It's Been Fun

I deleted my Twitter account a couple of weeks ago to take a break and think about whether I still wanted to engage in social media.  The immediate trigger for that was someone I thought was an actual friend deliberately being a nasty jerk to me online (subtweeting about my search for a new puppy after losing my dog Oscar, no less...), but I've taken a step back and thought about the bigger picture.

I've had some wonderful times on Twitter and with blogging over the last five years or so.  I've seen Twitter grow from a tiny community where everyone seemed to know each other into a much broader and more popular way of communicating.  In some ways that's a great thing: it's supposed to be about the free flow of ideas, chatting to people in all fields of life that you might not ordinarily have access to, and broadening your horizons.  I've met up with about 200 people from Twitter in real life and developed some lovely friendships.  I've even met the boyfriend of my dreams on here, and in Spring we'll be celebrating three years together.  Somehow I've picked up just shy of 5000 followers, even though I really don't have that much of substance to tweet about.

However, I've noticed that Twitter has also lost much of its innocence over the years.  It's become a place where there's a lot of abuse and nastiness just because people "can".  I remember the shock of this type of thing happening the first time and how it sent ripples of upset through the community I knew online.  Now we've become numbed to it: people throw out threats, abuse, hatred, take it onto themselves to language/thought police strangers, and argue endlessly for absolutely no constructive purpose whatsoever.  It's only the very worst stuff that gets any attention.  The constant low-level criticism, judgmentalism and fractious abusive sniping doesn't even register any more.   It may be amplified for me because of the "curse of the 2000 followers" that people talk about: your tweets get retweeted outside your familiar circle much more widely above this level, and it invites people who don't know you to kick off aggressive arguments and attacks.  Whatever the reason, I'm experiencing it more and more.  I just don't come online to receive abuse from strangers; and even if you block them straight off, a bit of a bitter taste remains.

As an example of this, two weeks ago I had a serious of four anonymous trolling comments on this blog, apropos nothing, calling me a "fucking sodomite", an "anti-white bigoted cunt", a "Muslim lover", telling me to go back to my "London shit-hole and die of AIDS surrounded by my immigrant chums" and calling me "a Euro-loving, bum-banging, left-wing, immigrant-loving, shirt-lifting cunt".  It contained a number of threats and ended by wishing that a Muslim cut "my fucking head off".  This was from someone purporting to live in my sleepy little home village in Suffolk, which I seriously doubt.  The funny thing is of course I'm pretty middle of the road politically, and hardly a raving Marxist.  God knows what type of abuse those we tweet or blog regularly on political matters attract.  In one respect it's all completely laughable, but on another it's not exactly pleasant to receive on a Saturday morning, even if I know it shouldn't be taken seriously, and it's just a keyboard warrior wanking him or herself into a frenzy.  I'd like to say this was an isolated example, but it's not: it's happened before, and it will happen again. 

I am also capable of putting it into context and know that the nastiness online is less than 1% of all the interactions I have.  This blog has had over 640,000 views since I set it up in January 2011 with my first piece, which was a eulogy to my then recently deceased grandmother.  That's an average of about 5000 readers per post of my 135 articles, which is staggering.  So many people have commented kindly on my thoughts and writing, and I've loved the positive feedback.  It genuinely makes me happy that people want to read what I have to say, and that they want to share it with others. 

On the other hand, it is the 1% that sticks in your mind, even if it shouldn't.  I'm so blessed to have a pretty wonderful "real" life.   I have a beautiful home, travel huge amounts, have a lovely family, good friends, am materially well-off and in great health, our work project to build a gorgeous luxury farm spa retreat is progressing beautifully.  I have a boyfriend I adore and we're about to finally get a new collie puppy together, which just fills me with excitement and happiness.

All that being the case, I have to ask myself why I should let my "real life" be polluted by the online nastiness, the homophobic abuse, and the judgements of others, none of which I would otherwise ever experience offline.  I'd simply never put up with this to my face from friends, family, colleagues or strangers -  so I've started querying why I should voluntarily allow notifications to flash up on my phone with this thing.  Another aspect is that although I'm not the one sending this stuff, I do feel it is my responsibility if I allow it to continue.  If it's bothering me, I should move away from the harm.  And if I conduct a simple cost/benefit analysis of my whole online experience, I'm afraid the costs now outweigh the benefits for me. 

