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. 

No Day of Rest.

Over the weekend, Osborne introduced new Sunday trading laws for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

Under the rulings, there will be no major restrictions on Sunday trading as is the norm in the UK.

The Chancellor stated that with so many hundreds of thousands of people coming to the country to enjoy the games, it would only be sensible to extend opening hours so as these people could enjoy the retail experience too.

Suspension of the Sunday trading laws is due to run for eight weekends from the 22^nd of July.

George Osborne explained his decision in a television interview, stating that “It would be a great shame - particularly when some of the big Olympic events are on Sunday - if the country had a closed for business sign on it.”

Mixed responses have followed the news, with some believing it a celebration of British retail as defined by Westfield shopping complex, whereas others bemoan the legislation as detracting from the small, unique and diverse independent shops that London has to offer.

Relaxing the Sunday trading law is something to be concerned about, however. Mr Osborne also described the scheme as an ‘experiment’ from which the government ‘could learn things about trading’. There is growing belief, with rumours from inside parliament, that should the Olympic trading prove successful, then the laws could be scrapped completely.

Whilst this offers extra hours of retail for large companies, it does not vastly improve lifestyles for those in the UK.

Increased trading hours means that more people will have to be contracted to work Sundays. This will restrict relaxation time available in the weekend, both on personal and familial levels. With more people expected to be in work, there could be in fact a general reduction of shoppers, with people not wanting to spend extra time away from families and other activities, but the Olympics would mask this due to it being an anomaly event.

With no consultation on the matter, longer hours are bound to cause some disruption, but are already being assessed as a long-term plan by the government.

Comparing with European counterpart France, people are either lucky or in suburban Paris should their supermarkets and chains open more than 12 hours in a day; Sunday trading is even rarer. This thought is poignant as the 2012 Olympic bid finalists were London and Paris. France would not relax its laws for the Olympics, especially when they are cultural and religious. The nation just across the channel rests on nationalism and a sense of a day of rest for all.

The UK, however, has lost this perspective and continues to back longer hours and less respite time. Concerns have shifted from the personal and wellbeing, to material and capitalist gains. Only in reversing this trend can we see an increased national satisfaction. Happiness doesn’t come from shops, but in our time spent together.

For Whom the Road Tolls

Yesterday, Mr Cameron unveiled his latest masterstroke in a bid to ease the congestion that suffocates our transport systems like dull, London smog.

The PM called for an urgent readdressing of the nation’s road networks, suggesting improvement through an increase in the amount of private investment.

Without doubt, road investments, along with improvements to rail facilities, have been sparse and transportation networks no longer remain efficient means of commuting people and products to their destinations. Motorways in particular frequently reach saturation points and widespread jams are the norm around London, Birmingham and other metropolitan centres.

In Europe, many motorways have only two lanes and yet continue to carry their traffic with much less disruption than in the UK.

With a certain tenacity for issues under the umbrella of ‘infrastructure’, Cameron detailed the need for repair as urgent to combat “decades-long degeneration” and necessary in order to "build for the future with as much confidence and ambition as the Victorians once did".

Among the problems highlighted, environmental and economic issues were brought to the forefront: with increased delays, more fuel is burnt and deadlines are increasingly missed or deliveries received late.

It is estimated that some £7 billion a year is lost due to mismanaged and under-invested motorways.

However, the cost to the public is already rocketing because of these problems. As only grazed by the prime minister, more time spent in traffic jams and slowed motorways increases fuel consumption and combined with rising petrol prices, this ensures that more and more journeys are  costly for the consumer, requiring extortionate refills in motorway service stations. Asking for even more public contributions to right these problems is bound to cause an outcry of sorts.

Whilst privatisation then appears a reasonable measure (and something that all major government parties have considered in the past), how would this affect current motorists?

Indeed, many people may question the increasing sum payable for road tax if the schemes were implemented. With company and foreign investment becoming accepted, the tax would appear an unjust means of continuing to solve the nation’s debt crises. Since there is already no direct correlation between road tax to the government and parliament’s use of these funds on road investment, the hallmark of ‘road tax’ would merely become a phantom cloak for the government to claim addition state funds, without having to invest any amount of the sum back into the road infrastructure.

