Twitter's wrong response to trolls

Ever been ‘trolled’ on Twitter?  I guess I was last week. 

I replied to something that was retweeted to me and then boooom!  Within minutes my inbox started filling with messages from supporters of Donald Trump - my response, to a tweet about Trump’s economic competence, spoke to his experience with bankruptcies – kicked-off the process. 

The trolls themselves were not very imaginative.  One confidently stated that I obviously don’t earn more than $12 an hour and another that I have never held a senior position.  Those that know me, will be better aware of whether the work I have had in more than 20 countries, is senior or not.  For myself though, I find it illustrative that these Trump supporters think that only those in ‘senior’ employment and those on higher than minimum wage have views that are worthy of consideration.  I suppose that the whole attraction with Trump is his money.   It is his money that allows him the arrogance to push his shallow and ill-thought statements onto an increasingly polarised America and GOP.

It is this money and arrogance that gets him the media attention.  That, and in my view, the fact that the media see Trump as being the preferred GOP candidate.  My belief is that the MSM see Trump as being overwhelmingly unelectable among the general population.  He will turn-off conservatives and independents in great numbers.  The former because of his previous heavy support for Democrats, his close association with the Clintons and his flip-flopping support for all sorts of Democrat policies abortion and gun control.  The latter because his crass statements shame America.

But I digress.

AsI was being trolled, Twitter announced the formation of something called the Twitter Trust and Safety Council.  This seems to be something that has been set-up to protect people on Twitter, to stop ‘trolling’.

Apart from the Orwellian sounding name, this ‘safety council’ comprises a lot of organisations that seem to have associations with ‘Leftist’ and ultimately anti-free speech people.  It is well known that the Left invents all sorts of 'isms' to stifle debate.  Try to discuss immigration and you are accused of racism, try to criticise a female's politics and you are anti-feminism, etc., etc..  It is my view that this stifling of debate is actually fuelling the rise of extremism.

I don’t know about you but this 'safety council' seems to be completely against what Twitter was all about.  As said earlier, I was trolled and didn’t particularly enjoy the experience however, I didn’t need to resort to a ‘safety council’.  I used the tools that Twitter already provide.  I blocked the principal trolls!  Having done so, the trolling ceased.   The ‘block’ option worked entirely as intended.  No censorious ‘safety council’ was required.  No committee of ‘leftists’ were needed to review the matter and pass judgement.  I used common sense and made the decision, that I no longer wanted these trolls on my timeline, myself. 

Whatever the decision of the Twitter Trust and Safety Council would have been, I doubt I would have brought the matter before them.  They simply sound like a censor, the latest edition of the ‘thought police’. 

Business TV suggests that Twitter Inc is facing tough times.  The share price is being hammered and they had to bring back, Jack Dorsey, one of their founders, as CEO, to rescue the business.  It seems to me that the last thing Twitter should be doing is to introduce censorship, in any form.  Twitter needs to stay true to its principles of freedom – Twitter will be lost if it starts down the road of censorship.  It’s current differentiation comes from its openness – that is now in danger.

So Jack, if you read this, abandon this sinister Trust and Safety Council and keep Twitter true to its origins.  We’re grown-ups and can choose to Block or leave.  We can protect ourselves, trust us.

The power of Twitter and the Anglosphere

I have been thinking about Twitter recently (apologies if not using the copyright symbol is somehow wrong!) and its power for good.

I am also reading a book called "How we invented freedom", by a UK Member of the European Parliament - Daniel Hannan - highly recommend the book and Dan's tweets and articles - very 'sound' on Europe and the freedoms that 'Anglosphere' democracy brings.

The book (is that the right phrase for a Kindle version?  I dislike putting e in front of everything!) brings to the fore all those things which many of us almost take for granted - the primacy of the rule of law, no one being above it,  property rights and the importance of contracts and above all, freedom of speech, religion and assembly.   The book tracks the establishment of common law and the basic principles of same, from the pre-Norman invasion of England  through to the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights and onto the US Constitution and eloquently shows, the flow of these basic principles runs common to all of these documents and to those ideals that the Anglosphere hold dear.

It seems to me that those basic rights are under threat as never before.  Now the threat isn't National Socialism from the German Nazis or Communism from the Soviet Union, no the threat comes from within.

Part of the threat comes from a comfortable place called complacency - long established rights are taken for granted by 'indigenous' Anglosphere peoples and the slow erosion of these isn't noticed or widely remarked upon.  Arbitrary punishment is meted out by governments , especially the US's, via drone attacks, for example, and people move past that news item or, if they stop to think, justify it on the grounds of national security.  Similarly, people are stopped and searched at airports around the world and have various petty restrictions put upon them, in the name of security.

People are finding that freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, except that most politicians and main stream media shy away from negatively commenting on Islam and it's adherents.  Look at what happened to Phil Robertson.  He is a reality TV personality on an American TV show called Duck Dynasty.  In an interview he stated, amongst other things, that he wasn't attracted to men and he likened homosexuality to sin.  Cue outrage from the homosexual lobby in the USA and their supporters in the media at his 'hate crime'.  Now, Phil espouses Christian values and for those that believe in the right of free speech - something on which America was founded - his freedom to say such things is exactly that - a right.