Therefore, it's time to close up shop and delete my account for good.  I'll let the minority of unpleasant people I've come across stew in their own unhappiness and unpleasantness.  I just don't want or need to be part of it.  I know others feel very differently about Twitter and I hope you go on enjoying it as much as I once did.  I really like and care about many of you who be reading this.  I'm sorry if you'll miss me, and I'm sure I'll miss you too.

As for my blog, there's little point in continuing to blog on a regular basis, as my posts won't ever get the readership they did before without a platform to promote them.  That said, I'd like this to be farewell, but not goodbye - so I will be writing the odd personal blog post from time to time if anyone is interested, with updates on the farm project, pictures of the puppy, and photos of our various adventures abroad (For a start, Ste is meeting my entire German family just before Christmas for the first time.  The only German he knows is what I taught him, namely: when you sneeze and someone says "Gesundheit", you answer "Kartoffelsalat".  That might not be entirely correct, so this could be interesting).   You're more than welcome to drop by here and have a look.  I've disabled anonymous comments though, as that's one thing I definitely won't miss. 

Thanks to anyone who's ever interacted with me pleasantly on Twitter, who's amused or cheered me up, taught me something new, or who I've got to know well enough to have considered an online friend.

And as ever, thanks for reading my blog.

Macht's gut!

Peter

[Insert suitably cheesy smiling pic]

Trolls and the Twitter Boycott

As Twitter's popularity has grown, so has the number of people who use it as a platform to abuse, threaten and generally be vile to strangers.  Its great strength is also its great weakness: it is an incredibly democratic and easy way to access anyone else with an account, be they a national journalist, an Olympic diver, a politician, or a woman who has campaigned to get Jane Austen onto the £10 note.

Yesterday we saw the latter, Caroline Criado-Perez, drawing attention to the fact she had received "about 50 abusive tweets an hour for about 12 hours" and said she had "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women".

Block And Ignore

It's all to easy to say "block and ignore".  I think people who do so genuinely mean well: it's a way of reaching out, saying that they empathise and trying to reassure you that you can easily make it go away.  The problem is that you can't just erase the memory of some hideous comment that's been made to you, and even if you've blocked one of them it's a bit like bashing down mole hills.  Another one will soon follow.  I still remember vile tweets sent to me from years back, and I certainly haven't ever been subjected to 50 abusive tweets an hour.  I can't imagine what that must feel like.

It's so often our instinct in life to say "there, there, it will be fine" when something bad happens, but often that just frustrates and angers further.  If I've just fallen over and broken my arm I want some proper sympathy and to voice my hurt and upset, not for someone to say "there, there" and point out the obvious, that in a few months it may (or may not) have healed up properly.

Feeding Trolls

We also then come onto the issue of whether or not to "feed the trolls".  The argument goes that if you don't engage they will go away and/or they're only sending the abuse to get a reaction.  Both aspects of this might be correct, but it's also true that some will send continued abuse regardless of reaction, and even if you don't respond they will still have the satisfaction of knowing the tweet appeared in your @ mentions until they are blocked.

Further, why shouldn't you engage if someone sends you abuse?  It may not be the most sensible strategy (who knows?), but if someone is unpleasant to me I don't just let it pass.  I respond.  In this case it's rather akin to victim blaming: we're specifically talking about a woman who has dared to have an opinion and who has successfully organised a campaign.  She (and others who attempt to show her solidarity) are threatened with sexual violence.  Why shouldn't they challenge the man, if it makes them feel in any way better?  To say that they then bring subsequent abuse upon themselves just strikes me as wrong and deeply un-empathetic.  We should unequivocally be telling the person who abuses that they are in the wrong, not the person who is receiving the abuse.  It's a little bizarre to even need to spell that out.

It's Twitter's Fault

It's very tempting to see the problem here as being the medium, rather than the people using it.  To some extent it's true: Twitter has given us the ability to communicate instantly and easily in a way not previously available.  But let's be clear: Twitter of itself does not encourage this type of abusive behaviour.  Hundreds of millions of people use it daily and manage not to send this kind of thing.

It is a human issue that some men feel threatened by women and think it amusing to launch off rape threats in response.  To ditch your Twitter account in response is like getting rid of your telephone because you've had someone heavy breathing down the line.  It's not the telephone's fault: it's the freak who's making the call.  Telephones also facilitate billions of happy, useful, mundane and funny communications too.  The problem here is societal, not digital.

