I note this FT headline this morning:
Twitter is doing the right thing.
That said, I do have a problem with censorship, of course. I am aware of how dangerous such precedents can be.But social media has a very clear power to oppress: balanced action to prevent that has to be appropriate. These steps must be taken with care, but the right to free speech is not absolute, and denial of one media outlet is not the same as a denial of the right to express a view. In that case suspensions intended to reduce social tension have a role. Guidelines do, however, need to be very clear.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
You’ve heard of Gamergate, right? And what happened to Zoe Quinn?
Twitter did nothing for years, and they are doing nothing now: the hate campaigns and the death threats and the avalanche of graphic images of violent rape in organised ‘pile-ons’ against targeted women are just another day at Twitter.com.
Neonazis aren’t new, and they are not the only evil that Twitter has tolerated in pursuit of profitable traffic.
I have of course heard of them
And I hope Twitter take action on these and other such accounts
But that is why guidelines are needed so that it is clear that it is not censorship that is happening but the tackling of hate crime
Rather than worrying about cyberspace, I tend to focus on the ordinary world. Because of this, I missed the ‘Gamergate’ issue, so maybe there is something I should know about that case, but in my own way, it strikes me that Richard’s approach to some of the more Notorious trolls on this site is correct. The natural reflex is to try and engage, but tolerating the mendacious eventually becomes counter-productive. For what it’s worth, I think the balance here is about right.
Thanks
Ive always thought people read media that reinforces their own prejudices. People get locked in bubbles and can feed off one another. I don’t use twitter but here is an interesting study on Facebook. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/16/facebook-bias-bubble-us-election-conservative-liberal-news-feed?CMP=fb_gu
It seems clear that there is considerable positive feedback – a pull towards the extremes. It would be interesting to see a similar UK study, I suspect pro and anti Brexit feeds to be very different.
The US newspapers tend to be fairly centrist; some say even with a Liberal bias, unlike the UK press which is rabidly right wing and getting shrilly more so. In the US the right wing and ultra right wing media is either online, on the radio and Fox News.
It is clear that there is a need to tackle both hate crime and blatant lying. The number of fake news stories seems to be growing like a cancer. The CEO of Google is clearly concerned unlike Zuckerberg; but he is being pressurised by senior staff apparently to take this more seriously. The US election was so tight that it is probable that social media and the alt-right had a large influence pushing Trump over the line.
People are scared in the US. Here is a text from a very old friend
“Hi Sean. It’s been a horrific week. Atmosphere at work last Wednesday was positively morbid – people in total shock. Not much got done that day.
I figure we’ll get through this, but it’s going to be rough. I’ve been unable to listen to news on NPR on my commute for days, only now getting over that. Part of me has a vain hope that the electors in the EC will follow the popular vote, but they’re mostly insiders and will no doubt do the bidding of their corporate masters. Sucks to live in a corrupt oligarchy
I’ve even entertained the idea of looking for work in Ireland, but there isn’t much in the way of opportunity there for someone my age, even with tech and management experience. Besides, I’d need to get Kim on board, sell the house, and deal with a raft of financial hassle to make that happen.
Hope you and family are keeping well, and that you manage to get your corner of Northumberland to secede and join Scotland “
Freedom for Northumbia I say
It has a great flag, but not everything else going for it in that regard
Indeed Northumberland also voted 54%-46% for Brexit. It is a county of two halves with much of the population living in former mining and fishing towns which have done very badly since joining the EU (I’m not sure many of the inhabitants know the difference between correlation and causation – proving myself a member of the condescending liberal elite!)
Pretty much all the locals in my part of Northumberland voted to stay in, but we live in a part of rural Northumberland which is populated largely by professionals who work in Newcastle and farmers.
The problem is that many sites do not monitor their trafic as judiciously as Richard does. And this unfortunately leads to some very unsavoury ideas getting traction in our communities.
The recent articles in the Guardian about white males being groomed on the internet on right wing websites in a similar way in which young impressionable muslims are being groomed for islamic extremism is of note.
Both groups are vulnerable for some reason or another. We can’t prevent one and let the other have free reign when fundamentally they are doing the same thing.
This is where I agree that we need some solid rules concerning incitement in social media.
Silencing so called “alt right” accounts – this is not all hate speech or death threats is it
This is just a cover to silence thos that do not agree with the”liberal” (which in true Orwellian style is nothing of the sort and totalitarian) consensus.
Are we going to ban this too:-
http://www.oftwominds.com/blognov16/great-con11-16.html
To answer your question – in a word no – I’ve looked at the website you list above and I see nothing there to ban. It uses the same sort of concepts that Paulo Freire talked about in 1970 – which are worthy in themselves – but tries to turn the tables on their political origins (and fails with me).
So I wouldn’t ban such a site even though I disagree with what seems to be the premise that it is the language of the Left (or Marxism) that has enabled the marginalisation of ‘95%’ of working people. Actually – unfettered and under regulated globalisation and employer behaviour has done this as wages and working conditions have been arbitraged by globalised labour markets.
The growth in inequality has nothing to do with semantics Nick; it is to do with the market’s desire to make increased profits for the investment class without considering the implications for large numbers of human beings. Many highly priced items are made very cheaply these days.
BTW – I see nothing hateful or inciteful on the example you post above although as you can tell I strongly disagree with what it says. That is OK in my book because I would just avoid such sites because in my view the views they express are wrong.
Thanks