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. 

The Full Food Picture

If the worldwide events of the last 18 months in particular have taught us anything, it is that social media should no longer be under-estimated as a medium of leverage and influence. From the Egyptian revolution, to the London riots, to the continuing Greek debt crisis, the internet sphere of communication is sure to pioneer social revolutions from here on out.

This idea is evidenced as one youngster’s blog is banned in Scotland, with the effect that the already popular NeverSeconds site has become an overnight sensation and many have rallied behind the posts.

The premise behind the blog is a primary school child taking pictures of her school dinners each lunchtime, uploading them to her blog alongside health ratings, mouthfuls, pricing and other details about the meal.

In the past month, the blog has managed to secure support and interest around the world, young Martha – known online as ‘Veg’ – has been inundated with images of school meals from across the world, with those who forward photos applying the blog’s standards of information about each meal.

Such an easy concept, the blog has not only risen to prominence on the internet, but has caught the attention of important chefs, such as Jamie Oliver.

Yet, the Argyll and Bute council banned the youngster from uploaded pictures of the school food to her blog following a local newspaper article on the site with the headline “Time to fire the dinner ladies”. The council issued a statement in which it explained that since coverage of the blog had raised issues and concern for the jobs of catering staff at the school, a decision had been made to stop photos being taken. In addition it suggested that “The photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils”.

Controversially banning the blog has sparked an internet wide rally to arms to lift the ban on Martha’s blog, which not only worked, but has generated many tens of thousands of pounds for Martha’s chosen charity, Mary’s meals. The amount raised at the time of writing is in excess of £30,000, up from just £2,000 (a mean feat for a primary school child) on Thursday.

Banning the blog appears to have been a rash and ill-considered decision by council officials. Whilst their claim that the subjective opinions of Martha have caused concern and worry to the staff need be considered, the child and her father had previously sought permission to start up the blog, which the school granted. Withdrawing that right only seems to spark concern over the quality of food on offer all the more, as if the catering companies and canteen staff have something to hide (Martha never found any hair in her food at least!).

Over the course of the blog, the quality of the food that Martha has photographed appears to gradually be improving, which suggests that the school were considering the impacts of the site and changing their services for the better – a move to be commended if anything.

Moreover, it appears to me that the council have failed to capitalise on a unique opportunity of cultural exchange. The blog, receiving international hits and interest from youth to adults alike, could have promised to be the hub of a revolutionary scheme for school meal exchanges. With interesting dishes from Taiwan to Finland uploaded, schools nationwide could have used the blog as a sharing centre to encourage children to try and sample foods from across the globe, teaching about different cultures, healthy food choices and why diets differ to accommodate lifestyles worldwide. In addition, Martha’s blog could have been used as a social tool, allowing users and researchers the opportunity to investigate foodstuffs available to different parts of the world.

A Mary's Meals spokesman said: "We are overwhelmed by the huge response to her efforts today which has led to so many more people donating to her online donation page.

"Thanks to this fantastic support, Martha has now raised enough money to build a kitchen in Malawi for children receiving Mary's Meals as part of our Sponsor A School initiative and has broken the record for hitting a Sponsor A School online fundraising target in the quickest amount of time".

Freedom of opinion and speech needs to be extended to the internet, and it strikes me that this was a grave infringement on the very purpose of the expressionist mode of the blog. Fortunately, in this case, the block backfired and promoted further visits to the site in question; but should the internet become a zone of censorship, there could be grave implications for freedom of expression.

In this case, the collective communities of blogs, Twitter, Facebook and social medias used the arsenal at their disposal to repeal the ban and this is testament to the way in which these domains are becoming more integrated into society not only as a record of our lives, but a historical record of our times, our generation and the momentous occasions to which we bear witness. 

What happened to the spread of Kony 2012?

Two weeks ago, the Kony 2012 campaign became a viral sensation around the globe, really capitalising on what the video itself describes as a unique moment in human history, through galvanising its audience to share the short film through Facebook and Twitter.