Report Abuse Button

People are rightly upset and frustrated at what is happening with the repeated abuse that is going on.  Just because Twitter doesn't encourage the abuse, doesn't mean it can't do something to stop it.  There's an online petition to get a "report abuse" button added.  Like many others, I felt angry at what was going on yesterday, signed it and retweeted the link.  None of us wants to feel impotent and to just ignore something like this.  The existing "Report spam" button does not fit the problem and it ignores the fact that very real, upsetting, offensive abuse, not spam, is the problem.

My attitude was a bit like my attitude to speed cameras.  I don't tend to speed, so why should I be bothered by their presence?  It's only people who send out abuse who have anything to be concerned about.  It may genuinely help, in the way that I think speed cameras do have an effect on people breaking the law.  With a little reflection, I realised that there are big practical problems with this approach, however.

It requires a level of policing by Twitter that is unlikely to happen without a hefty subscription fee.  The following statistic demonstrates it clearly: the Guardian employs 12 full time moderators.  Twitter would have to employ 24,000 to police with the same level of activity.  They would have to be multi-lingual, or there would have to be different teams for different countries. 

Moreover, do we want 24,000 people monitoring our tweets?  The scope for abuse is immense.  If you don't like someone you report them for abuse in an attempt to get their account suspended.  As a matter of principle, why should someone be the judge and jury over what it is acceptable to say or not?  Rape threats clearly fall way over the unacceptable line.  Does telling someone to "fuck off", or using the C-word?  What would be the procedure for appeal if you disagree?

The beauty of Twitter, which is in fact a liberal dream fulfilled, is the ability for people to be able to communicate freely across most borders.  The concept that what is said should be policed by a non-judicial authority is one that needs to be thought out very carefully indeed.

Twitter and the Police

Given the statistics above, it is easy to see why, practically and above all commercially, Twitter prefers the "leave it to others to police" route.  It does have a "report abuse" mechanism, but I know from experience how slow and ineffective this method is.  When I received tweets saying "YOU GAY FAGGOT BUM BOY - PERHAPS WE SHOULD KILL YOU INSTEAD." and "YES- MURDER YOU." Twitter did absolutely nothing instant.  The report goes off to the US and they take about 2 weeks to action it - by which time the person had deleted his account.  Hooray, that made me feel better.

Therefore Twitter falls back on the line that people must comply with local laws.  Caroline Criado-Perez reported her abuse to the Police.  Much of it no doubt did constitute offences under English law.  The problem again is, however, limited resources.  The Police must assess what threats are credible.  They cannot investigate each and every vile tweet, with the best will in the world, nor could the courts process it.  Much abuse comes from anonymous accounts - to "unmask" the operators is a difficult operation that involves going to court in California, followed by investigations and prosecution here.

It's a bit of an understatement to say that I did not enjoy getting homophobic tweets threatening to murder me, but I would genuinely rather that my local force use its resources to combat other crime in my area than this non-credible threat on Twitter from someone who did not even know where I live. 

Annual Subscription

Many accounts that send abuse are set up mainly or solely for that purpose.  Let's take this bright spark for example (I've deliberately picked a typical troll account, but by no means one of the most offensive ones that are using sexual violence in their comments):

And then look at the number of followers, the number of tweets, and the fact he still has an egg as his avatar.  It takes minutes to set this up, using a (relatively) non-traceable email account such as Hotmail.  There's a very good likelihood "Bruce" has a regular account from which he tweets normal things; he's just using this account to vent his hatred of women that he probably realises it isn't acceptable to do from an account where he could be identified.  Chances are his girlfriend or mother might be a bit unimpressed, for a start.

A big issue with the "report abuse button" is that even if it operated properly and an account such as the above were instantly suspended, there would be absolutely nothing to stop "Bruce" from setting up another account a moment later. 

Caitlin Moran has suggested she would happy to pay £30 a year to have a "safe network" in place of the existing Twitter.   It would certainly be necessary to have a substantial subscription fee to employ the sizeable army of people working to police abusive tweets.  It would also be necessary to have a fee to stop people from setting up repeated abuse accounts.  The "report abuse" button idea is of itself of very limited use in stopping the problem.  It gives us the important comfort that Twitter is doing something and acknowledges this serious issue, but for as long as accounts are free to set up and operate, it will solve little.

I'm sure others would agree with Caitlin that £30 is a reasonable fee if it stops misogynistic and other abuse.  They would pay it.  I probably would too, if push came to shove: I pay a lot more for my mobile subscription a year, or for my home internet.