A right as in something that he inherently has - not something that he (or you or I) is given. 

I have never seen the Duck Dynasty show but all I have read about Phil Robertson and his espousal of deeply held Christian beliefs suggest to me that nothing that he said, in the magazine interview, could be construed as being in any way surprising or controversial.  Similarly if Ayatollah Khameni, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, said the same things I wouldn't be surprised.  In fact the only thing that would surprise me is if the media actually reported or in any way commented upon Khameni's speech.  The teachings of both Christianity and Islam consider homosexuality a sin.  Whether you agree with that or not, is your opinion and I for one am happy to support your right to hold such an opinion - that's what free speech is about!   What free speech isn't about is stifling the saying of things with which you or I disagree. Period as they say in the US!

So back to Twitter and its power for good.  The A&E TV channel that broadcast Robertson's show, suspended him for a period, after disassociating itself from his comments.  Normally, that would be the end of Phil's TV show and fame.  However, right-thinking people got to work on Twitter and brought the story to a far wider audience than would have normally been the case.  A petition was raised and boycotts of A&E and its advertisers and sponsors were organized and, low and behold, Phil's suspension was lifted.  Encouragingly, he did not have to refute his beliefs or sayings, in order to achieve this.  The right to his free expression of speech was met.  In my humble view, Twitter played a great part in spreading the message and generating the climb-down by A&E.  Now I do not think for one single minute that the war is over and the 'powers that be' have seen the light and will 'allow' free expression.  I think that this is a battle won but this will need to be continuously fought for these cherished freedoms to be retained.  Incidentally, the 'allow' with is because I am uncomfortable in considering that someone allows another person to exercise a right.  No one can give you something which you already have!

Problem is though, that Twitter and other social media are under attack.  There are the overt attacks, where those that would deny freedom, talk-up so called trolls and make the attacks from these people, a justification for the curtailment of the liberties of all.  Then there are also the less obvious methods of attack - such as the USA's Internal Revenue Service using social media to identify groups and individuals from the Tea Party or other anti-Obama administration tweets, and then subject them to special attention from their audit teams. 

Dan Hannan, in his book, rightly confronts the facade of rights that some countries have or had and posits that it is the historical depth of these rights, within the Anglosphere, that gives them meaning.  He talks about the constitution of the former Soviet Union granting it's citizens all sorts of rights but no means for the citizen to actually exercise them.  I hope though that he is wrong in suggesting (I haven't yet finished the book, so maybe he does change his view later) that the places where the fundamental human rights can survive are restricted to those places that have historical links back to England and it's Magna Carta and older common law antecedents.  Hope, because these places (and this isn't meant to show an anti-immigration stance) are fast becoming a cosmopolitan mix, where the inhabitants do not all share the historical connection with England.  Hope, because I want those people who look to the UK, America, Canada and Australia and want to emigrate to those countries, look not just at the material benefits that settling in those countries will bring, but also at the traditions of individual freedoms, that have made these countries, what they are!

The new censors and the rule of law

Don't you feel at all troubled, these days?  Something bothering you?  Have you maybe read a news story or seen an item on TV that concerns you?

Well, keep quiet about it!  Shut up!  Stay silent, say nothing because if just maybe your view doesn't conform to the latest orthodoxy, then you will be pilloried.

Don't believe me?  Consider Yelena Isinbayeva.  The Russian Pole Vault champion was reported to have voiced support for the laws of her motherland or rather one law in particular.  The law that makes it a criminal offence to promote homosexuality to those less than 18 year's of age. 

Cue squeals of outrage from the pink mafia and their slavish followers.

Isinbayeva has now qualified her remarks to say that what she really meant to say, and maybe it got mangled in her use of the English language, was that all people should respect the laws of the country that they are in, at any given time.  So, if you are in Russia and they have a law that says what you can do and say about homosexuality, to an under 18, then follow that law.  She didn't go on to say that in Russia you must also not kill people or steal or set fire to buildings or other stuff but I suspect that she meant all of those laws should also be followed, as well.

I guess it's kind of like when foreigners come to visit the UK, we have this tendency to require them to follow our laws , I understand the same applies in France, the USA and, come to think of it, the whole world over.  Imagine what it would be like to drive in the UK, if Americans could simply ignore the law and drive on the side of the road with which they are familiar.

Personally, I don't have a problem with what I understand of the new law in Russia.  However, if I did, I guess I wouldn't go to that country and if I were a Winter Olympics athlete and felt very strongly about it, I would boycott the Sochi games.  I don't think it would be right for me to expect my fellow athletes to follow me in a boycott, after all, maybe they have their own views which are not totally in synch with mine.  At the moment, people are still allowed to have their own opinions since the new censors haven't yet managed to get their control of 'group think' to be total.  Right now these new censors can only use their minor celebrity status and acolytes to push their views through a like-minded main stream media.

