Entry tags:
What can and should be done about Twitter and Facebook abuse
99-44/100% of people are reasonable, good-natured, and supportive of people like Tom Daley, the British Olympic diver who is not only massively gorgeous, but is outstanding in his sport, extremely intelligent (4 As in his A-levels, probably equivalent to the Dean's List in a US high school), and resilient.
He lost his father to brain cancer last year. It was a tragedy but did not deter him from going on to win many major tournaments and qualify for the Olympics. He and his diving partner came in 4th in the synchronised men's diving event. Now I won't even jump into a pool from the edge. Imagine the courage and skill needed to stand 10 meters above the pool, on a platform, facing away from the pool, and jumping into the air, at the same time coordinating your own movements with that of a man 10 feet away from you, and hitting the water with a minimum of splash. Even the worst of the Olympic divers was a great spectacle.
So, after coming in fourth, Tom Daley had to contend with this tweet He handled it with grace and the contempt it deserved. The police have arrested a young man who is suspected of posting these abusive tweets. But of course this is not the only instance of Twitter abuse.
A presenter on the BBC children's programme Blue Peter is closing her Twitter account because of abusive tweets. And a man convicted of terrorism offenses because of a threatening Tweet a few years ago has had his conviction quashed.
These incidents provoke the question: How do we as a society deal with threats and abuse directed at people through social networking?
The laws dealing with libel, slander, threatening behaviour, and bullying have their roots in a time when there were no social networks, in fact there were no electronic media of any kind. There were books and newspapers, and word of mouth, and that was it. Threatening behaviour and bullying had to take place as personal interactions in real time, with both parties being in physical presence with each other (for the most part).
Nowadays we can be libelled, slandered, threatened, and bullied from thousands of miles away by people we have never actually met. Since the guiding principle of online social networking is "On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog." there is no obligation to Tweet under your own identity. Facebook mostly requires real names, I believe. But Twitter names can be anything and, unless you are a public figure who has had his or her identity verified by Twitter, anonymity is pretty well impenetrable on Twitter in the absence of an injunction or search warrant.
It is easy to tell victims of stalking or abuse online to just "Grow up, and suck it up if you want to be online." It is just as easy to set the dogs of authority on those who are abusing you. And it's even easier to simply withdraw from online life altogether.
There are no easy answers to this. It would be nice to just say,"If you have a thin skin or would be troubled by abuse online, don't go online" just like Henny Youngman's patient joke, "Doc, it hurts when I do this (raises arm.)" Doctor: "Don't do that." Online life is increasing being seen as a right, an entitlement to everyone who wishes to live it.
But just as when we are the target of abuse when walking down the street (ask any woman who has walked within shouting distance of a building under construction) we have limited right of redress online.
The legal brigade will say, "We need new laws to deal with this." I am not sure that we do. As it is a worldwide problem, having laws in one nation or a handful of them will not solve the problem if the abuse comes from someplace where there are no laws covering this.
Thus, I've come to the conclusion that the solution lies in the medium itself: Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites. They alone have the authority to police their users wherever they may be.
I realise that this is an unpopular move. The social media sites themselves are terrified at the thought of having to scrutinise billions of Tweets, status updates, photos, or other interactions to nip abuse in the bud. Current laws generally relieve the social media sites from responsibility for material posted by its users, just as the telephone company is not responsible when someone makes a crank call.
I don't know how this would work. A first thought would be to have each social media site set up some sort of usage body to which allegations of bullying or abuse might be reported. This body would have the authority to block accounts or report abusers to their home authorities or both.
There are dangers to this approach: it become mighty easy to widen the remit of this body to instances of risqué photos or content, which is legal in one place but illegal in others. It is also relatively easy for an abusive Tweeter to open another account and continue the abuse from there. In places where the government is repressive that government might wish Twitter (for example) to police users from there much more stringently than users from, say, the US, where free speech is a right.
If I were in Cloud-Cuckoo Land, I might use the Rodney King (RIP) approach: "Can't we all just get along?" and call for more civility in society. Of course, most of us would welcome that. But I would be absolutely floored if it happened. Human nature is so variable that hoping for everyone to just "get along" is a vain wish that will never happen.