Plenty, however, would not.  We wealthy Westerners praise the role of social media in the organising of demonstrations, for example in the Middle East, yet many of these people would be shut out of using this democratic medium if there were a fee of this level.

One Off Registration Fee

My own suggestion is a little more modest.  If each new account had to pay a nominal one-off fee (say £3 or £5) on registration this would certainly help deal first of all with the multiple spam accounts that occasionally plague Twitter.  It might also help cut down on repeat abuse accounts such as "Bruce" above.  Some idiots will happily pay a fiver a time to abuse others, but the second they are blocked they cannot abuse that person again.  They will have to pay £5 each time for the privilege of dishing out their oh-so-hilarious rape jokes.

This being Twitter, when I expressed this idea, I was instantly told that £5 is a lot to people in Africa, or indeed to some in the UK, and was accused of taking part in a "middle class platform".  One of the people doing so was a lecturer whose latest photo in her stream was of a very expensive looking plasma screen.  How I've missed Twitter the last month I've been away.  Glorious.

Yes, I'm not actually a complete moron and realise that a one-off fee of £5 is a reasonable sum of money to some people.  It is, however, a darn side less than an annual fee of £30 that Caitlin suggests, and would I think achieve a similar aim, without the army of censors working with all the disadvantages that involves.  I also think that paying £5 (remember: new accounts only was the suggestion) is fair enough, given the very real wrong of women receiving 50 abuse tweets every hour.  Some people sadly won't be able to afford that, but for those who have access to the internet (by definition all Twitter users) most will.

Fighting Back

I'm also realistic enough to realise that a £5 registration fee suggested by little PME on his blog isn't going anywhere... but it's an idea.  The point is we are angry, we are frustrated, and we don't want this medium that we enjoy so much ruined by a group of Neanderthal dick-heads.

So, we come to the boycott idea.  It is that on 4 August people stop tweeting for a day to register their protest that Twitter isn't taking this issue seriously enough.  Will it help in practice?  I've no idea (and some considerable doubts), but the fact that it's already been reported on the BBC with quotes from Stella Creasy MP, suggest to me it's already being effective in at least highlighting the issue.

Some people will argue and say that it's giving in to the abusers, others will tell off those who fail to observe it.  I probably won't be tweeting that day to show that I support those who have received such abuse: it's the least I can do.  I don't expect it to suddenly change society and I'm not going to be chastising others with different views: do as you feel fit.  As long as you agree that enough is enough, and this type of discourse is grotesque and unacceptable, you're on my team.

Finally we come to the other aspect of fighting back.  It's registering our disgust, and showing our support for the people receiving the abuse.  This wonderful article in New Statesman by Caroline Criado-Perez highlights not just the trolls, but the amount of positive tweets she has received.  It takes a moment to send her, or Suzanne Moore, or Helen Lewis, or any of the other women who regularly receive this type of abuse on Twitter a tweet of support.  We can all do that.

I'm also aware that the guys sending the sexual abuse seem to get off on it when a woman responds.  I've found that if another man challenges them they seem to go a bit quiet and they enjoy it less.  Ask them how funny they'd find it if their mother, sister, wife or girlfriend were getting rape jokes every hour and see if they respond.  They need to know other men don't think this is okay.  Again, we can all do that.

Old Holborn, Liverpool and Freedom of Speech

There's been hell of a lot of nastiness on Twitter of late.  This post seeks to reflect on that, rather than perpetuate it further.

Old Holborn vs Liverpool

Old Holborn is a well-known libertarian blogger and tweeter.  Let's just get it out there that he's not my cup of tea: in fact he wished me to contract Aids whilst I was having a lovely evening in Munich a couple of summers ago, after which I blocked him.  I think it's fair to say he's upset a lot of people both with his general views and individual "trolling".  Equally, many seem to like his "politically incorrect" views.  He is generally intelligent, he is provocative, and he apparently delights in offending.

He carried out his online activities from an anonymous position that he was very proud of.  He'd even managed to stand for the Cambridge seat in the 2010 General Election under his pseudonym, without revealing his real name or identity.

Liverpool. I love it.

Around the recent anniversary of the Hillsborough Disaster, in which 96 were killed and 766 injured, he tweeted and re-tweeted a set of comments aimed at the people of Liverpool.  Much of it was fairly low-grade trolling and insult throwing, about Scousers being stupid, and out of work thieves etc.  They also however included comments about the murder of two year old James Bulger, which were not aimed at his mother, but which she apparently later saw and upset her greatly.