Overnight, news feeds became awash with a youth army ready to take up virtual arms against a Ugandan war lord that the overwhelming majority had never heard of but 24 hours previous.

Posters for the campaign:
http://yinnyang.co.uk/2012/03/kony-2012/kony-2012/

With the exponential growth in online activism that followed, all aspects of Joseph Kony, the LRA, Uganda and Invisible Children were suddenly subjects of furious debate between the social networking community; questions of the charity’s integrity came to light, alongside other information that made the bewitching film appear all too simplistic and ensnaring.

I was surprised, when raising the subject with my parents, to find that neither of them had the faintest inclination of the events in motion. Considering this point, I quickly realised that the movement had generated little interest beyond the online domain. Newspapers and news channels proffered minimal to non-existent coverage of the campaign in question. Chat programmes and daytime television barely brushed upon the issue.

Then it occurred to me that the unusual beauty of the Kony campaign was that it had incited to action young people, young adults, just as Joseph Kony himself has plucked children from their homes.

Awakening these youths to new ideas, the movement seemingly managed to take a hold of the logic of the 13-25 age population of Facebook. These users account for approximately half of all subscribers to the service and are the generation that effortlessly pivot and gravitate around ideas through peer sharing.

Revolutions worldwide this past year have been driven by young, incensed persons ready to create change; from Egypt, to Syria, from protests against University tuition fees, to London riots.

Within the first couple of minutes of the video, director Jason Russell describes this particular campaign as an ‘experiment’. Over and above the sheer number of ‘friends’ who had shared the video, this single statement made me wary of the film’s intentions. Instead of watching the following thirty minutes of footage with disbelief, I held this phrase in mind and scrutinised the methods by which the video moves to incite the emotions and lay the foundations for a mass, united uprising.

Essentially, all those who share the video prove that the correct application of social media can provide the leverage and manipulation required to garner the support of an entire cross-section of society.

However, the recent riots and violent unrest around the globe are the product of anger provoked by those whose voices that have gone unheard. The under-25 group remain largely outside of Western democracy decisions. They are not high ranking figures, not barristers, bankers, or law-makers at Westminster. For that reason, the video itself targets these types of influential peoples.

 

Yet, this creates a discord and disjunction between practice and plight. Whilst the objective to overthrow a fierce dictator (with numerous crimes against humanity to his name) is a fine goal, the dependence on the co-operation of these different groups is flawed.

The film itself highlights the difficulties in acquiring support of the American government and the cover the night campaign is further testament to the continued troubles of retaining that backing. Without the constant aid from these people in power, there can be no dedicated search for Kony.

Yet, many youngsters sharing the video appeared oblivious to this fact. They spread the film in order to feel as though they had contributed to the downfall of a dictator, without much physical campaign following.

Writing a fortnight after the initial onslaught of Kony challengers, it is difficult to see what this first stage of the campaign has achieved outside of the blogosphere of social websites. Already, the presence of the Kony 2012 activism is fading just as dramatically as it inundated accounts at the start of March.

Youngsters, eager but inexperienced in politics, feel that their work in the process has been achieved. The elder enfranchised, still counting for 50% of Facebook users and a far higher percentage of voters, remain oblivious to the fighting efforts of their online compatriots.

Supporters of Invisible Children, largely youngsters,
sleeping outside in Portland in 2006 to symbolise the
situation of children in Uganda, who gather in large groups
at night to avoid the Lord's Resistance Army.

Jon Madrigal:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_love/137744885/

Certainly, the ‘Cover the Night’ movement on 20^th April could reverse this decline, and make Kony a public figure, but it depends on the continued support of a virtual world of campaigners. After all, Invisible Children Inc has released a campaign video on similar topical issues for almost a decade now and this is the first time that any of their films has received widespread recognition. Simply hitting the ‘share’ or ‘retweet’ buttons has rocketed the programme to ‘en vogue’ status amongst young adults, but this youth demographic continues to be one of the most volatile and shifting segments of society. Unless this group of people remain behind the Kony ideal, the whole project will collapse as a result of teenage passivity and apathy. Without spreading the idea to elder generations, there is serious threat of the cause falling-in on itself through lack of diverse support.

