on the micro-blogging site last year. Stéphane Lilti, the anti-racism groups’ lawyer, told FRANCE 24 “The 38 million euros cited, which is [the equivalent of] 50 million US dollars, is designed to make them [Twitter] wake up to the fact that protecting the authors of racist tweets is not acceptable.” Without doubt, Twitter wields a great responsibility for sharing and directing thoughts and should be penalised if they don’t monitor and act responsibly.

Safeguarding however comes with a risk. Increased filters of trending material could cause a delay in news transmission, and augmented censorship runs the risk of Twitter losing its dynamism. It would undoubtedly ensure a drop in popularity, and then there would be nothing to censor anyway.

At seven, Twitter seems to have been struck by a similar issue to Facebook. Just as other social network sites became bloated with memes and trolls, so the ingenuity that attracted new people and new modes of expression online risks being usurped by a proliferation of direct and personal attacks. This is not a new problem, but after the headlines about inappropriate and illegal posts on Twitter in 2012, it’s a wonder that users still felt justified to abuse the Chancellor so virulently, no matter how he has impacted their lives. 

How Should We Remember Our Fallen Stars?

25^th June, 2009. I’m relaxing at home after a stressful couple of weeks of exams. I get a text from my sister and, after opening the message, I don’t believe what I’m reading and instantly flick on a news channel.

Sure enough, Michael Jackson’s dead.

A similarly bewildering moment happened on Sunday morning, when, opening up my computer, social networks were trending Whitney. And another star had passed too soon.

One of the advantages of this modern society is that the integration of technology allows not only this quick relay of information, but in these cases, a sentimental outpouring of emotion when we lose an influential figure.

However, with these new mediums of information, what is appropriate decorum when talking of the deceased? When famous personas have had their lives taken under a microscope as public property, how should that public remember them?

Case in point: sitting with a friend in a café last July, the radio broke the news that Amy Winehouse had passed away. The reporter’s very next words were: “The troubled star, who was known for her drug addictions and love life…” as though her singing career did not merit a mention. Amy has been defined by her misdemeanours.

With the death of Whitney Houston, this act of remembrance is called into question once again. When looking back at such an iconic songstress, should we look to her rise or fall?

Without doubt, the talent of the young Houston cannot be denied. Hailing from musical genes, Whitney was signed at the tender age of 19 after a performance in a Manhattan night club. Her eponymous debut was the biggest selling album by a debut artist when it was released in 1985.

Houston enjoyed seven consecutive number one singles, surpassing the record set by The Beatles, and had notched up over 200million album sales by the late 80s alone. Yet eclipsing even all of these staggering achievements, the resounding number ‘I Will Always Love You’ is the biggest selling single by a female of all time (and is sure to notch up another batch of sales posthumously).

Serene images were shattered with Houston’s decline into abuse of crack cocaine and marijuana. Her tumultuous marriage to Bobby Brown constantly attracted headlines and her once famed voice was broken.

Yet, which era of the star’s life should the public focus on?

Unfortunately, intrigue and bad news are always awarded more coverage: these are the stories with more layers, more depth, high interest and, immorally, make people feel much better about themselves. Even if Whitney had not been signed, there is the possibility that she, or countless others like her, like Amy, would have made headlines for their solvent abuse. They would have been paraded as examples of a breakdown in society, without a saving voice, so to speak.

Of course, perhaps without the fame, these people would not have resorted to drugs, without the attention, they may not have performed crazy stunts, such as hanging children over balconies. But whose fault is this? Are these people victims of self-nurtured decline, or of outer afflictions?

Society is constructed in such a way that we pressure a number of stars into depression, ruts, abuse. From music to film and beyond, pop culture means we are able to highlight the likes of Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan as testimony to the breakdown culture that has been nurtured by modern life. Some, like Robert Downey Jr, make it back; other stars, like Kurt Cobain and Winehouse, never defeat their demons.

But do their devils add meaning to their work. In the case of ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana, material dealt with lost loves, with ‘Back to Black’, the album can be seen as shaped from Winehouse’s indiscretions and media attention.