Someone in Liverpool discovered Old Holborn's real name, apparently from a Flickr photo stream he had incautiously left online.  His name, address, phone number, work details and his wife's details were published on Twitter, in breach of Twitter rules.  Once his identity was clear, the Police apparently became involved because of complaints about his posts.  If his claims are to believed, several hundred abusive messages, including death-threats, were left by Liverpudlians on his phone, and the Police also took an interest in these.  He claims that an arrest has followed.

Something Voltaire Really Didn't Say

I have read several blogs from libertarians in connection with all this.  The primary theme is the mantra that free speech is (or should be) absolute and Old Holborn is doing everyone a public service by exercising his right to speak his mind.  The hackneyed quote (wrongly attributed to Voltaire*) about disagreeing with your statement, but "defending until death your right to say it" is unthinkingly reeled out.

It is equally hackneyed, but worth reiterating that just because you might have the right to do something, that does not mean it has to be exercised.  Old Holborn frequently tweets about abuses of power in politicians and the Police.  When free speech is exercised in such a context, it's very easy to argue that this right is an absolute cornerstone of a democratic society.  Without it no one is held to account and power corrupts rapidly (or to be accurate: even more rapidly). 

Voltaire: would he be defending hate speech? Methinks "non"

Let's be clear that with Holborn's tweets about Liverpool, however, this "sacred" right was not not be exercised for the greater good or to hold anyone to account.  He was simply being gratuitously and deliberately offensive simply because he could be.  He aimed to hurt and upset people.  Most of us apply a filter, being mindful of others.  To him, his right to say whatever he feels, apparently is the justification for his doing so.  He is not a free-speech martyr for (indirectly) causing distress to the mother of a murdered two year old or for (directly) causing distress to plenty of other individuals.  He is quite simply, an arse.

Why anyone would want to go out of their way to do what he did (he implies it is for his amusement) is beyond me.  My partner is from Liverpool.  For what it's worth I think it is an amazing city where people have a warmth, pride and sense of belonging that I've never encountered elsewhere in this country.  I love the place.  However, even if I did not, why would I go online to spew bile about the place, knowing that it would upset people?  Why do that - just because I can?  I have the right to go up to the elderly woman who lives opposite me and tell her, for no particular reason, that I think she's an ugly fat old bag, but I don't.  It would upset her for no reason and I wouldn't want someone to do this to me.  I at least try to live my the standard "do unto others" and think it makes the world a more pleasant place.  Thankfully so do most members of society.

Legal Restrictions on Free Speech

Free speech is of course not an absolute in this country, nor is it almost everywhere.  It is expressly protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - but society has also agreed there should be limits, which are reflected in that text.  Racist speech, incitement to hatred, language that threatens public safety etc are all obvious valid restrictions that the law has chosen to spell out.  It's worth remembering that all laws are, is an an attempt to codify what the majority of members of society feel and agree is the correct thing in a society.  Laws can be, and are, frequently refined and changed.

Apart from these "red lines", the crossing of which society has decided should carry consequences (and which I am broadly glad exist),  I would always come down on the side of the law giving the most freedom as possible, and trusting that most people will exercise their rights responsibly.  The law cannot and should not seek to determine every time someone opens their mouth whether it is to be deemed "right" or "wrong".  We have to do that ourselves.  Most people do the right thing, most of the time.

Did Holborn cross the line with his comments?  Well he has recently deleted a particularly charming post of his entitled "Co*ns and Muslims" (you can still see the heading) but if you do a search there are plenty of tweets with content such "Sleeping with black men gives you AIDS" etc.  He, and other Libertarians, can set out his argument for an absolute right to say anything, but if they do cross the red lines set out they will find out there are consequences.  Unless they persuade society that the rules should be changed, that's the deal - most people have a clear enough idea of the law on hate language is and if they want to become "Free Speech Martyrs" by paying fines as a result, so be it.

As for the comments on Liverpool, I don't know (and strongly suspect not) - at least in terms of the law.  I guess the Police/CPS will determine that.  In moral terms I come back to: why do this?  They were expressly designed to hurt, upset and distress other people and he didn't have to do this.  He chose to do so.  The photos on Holborn's Flickr account show a man surrounded by friends and family at his wedding.  I bet there are plenty of people who can vouch to his being a nice guy and will testify to his kindness and decency.  Humans are complicated, and as much as we want to label them in polarised ways as "good" or "bad" they aren't.  We all do good things and bad things to greater/lesser extents at various stages in our lives.  All I will say is that Holborn's years of tweets have created the image of someone who isn't terribly kind or happy, and that is sad.

