Twitchforks and Twitterstorms

We've all seen it.  It can happen on a macro or a micro level.  Twitter, with the power of the RT at its disposal can have a phenomenally effect, in both positive and negative ways.

The Little Tweeting Bird has Real Power

On a macro scale people get upset about something on Twitter and it becomes the latest thing: a Twitter Storm.  Outrage is expressed about a video of a woman mouthing off on a tram that leads to a criminal prosecution, a tidal wave of support ("I am Spartacus!") is expressed about a joke that has led to a criminal prosecution, or a international gym chain backs down of the way it has behaved with its 24 month contracts.

On a micro level the same of course applies. You may be going through a tough time: having lost your dog, having an operation in front of you, or being worried about your job. 20 messages of support from a group of people, even if you don't know them terribly well, are wonderful and touching.  When you're feeling down or lonely this can really matter.

The flip side of all this is when the Twitchforks come out and the 20 messages are ones of abuse, or when the Twitterstorm is actually completely misguided.

Twitterstorm: Photography banned in Trafalgar Square

A couple of days ago a blog by a photographer was circulating and some quite intelligent people were expressing outrage at the fact that new bye-laws would mean photography, using a mobile phone, camping, flying a kite and feeding birds in Trafalgar Square would now be banned.  The blog was RTd repeatedly, with people adding comments like "totally unbelievable!"

PHOTOGRAPHY TO BE BANNED: CUE OUTRAGE!

The reason the blog was unbelievable was that it was wrong.  Every one of the restrictions contained in the new bye-laws were not "new" - they had been in place either since 2000 or since 2002.  Ordinary photography is not banned in Trafalgar Square, nor will it be. Commercial photography without a permit (which are available from the Mayor's office) has not been allowed there for the past 12 years.  This is nothing new at all.  The fact that only commercial photography is involved was entirely clear from the short bye-law that was published in full on the blog.  You only had to read it to realise the blogger had made a mistake that led to the screaming headline - the whole blog was wrong.

Did people read the blog before RTing it?  Presumably not.  The storm went on all day.  It annoyed the shit out of me because there was actually an important story here.  There is a downloadable file where you can compare the old and new bye-laws: they are almost entirely identical, down to the language used.  This is a tidying up exercise by Boris Johnson of Ken Livingstone measures - with one very important difference.  That relates to enforcement.  Where previously you had to provide your name/address to an "authorised person", now that person can legally order you to leave the Square with hefty punishments if you do not.

These measures are, in fact, about the Mayor of London putting in place fairly draconian powers to allow the Square to be kept clear of people during the Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations: that was brought out far better in @SturdyAlex's blog.  The measures are in my view illiberal, and completely objectionable.  What they are not are new laws stopping tourists from taking a photo.  Because people have got the wrong end of the stick, Boris has got off the hook on this: how easy for his supporters to undermine the claims.  That pisses me right off too. 

The beauty of blogging is expressing an opinion; getting a viewpoint out there and seeing what others think.  That is completely impossible when the entire factual basis of what you are writing is wrong.  The ethics of blogging are being discussed before the Leveson Inquiry at the moment: I would say every blogger owes a critical duty to ensure that his/her facts are as solid as possible before pressing publish.  If there is a mistake, which of course happens, you should bloody well fess up, correct or take your blog down and make an apology.

Read before you RT?

From the perspective of the Twitter user pressing RT and adding outraged comments, I'd also suggest it's pretty important to actually read whatever you are sending on to your own followers.  An RT doesn't imply agreement, but surely we should bother to look at the item rather than reading its headline? If you had read the blog in question you would have seen the commercial photography element glaring at you, without needing to do any more research.

Twitchforks: an example

Now, the micro level.  Back in November I saw an example of Twitchforks that really troubled me.  A gay man announced to his 900 followers that another gay man, whose photo and real name appears on his profile is a "cunt" who is HIV positive and is sleeping around, having unprotected sex with other men.

I'm sure you'll agree this is a pretty serious allegation.  A posse was soon formed, the twitchforks came out, and there were screams of condemnation and disgust.  It is also an extremely problematical claim.  We were not told if the man had disclosed his status to his partners or not, how many guys were involved, if they knew their own status, why these men were agreeing to engage in a highly unsafe activity (regardless of the information in their possession) etc.  We had no idea what the motivation of the accuser was - looking at his timeline that day he said nothing more substantive than the first allegation.  The only thing that did become clear was that the accuser had not slept with the man.  His ex-boyfriend apparently had, so this was a word of mouth allegation the accuser had then decided to publish on Twitter.

This was Twitter at its most brutal, bullying and basic: people believing what they read without any critical thought or other knowledge.  Amongst the outrage a few isolated people stopped and asked the critical question: was any evidence for the allegations?  The accuser admitted there was none and said people had to believe him.  The allegations were in fact flatly denied by the accused, who had not been open about his HIV status before, and was effectively "outed" by them.  At the end of the day the tweeter thanked his "loyal followers" for the shit storm that had happened, and their reactions.


Like you, I simply cannot judge the veracity of the claims, nor is it my place to.  SURELY if the accuser seriously believes this man is a danger, the place to go is to the Police?  Why were people joining in with this?  If you want to support an online friend, should that extend blindly to reaching for the Twitchfork, on the basis of zero evidence, with the knowledge that this behaviour could drive someone off Twitter and/or have a much more serious "real life" effect on them? 

Twitchforks: an ugly feature of the Medium

I'd also ask whether Twitter is really here for making accusations about personal aspects of someone's life?  It's tangential, but the accusation was not that the man was using Twitter to meet people to sleep with: this was just about outing him as being HIV+ and making an accusation about his life completely off Twitter.  He wasn't being accused of being a bully, or lying about himself, or being a fraud on Twitter: this was about his sex life and medical condition.

Think about this: how would you feel if someone revealed you had an abortion years back, that you enjoy visiting sex workers, or are having an affair.  It could be potentially horrendous for you if true: imagine if it were a lie and people started RTing it?  Even if denied, how many people would think "ooooh there's no smoke without fire!"?

There is literally nothing to stop anyone making an accusation about anyone on here and that not spreading like wildfire.  This frankly terrifies me.  Most of us aren't that well known or interesting to warrant this type of treatment: but you must know how much one nasty comment can hurt during an evening on Twitter.  It sticks with you for days.  Imagine being on the end of a Twitter Posse.  This may "just be Twitter", but I sent the man involved in the HIV allegations (whom I had recently started following at the time) a DM to ask if he was okay.  His reply simply said "I want to die".  Having a vague idea of the other things that are going on his life at the moment, I fully believe he meant that. 

COME ON GUYS: is this right? Twitter as a place that acts as a posse, judge, jury and potential destroyer of someone's life, operating with no evidence regarding deeply private aspects of someone's life.  I don't care how how serious or "juicy" the claims are, I will not join in with it.  I can't judge the HIV+ man's actions because I do not know the facts, but I can judge what I saw that day on Twitter.  The people who engaged it in were pretty ugly.  The accuser came across as the vindictive bully and those who reached for the Twitchforks were at best deeply misguided.

The Power of Twitter

Twitter is just a mirror of people.  We find many good souls, and many good things can take place on here.  We find a few bad apples, and we find lots of people who don't mean to harm but still can.  Twitter's power is its speed and ability to reach many.  The RT button is the key to this.

This (once again) has been a long rambling blog but it contains a simple message.  Think before you tweet, and most of all, think critically before you RT.  Twitchforks hurt.  In extreme circumstances they can push someone over the edge.  Twitterstorms can bring about a pleasant change in the weather, but please, please check your facts as far as you are able.