However, for the stars like Jackson and Houston, whose prime came before a spectacular fall, their records should be remembered and replayed without the clouds of rumour that have come to outshine their talents. For, certainly, these people became famous for their gifts, and should be thought of in this light.

In 2002, Houston told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview that: "The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best friend or my worst enemy."

Perceptive as this analysis is, perhaps the biggest devil to Houston, and to her fallen contemporaries, lies in public responsibility.

Just as we facilitate the rise of a star, we are compliant in their demise.

Remembering where I was when I heard of the deaths of these stars proves something: that these people touched our lives with their songs, their albums, or whatever their gifts. We have a public responsibility to keep that spirit of their talents alive.

My Tram Experience: Racism vs the people

The appalling and shocking views of the woman on the Croydon tramlink have led to controversy over the past week.

The viral video received thousands of hits after being uploaded and rose to prevalence through the trending and sharing of social network users. In a whirlwind domino effect, widespread news outlet took a hold of the piece, broadcast the video, slammed the mother and police were informed.

Now, 34 year old Emma West, whose views about immigrants were extremely racist to say the least, is in police custody and awaiting a trial for her foul and abusive language used to attack other innocent passengers on the rush hour London tram service.

West has been remanded in custody until Tuesday December 6^th, but her comments are much more the subject of debate than the sentencing.

The difficulty of the hearing hangs on the crux of freedom of speech. Whilst I by no means condone the harsh opinions of Ms West (following my own viewing of the video, I sat in a stunned silence for some time), her words are surely safeguarded under human rights acts. Freedom of speech and of opinion are constitutional requirements in this country and it in order to maintain such standards, it would appear the case should be laughed out of court.

And here, the phrase is quite hurtful. Because why should such a case be laughed out of court? In moves to avoid dictatorship, it would be in the interest of all peoples to be able to speak freely without consequence.

However, no law goes untested and restrictions need ensure that freedom is managed and controlled: otherwise, we would all be at liberty to abuse other members of society: and such fragmenting is all too reminiscent of the August riots across the country.

Indeed, Ms West’s misunderstanding and lack of prowess regarding those of foreign origins is probably much more widespread than we would care to admit and the views of racial superiority that were once commonplace are certainly subsurface factors in tensions between different groups.

Of course, there comes a point where such tensions boil over and not only were Ms West’s allegations proof of this, but the fellow passenger who was quickly aggravated by her onslaught adds to our comprehension of the problem. Thankfully, another commuter calmed the retaliator with some speed: for otherwise, the focus of the video may have been overshadowed by a supposedly unprovoked violent attack.

Balancing public protection and freedom of speech comes with a fine line. However, due to the incompatibility of the two, it is common that free speech come first, lest further action and civil unrest take place.

Yet this only leaves malcontent to breed. Won’t somebody please think of the children? One of the more distressing aspects of the video for myself was watching the toddler sat on Ms West’s knees, apparently oblivious to the shouting mother. Either oblivious, or numb to its consistency as a feature in his life. Hopefully, the child is being placed with other family members in order to ensure a much more rounded and happier youth – the difficulties in impoverished London boroughs are known all too well by any city residents.

However, what next for Ms West? Rehabilitation of sorts? Counselling? Social service intervention? Whatever a judge determines is satisfactory course of action to educate the woman of a proper sense of community… even if that is just to keep xenophobic comments to oneself on the public tram.

Nonetheless, this uncomfortable experience is the most daily and frequent occurrence of casual racism. For ‘unlucky’ Emma West, one fast-thinking commuter recorder her, thousands of other people brand and scorn without a comeuppance.

More, do we judge without knowing the facts? Had Ms West had an unfortunate incident with some person of foreign origins herself? Was she drunk or drugged? Is she recently bereaved? Or was it simply a bad day?

Our understanding of such people is key for social unity. Otherwise, we risk widespread riots on repeat. Of all the reasons suggested for the summer riots, this is but one of a never ending list of possibilities.