A Bankrupt Philosophy

It's been of interest to me to see how Holborn's case has shown up several key "mantras" to his libertarian beliefs to be flawed.  These are:

1) Do no harm.  Holborn repeatedly says language doesn't harm: physical acts do.  This simply isn't true.  Words can upset, distress and cause long-lasting harm.  I think that he and "Mrs Holborn" experienced this first hand with the threats pouring in.  It's entirely possible a slap in the face you receive as a kid, which then heals up, will be less formative and stick less in your mind than years of taunting or bullying.  I'm sure if Holborn is honest he knows the harm his comments may have caused to James Bulger's mother and I doubt he's proud of them.

2) You choose to take offence.  Another line trotted out is that words aren't offensive; people choose to take offence.  He, and others, fall back on the "block" argument.  If you don't like it, don't listen and block.  That's what I did 2 years ago with him and paid him little attention until all this came up.  The argument is true, but only to a certain extent.  People who these tweets were not directed to chose to get involved and to get upset.  However, when he tweeted me in Munich I didn't have the option of ignoring it.  It was before I had blocked him and doing so didn't take away the upset he caused me deliberately and voluntarily at the time.  I'm guessing James's mother didn't know who he was before his comments were drawn to her attention.  The situation is a lot more complicated than this simple attempt to defend the right to be vile to others.

Holborn says he doesn't mind the abuse he receives all day, but he draws the line at threats to burn his house down.  Why?  Those threats are "only words" after all.  His house hasn't actually been burned down.  This is therefore either an acceptance that words can do harm and he is "choosing" to be offended/threatened (if so, why does he condemn others for feeling the same?); or that words do actually on their natural meaning carry offence (and his assertion is nonsense.  He is simply placing the bar higher.)

3) Take Responsibility.  Libertarians love taking people to take responsibility.  The Greeks should take responsibility because they're tax-dodging cheats, and shouldn't be bailed out.  People on the dole should take responsibility and shouldn't have children, etc.  There is no compassion, no understanding and precious little humanity in these beliefs.

People sometimes do things they hope they can get away with. They exaggerate about their income on mortgage forms.  They engage in dubious tax-avoidance schemes.  They break the speed limit in the middle of the night.  They send out abuse from anonymous Twitter accounts.  They expect not to get caught.  When they do, presumably they should just live with the consequences.  Threats to burn your house down?  Shouldn't have sent the tweets, should you. Remember it wasn't you or I who had 700 angry Scousers phoning us up: Holborn chose to do what he did, and expected to get away with it.  He didn't.

4) The Police.  The police are, as far as I can see, a major object of dislike to Holborn.  He sees them as organs of the State, and an expression of their power.  Yet when he is threatened, he talks to them, voluntarily provides them with information, and assists them because it suits him to.  I don't blame him for doing so: but then I don't fill my timeline with assertions that they are a corrupt, damaging force in society.  I have rather a lot of faith in most of them.

Threats and Ugliness

All of this said, I was possibly in a minority when I saw what was happening to Holborn the day of the threats.  I was genuinely horrified and upset at the though of what he and his family were going through.  I cannot imagine how terrifying it must have been to have had a mob apparently doing what it was doing.

There was no obvious general public interest in publishing Holborn's real name/address and I'm deliberately not repeating it or them.  If people chose to blog and tweet anonymously, and they are not breaking any laws or holding themselves out to be something they are not, so what.  There is of course an unresolved question, which is not for any of us to determine, about whether he did break any laws.  The fact he has deleted his blog about "co*ns" indicates to me he thinks he might have done.  It would be nice to think other online characters who post similar items might think about about how safe they are hiding behind anonymity. 

The reason people published his name (and worse, his address, phone number etc) wasn't to hold him to account with the Police, however.  It was because of anger and outrage at his Liverpool insults. What it led to was a nasty, threatening mob after him some of whom apparently threatened to kill him and burn his house down.  It's possible to have been upset and extremely offended by his comments, but not leave death threats on his phone.  I'm sure thousands in Liverpool and elsewhere fall into that category, myself included.  It makes me sick to imagine what poor James Bulger's family and those connected to Hillsborough felt, but I'm also sickened by what was done to him.  Sure, he absolutely should not have written what he did, and he is the one who caused this.  But if we want to put it in the most simplistic terms "two wrongs don't make a right". Or, ugliness begets ugliness. 