Twitter stands as the possible frontier by which to make or break the project. The age range with the most active users is the 35-44 group, with 25-34 year olds not too far behind. Together, these users make up 55% of the Twitter population. Whilst this certainly promotes Twitter as the domain to reach respectable, middle-class people, the most frequent users still fall in the under 24 age range.

Even with the support of some elder public figures, the active Kony demographic remains predominantly under the age of 25. Cover the Night may act to sway other social groups; however, it is likely that whilst the posters will generate some interest and attention, the middle-class workers with money may view the campaign as ‘fly-posting’, and look at the mass posters as graffiti, as defacing their town and city. With busy lives, jobs and commitments, it may take much stronger, persistent action to convince and coerce the over 25s into support. Struggling to find a way to get these people involved is a crucial stumbling block.

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come” opens the short film, but the idea of Kony, the experiment of Kony, already appears to have had its time. Whilst the video has received over 80 million hits globally at the time of writing, its Youtube statistics stand to reiterate that it is ‘most popular with 13-24 year olds’. In the past week, viewing of the video has comparatively ground to a halt.

The campaign is experimental because, whilst it begins as a viral, it needs to continue to manifest itself to generate a presence in the real world. The use of social media to incite revolution is not experimental so much as a proven tool for change, following Egyptian action last year. The real experiment is keeping these Western youngsters, who have never had to fight for democracy, interested and involved.

On 21^st April, still a month away, the experiment will either ultimately fail or succeed in making Kony famous by culminating in ‘Cover the Night’. However, with four weeks for support to dwindle, it is concerning that “an idea whose time has come” is being put on hold for so long.

After all, you cannot overthrow a Ugandan dictator by simply sharing a video…

The Leveson Inquiry: A Mirror on Newspapers or Society?

Perhaps the most ironic and humbling aspect of the Leveson Inquiry is that the public themselves become the media cohort; the journalists and reporters are now open to attack and ruthless questioning.

Various celebrities have already stated that their lives were made hell through the media onslaughts that employed gross tactics of misconduct: from bribery to pursuit. Even more concerning then, the idea that not only were these everyday, public figures under attack, but the average man, who may have once hit the spotlight, or have been an obscure relative of someone famous, was equally in question.

The role of social media is to inform, not to violate.

The fine line between freedom of the press, freedom of speech in its entirety and invasion of privacy is surely a daily trouble for those in the journalistic profession: but the need for certain degrees of integrity remain ever more valid and ever more lacking in practice.

With the upsurge in trending on the twittersphere and sharing en masse to facebook ‘friends’, news is instantly leaked online and the press feels it needs to maintain this competitive edge.

Whilst a number of the news stories may very well have concerned areas of public domain, the use of this illicit material is somewhat derogatory to the victims and to the standards of the pront publication itself.

Inquiry chairman Lord Justice Leveson said that the freedom of the press could not be undermined in its role and function as a symbol of democracy across the country. However, the role of the court case should involve a close examination of what regulations are in place for these companies and who is in fact in charge of guarding the guardians of free speech.

Although the report will give its official verdict in one year’s time, the approaches and stringent management of sources need be in place with immediate effect.

One may sympathise with the fact that newspaper print is a shrinking industry and the stakes are highly competitive: however the dependence on sensationalised journalism is highly irresponsible and breeds a culture of moral bankruptcy. How are citizens of Britain expected to maintain levels of privacy across facebook, twitter, google plus, and other outlets, when the example given by these enterprises preaches shock value consumption?

Moreover, these actions implicate the nation, as consumers of the product. We are the people who demand this extra detail, this personal insight, for our own satisfaction. Our modern prerogative to galvanize and submerge ourselves in the fantastical worlds of those more ‘successful’ than ourselves leads to certain isolation: we only feel pleased should those in the spotlight cause scandal or fail to meet expectations.

How far then is the media misconduct a sign of internal corruption or external vices of humanity?