twitter-abuse-press-response

a response to press questions about the petition for a twitter abuse button http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/twitter-add-a-report-abuse-button-to-tweets

> 1) Should Twitter be 'policed'

the police already exist, and applicable laws apply online.

human rights legislation is concerned with the protection of free speech as well as the prevention of genocide: therefore it makes a clear distinction between offensive speech and 'hate speech'.

virulent misogyny should be condemned, but hate speech (e.g. threats of rape) is already subject to legal action.

> 2) How could it be done / is it possible?

the massive potential of social media, and the internet in general, is is for self-organisation.

whether it goes under the banner of crowdsourcing, social networks or open source, the internet is a space for testing the potential of networked organisation as an alternative / complement to the former models of top-down institutions (media, parliament, corporations).

unconsidered extension of old models risks a 'chilling effect'.

further it's not likely to be effective; determined abusers set up new accounts within minutes, whereas someone else randomly banned for an unpopular dissenting opinion may lose their whole network (which they may depend on in various ways).

> 3) Who should be responsible for this?

'responsibility' is a problematic term related to the old models referred to above.

you can already see many examples of the twitter community 'taking responsibility' by responding with discourse and proposed technical solutions[1],[2]

don't forget, many 'twitter' features (including the hashtag) were developed by the community[3]

> 4) What are the major issues surrounding the policing of social networks?

the major risk is unintended consequences [4]

the history of public order legislation is that laws introduced for one reason (e.g. the threat of fascism) are mainly used for another (e.g. policing anti-fascist protestors).

in this case there are many opinions from marginalised groups and 'dissident' voices predicting that a twitter button would be used to silence them. [5]

the core issue is one of existing power structures; celebrities like ricky gervais are already known to use their twitter clout and huge follower lists to attack critics [6].

one of the social benefits of social media so far has been to call out the powerful. we should be wary of returning power to the already powerful under the slogan of 'something must be done'[7]

there are no easy answers to culturally rooted problems, but the networked world offers a different way to make social problems visible and to deal with them socially.

		there ain't no justice, just us.

dan mcquillan
29-7-13

[1] https://twitter.com/PennyRed/status/361586400254115840

[2] http://beyondclicktivism.com/2013/07/28/responses-to-the-report-abuse-button-and-other-technical-suggestions/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashtag#Origin

[4] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100228442/if-were-cracking-down-on-twitter-abuse-can-we-include-richard-dawkins-and-the-atheist-trolls/

[5] https://twitter.com/whorephobia/status/361813538559369217

[6] http://comedychat.co.uk/2012/09/05/comedians-using-their-fans-for-co-ordinated-safety-in-numbers-bullying/

[7] http://nyebaron.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/on-online-abuse/