It really tests the limits of your compassion when you end up feeling sorry for someone who has continually expressed views that are abhorrent to you.  I genuinely feel that about Holborn here.  I've highlighted what I feel is the lack of humanity in the simplistic "take responsibility" line he churns out.  I don't share that philosophy and I'm sorry anyone had to go through this, no matter how much of an idiot they were.  I'm also sorry for everyone who was upset, particularly in Liverpool, and who witnessed all of this.

"Do no harm" is of course a wonderful philosophy.  If anything good comes of this, it's a vain hope that people aren't such utter kunts to each other online.  We really, really, don't have to be.





* It was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall who penned this line almost 130 years after Voltaire's death

Trolls and Tweeting About Politics

You hear a lot about "Trolls" on the Internet.  What exactly are they?  There are various definitions: they invariably centre around someone whose behaviour is intended to cause upset to another online.  At their most extreme they can be someone who post offensive messages on a tribute site to cause grief to a bereaved family.  I've heard of trolls who pretend they are young mothers who spend weeks making friends on things on Mumsnet, only to troll message boards and be offensive.  Hilarious, yeah.

On Twitter my general understanding of a troll (there is also a verb, to troll) is someone who generally you do not follow, but who sees a tweet of yours through a search or a retweet, and who sends you an uninvited message that is either simply offensive, or that is intended to start an argument.  It's not simply someone you disagree with: it's someone who is purposely goading of offending you for the fun of it.  You will often never have seen their avatar or name before.

Why Do We Feed the Trolls?

Trolls are a regular feature of the medium and probably one of the things that upsets people the most.  There is of course a simple mechanism to stop them "don't feed the trolls" - don't engage and/or block them.  Would that it were that simple, however.  First it takes some restraint if you've just been called a "fucking idiot" or similar not to respond.  Secondly, the troll may appear semi-reasonable and you may think you are being drawn into a civilised conversation and want to defend your viewpoint.  After a few exchanges your blood pressure goes up a notch and it takes even more effort just to walk away.  You're drawn in and it rarely ends pleasantly.

Having a Temporary Break from His Keyboard

What Is The Point of Arguing?

A huge strength of Twitter is of course that it facilitates an exchange of ideas.  It is perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint that can make you think again about something.  Perhaps this is why we engage: we want to listen.  Perhaps, if we're really honest, it's just because we want to feel we are "right" and convince the other person and anyone else who sees the conversation of our position.  From my experience a genuine reflection and revision of your own position is far more likely to happen when discussing something politely with someone you actually follow and know.  Very rarely, you might meet someone new whom you disagree with, but nonetheless like and respect, and then decide to follow from one of these discussions.

Let's face it, though, someone who has strong personal views that abortion should be illegal, that gays are evil, who describes the European Union as the EUSSR, or that my being vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that makes me "an economic burden" (oh yes, I was told this for real over the course of 3 hours one evening recently) is not going to be able to convince me of their viewpoint.  Nor am I going to be able to influence them of my diametrically opposed opinion.  What *is* the point, unless the act of arguing from your keyboard makes you feel happy about yourself?

Personal Abuse

My last blog was a set of observations on what happens when a celebrity dies.  It led to accusations that I was trying to censor people, lecture them, was being authoritarian, and these lovely unsolicited personal messages:

From someone I'd not spoken to before

From someone I blocked 9 months ago

Why do people send stuff like this?  More importantly, why can't they get their syntax and grammar correct (at least in the case of the first one)?  Why don't they have to courage to put their faces on their avatars?  These two are in fact members of a special little group of ghoulish right wingers and libertarians who always hide behind faceless anonymous profiles, who make lots of noise on Twitter, and who are quite well known for their unpleasant online behaviour.  I'm still amazed to see people I know and like corresponding with the likes of them.

I've also had the head-ghoul, @Old_Holborn message me with the type of thing below.  This isn't trolling, it's just sending pretty grotesque personal homophobic abuse.  If I see anyone RTing the man I'm quite likely to unfollow them as a result.  Why am I in effect naming and shaming these people?  Do I have an axe to grind?  Yes, I guess I do.  I don't see why these people who have sent me abuse in public should not be named here for others to see so they can make their own judgements and steer clear of them if they wish.