Besides, when privatising and adding tolls to roads, this incurs additional costs to families at a time of recession. Whilst the funds would generate new links for businesses, the average middle-class family may not be able to afford wide-spread highway men fees, to pardon the pun. The M6 toll, opened in 2003, remains an uncongested stretch of motorway because many families would rather save the £6 fee expected to use the stretch of road.

The stumbling block of these debates is that the British public hate privatisation and, with the water boards aside, there continues to be great resistance to any movement deemed to be taking power out of the hands of the British public.

Yet, the government could see forecasted figures of around £100 billion being injected into the chancellor’s funds by consequence of the move and therefore, it is rather popular to a cash-strapped Westminster.

However, with the prospect of foreign investment comes further concern. Many are sceptical as to how much investment would be pledged versus the amount of profit netted by the companies concerned; this a particular trouble after Cameron compared the schemes to water privatisation which saw massive profits for businesses.

Essentially, whilst investment is needed, there is no measure of how those in charge could be held accountable. As the prime minister insists there need be vision like the Victorians, the Englishmen of the late 19^th century would never have considered selling the country’s infrastructure in such a jigsaw manner, but rested on a sense of nationalism and pride that appears forgotten.

Autumn Statement Readjusts Economic Vision.

Amidst continuing economic misery and the prospects of further strike action, the Autumn report from George Osborne was quite the focal point of the week inside parliament, no matter what happened throughout the rest of the capital and the country.

With repeated promises of grand strategies and new hope, PM David Cameron has made several hints in recent interviews that this would be an announcement which would once again set Britain along the path to recovery and financial stability.

As expected, the statement did little to improve positivity, yet it is difficult to deduce how far there are failings in this report or its predecessor.

Shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, reacted to the speech by declaring Osborne’s plan was in tatters and concluded that it had been “a colossal failure”. And whilst the announcements in the House of Commons were far from a success, a colossal failure appears somewhat extreme a branding.

A shift in direction has been long overdue: and by employing such a course of action, the current government may have been able to steer clear of certain failings that are current plaguing the Eurozone dominated by Merkozy.  

Indeed, as expected and reported heavily on earlier in the year, forecasts have shrunk and growth is expected to be minimal for the coming two years (which is all the more concerning considering the Olympic Games should provide a boost that is not at all evident in the statistics). Add to this the fact that instead of reducing the deficit, the government is set to borrow an extra £111bn over the course of four years: a projector that means it will have spent more than Darling did previously.

However, it is difficult to condemn the move as liberally as Balls challenged. Without a change in tact, there would have been serious risk of falling into the Eurozone problems of cuts vs stability.

No doubt, the balance between the two is difficult to attain, but this statement goes some way to redress the issue. Money has been released for key areas of growth: infrastructures such as motorways, rail systems and housing complexes all benefit as well as several key industries. The idea is to promote growth that will outlive excessive government spending. By starting the process, it is hoped a momentum of trade and commerce will begin to build and the government can gradually ease spending.

So whilst this means a temporary boost in spending, it remains the long term objective to reduce the deficit. It is interesting that the government has now altered its plans so as they appear a mix of election policies from Labour and the Conservative. Whilst the advocation of more spending is present, there are still harsher cuts.

Whilst the Chancellor accepts that this method actually means more pain now and more pain for longer, it appears that he has chosen this revised plan because, in fact, it will move at a gradual and steady pace: without sudden shifts, confidence will once again overwhelm markets as long as they continue to show signs of future prosperity.

In his retorts, Mr Osborne pointed out that Labour is the only mainstream party in Europe promoting spending extra money. Moreover, Mr Balls’ statements appeared somewhat unfounded as he said the deficit was still too high and yet more needed to be spent.   

      

 His comments, whilst sweeping, could in fact be a sign that this is a move that could save the current government and win them an extra term in office come 2015. There are certainly times of austerity ahead, but economic collapse here seems slightly more distant than it does in centralised Europe… at least for now. 

George Osborne's report at a glance (BBC)