In the meantime, people will get hurt, people will be abusive, and people will continue to wonder exactly how to control online media.
He lost his father to brain cancer last year. It was a tragedy but did not deter him from going on to win many major tournaments and qualify for the Olympics. He and his diving partner came in 4th in the synchronised men's diving event. Now I won't even jump into a pool from the edge. Imagine the courage and skill needed to stand 10 meters above the pool, on a platform, facing away from the pool, and jumping into the air, at the same time coordinating your own movements with that of a man 10 feet away from you, and hitting the water with a minimum of splash. Even the worst of the Olympic divers was a great spectacle.
So, after coming in fourth, Tom Daley had to contend with this tweet He handled it with grace and the contempt it deserved. The police have arrested a young man who is suspected of posting these abusive tweets. But of course this is not the only instance of Twitter abuse.
A presenter on the BBC children's programme Blue Peter is closing her Twitter account because of abusive tweets. And a man convicted of terrorism offenses because of a threatening Tweet a few years ago has had his conviction quashed.
These incidents provoke the question: How do we as a society deal with threats and abuse directed at people through social networking?
The laws dealing with libel, slander, threatening behaviour, and bullying have their roots in a time when there were no social networks, in fact there were no electronic media of any kind. There were books and newspapers, and word of mouth, and that was it. Threatening behaviour and bullying had to take place as personal interactions in real time, with both parties being in physical presence with each other (for the most part).
Nowadays we can be libelled, slandered, threatened, and bullied from thousands of miles away by people we have never actually met. Since the guiding principle of online social networking is "On the Internet, no one knows you are a dog." there is no obligation to Tweet under your own identity. Facebook mostly requires real names, I believe. But Twitter names can be anything and, unless you are a public figure who has had his or her identity verified by Twitter, anonymity is pretty well impenetrable on Twitter in the absence of an injunction or search warrant.
It is easy to tell victims of stalking or abuse online to just "Grow up, and suck it up if you want to be online." It is just as easy to set the dogs of authority on those who are abusing you. And it's even easier to simply withdraw from online life altogether.
There are no easy answers to this. It would be nice to just say,"If you have a thin skin or would be troubled by abuse online, don't go online" just like Henny Youngman's patient joke, "Doc, it hurts when I do this (raises arm.)" Doctor: "Don't do that." Online life is increasing being seen as a right, an entitlement to everyone who wishes to live it.
But just as when we are the target of abuse when walking down the street (ask any woman who has walked within shouting distance of a building under construction) we have limited right of redress online.
The legal brigade will say, "We need new laws to deal with this." I am not sure that we do. As it is a worldwide problem, having laws in one nation or a handful of them will not solve the problem if the abuse comes from someplace where there are no laws covering this.
Thus, I've come to the conclusion that the solution lies in the medium itself: Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites. They alone have the authority to police their users wherever they may be.
I realise that this is an unpopular move. The social media sites themselves are terrified at the thought of having to scrutinise billions of Tweets, status updates, photos, or other interactions to nip abuse in the bud. Current laws generally relieve the social media sites from responsibility for material posted by its users, just as the telephone company is not responsible when someone makes a crank call.
I don't know how this would work. A first thought would be to have each social media site set up some sort of usage body to which allegations of bullying or abuse might be reported. This body would have the authority to block accounts or report abusers to their home authorities or both.
There are dangers to this approach: it become mighty easy to widen the remit of this body to instances of risqué photos or content, which is legal in one place but illegal in others. It is also relatively easy for an abusive Tweeter to open another account and continue the abuse from there. In places where the government is repressive that government might wish Twitter (for example) to police users from there much more stringently than users from, say, the US, where free speech is a right.
If I were in Cloud-Cuckoo Land, I might use the Rodney King (RIP) approach: "Can't we all just get along?" and call for more civility in society. Of course, most of us would welcome that. But I would be absolutely floored if it happened. Human nature is so variable that hoping for everyone to just "get along" is a vain wish that will never happen.
In the meantime, people will get hurt, people will be abusive, and people will continue to wonder exactly how to control online media.