Problem is though, the new censors don't yet control Twitter and blogs like this.  They want to control it though.  Recently, in the UK, some people posted hateful messages on the sites of some women.  Now in respect of some of these messages, they would seem to have been hateful enough that they contravened laws.  In these cases then, the law should be enforced but the new censors want to go after Twitter, instead.  To me' it's a bit like prosecuting knife manufacturers because someone was stabbed or Toyota because a Corolla was involved in a fatal accident.

The real truth though is that these new censors go after Twitter simply because they cannot stand to allow people a medium that they do not control.  They control main stream media - the biased BBC
is riddled with a 'right-on' metropolitan elite that knows better than the people that pay their wages and simply don't process stories that don't fit their agenda.

So if you are at all concerned, either shut up or keep on pushing Twitter and other social media to stay censor free.  Other than the privacy of our own minds (even Big Brother couldn't really get inside Winston Smith's), we have few outlets where we can freely express ourselves.

Twitter bullies beware!

This warning also applies to other social media sites.

Researchers at the University of Life, which is based in Common Sense Land,  and adjacent to the School of the Bleeding Obvious, have discovered the means to defeat the so called social media bullies.  These are the people that say nasty things and sometimes even criminally culpable nasty things about individuals or groups on social media sites like Twitter and AskFM.

Apparently, the way to avoid being bullied on a particular site is to not visit that site.  I know, sounds easy, right?  What you do is, you switch your computer or your mobile phone on  and then instead of opening-up Twitter or AskFM or whatever, you don't.  The researchers, who are surely in receipt of taxpayer funding, have offered this solution to one of the 21st century's biggest problems, free of charge.

I know this is 'one of the 21st century's biggest problems' because it has attracted the attention of the UK Government.  David Cameron, the puppet controlled by Nick Clegg, has been mouthing-off all sorts of ill-informed and technically illiterate talk about the need to 'control' these web-sites.

Yes this is the same government that continues to preside over an economically incontinent administration and continues to borrow, borrow, borrow because 'hey at least we are borrowing less than Labour would'.

The same government that wants to control the printed press and internet access.  All this doesn't distract them though from spending, spending, spending - 'hey, but it is spending less than Labour would' .

The same government that is pushing ever more people into energy poverty in pursuit of an environmentalist pipe-dream.  The same government that, instead of embracing  the bounty that is represented by shale gas deposits, drags its feet in approving licensing while pensioners die of hypothermia or malnutrition - got to make a choice Doris - heat or eat?  Britain used to lead the world in so many things, now our 'lead' is down a path towards economic annihilation.  Look behind you as we head down this path.  Look at Germany, yes they have lots of inefficient wind turbines, same as GB, yes they have abandoned nuclear power, pretty much the path that GB is heading, but what is their solution?  More wind power? Higher energy taxes?  Actually, no.  They are burning more coal - yes that dirty stuff, the stuff that used to be burned in the power stations that are so rapidly being closed down, in the UK.

The same government that ring-fences spending in the NHS  - 'hey, but we are spending less than Labour would' - while at the same time receiving report after report which detail the extremely poor level of service and care that NHS patients receive.  Reports that show that people are dying unnecessarily and often in the most degrading circumstances, all in a provider-controlled system that is the 'envy of the world'.

I've strayed but I think you get my point.  The bullying that has been reported is hateful.  I can't help but think that some of this though, is no more than used to be verbalised before the advent of the internet and social media.  I am sure that a group of anthropological researchers would posit that bullying is a natural human phenomenon which Man has used throughout all time to sort out who leads the pack, etc..   There is though, no record of any of these so called trolls holding a gun to anyone's head and saying 'go online.'

Some of this bullying has taken the form of what can only be described as criminal threats and incitement.  There are already laws to deal with this.  Just use them!  Why go after Twitter or AskFM?  If someone gets drunk and calls you an 'ugly or fat so and so' or worse, do you think of calling for the banning of alcohol?  (OK that question isn't for the Lib Dems because we know what their answer would be.)  Or, do you just cross the road and walk on? 

Maybe pause for a moment and consider that the more that government seeks to control everything, the more that this causes these people to ratchet up their level of abuse?

Hopefully, you have read this far and since you have not been called any unpleasant names, even you Lib Dems, nor have you been subjected to any hate-filled speech or threats of rape or killing, you will see that the internet and social media and blogs isn't all about negativity (okay so I am more than a bit negative about government spending but indulge me).  These mediums offer the opportunity for social interaction far beyond what our ancestors could have dreamed of.  Far beyond what governments would like us to have.  Don't kowtow to censorship.  Accept that even with its flaws, this medium is far better than the alternative.

Still not convinced?  Ask yourself this then.  When did you last believe anything that came out of the mouth of any government minister or politician in any country in the world?  And if you did believe, did you immediately wonder 'what's in it for him or her'?