From Someone Who is Quite Sick

On a philosophical level, I don't believe there's such a thing as inherently nasty or evil people: only people who in some situations behave in a bad way.  I'm sure these guys have friends and family to whom they are pleasant, and often no doubt loving.  All I know is that I've experienced them being pretty vile to me and to others, and it's not what I come on Twitter for.  I'm able to shake it off better than some I know: if they caught the attention of a few of my friends I know they would leave the medium for good.  They can create a stink that lasts months.  I hope they feel good about doing this.

Politics

Now we come to politics.  I used to enjoy tweeting about politics on Twitter.  One of the things I love about Twitter is the flow of news, current affairs and the comments and reactions of an intelligent, engaged group of people I've found on here.  I barely do it now for the reasons set out in this blog.

I have found that my enjoyment of Twitter has in some ways had an inverse relationship to the number of my followers.  The more people who follow you, the more an RT will reach the likes of someone who wants to pick a fight.  It's amazing that tweeting about being vegetarian will do this, or making some simple observations about the death of a celebrity.  I really don't know how people with really large numbers of followers cope: I saw Sally Bercow tweet "Is it odd that when I hear an Amy Winehouse song I still feel sad?" and just watched the abuse pouring in at her.  No wonder she doesn't seem to tweet half as much as she used to.  Get into party politics and just wait for the really argumentative reactions.  It's exhausting.

I guess I should man up, just ignore the crap, and say what I want to.  I've chosen to shut up instead, because I've found a group of people to follow whom I largely agree with on politics, and prefer to listen to their reactions and discuss them with them one on one, rather than tweet openly in my timeline.  There's less chance of an RT and hostile arguments that way.  If Twitter is about encouraging free speech and open discussion, then this is a bit of a sad indictment of the way the medium can go.  I do have stuff to say about current affairs: instead weariness with the arguments has led me to tweet about my dog, my socks, and what I'm having for breakfast. Great :S

Troll Guidelines

To conclude, and in the true spirit of lecturing people, being authoritarian, and being sanctimonious (thanks again guys!), here are some suggestions I have on the subject of Trolls.  I shall endeavour to apply them myself:

1)  If you don't want a lot of potential grief, simply don't engage with someone you don't know, who has sent you an unsolicited tweet disagreeing with you.  It will very likely, unless you have super-human control and perception in knowing when to get out of the conversation before it heads to aggression, end up in your wasting an evening arguing, and ending up upset or angry.  You will convince them of nothing.  You may feel "right" at the end of it.  So what? Do NOT feed the trolls.

2) Trolling, at least in its mild manifestation, is often a question of perception according to where you are sitting.  All the trolls I know are right-wingers.  I'm sure there are Tories out there who know a whole bunch of lefty trolls.  The same people who behave reasonably to me may pick fights and behave very differently with others.  Think about whether a response of yours to someone you don't know could be seen as "trolling".  Honestly, why are you sending the message?  To be mischievous, to pick a fight?

I'm not above admitting that I've done it on occasion, not that I'm proud of it.  I sent a tweet to a random Christian this week who was being homophobic to some friends, who went on to call me a "liar" and rather bizarrely told me to "get a job".  I ended up sending a deliberately offensive tweet as as result, when really I shouldn't have got involved.  They could have blocked this person themselves if they were upset and are really quite able to look after themselves.  Apart from the utter dickheads I've mentioned above, I'm sure no one would revel in the description of being called a troll.  Don't inadvertently do anything to deserve the label yourself.

3) To put 2. in a nutshell, the best tweet I read all week was from @Yorkdid.  I think he's 18 or 19.  I understand it might not be original, but who cares.  It is brilliant advice and I'd never heard it before formulated like this.  It simply said the following:

There's a real person reading your tweet or message.  Put simply, just run anything you're about to send past this simple test: how would I feel to receive this myself?  Rocket science it is not.

4)  Put the trolling in context.  I follow 1100 people.  I must have interacted with well over 5000 since I've been on Twitter.  I've sent over 60,000 tweets and have probably received at least 20,000 @ mentions, given how much I interact.  Of these around exchanges maybe 50, tops, have been nasty, aggressive and have stuck in my head.  That's 0.25%.  I actively dislike and seek to avoid perhaps 10 people of the 5000 tweeple I've spoken to.  That's 0.2%.

It is so easy to get upset and to forget about all the "good guys" and what makes Twitter so enjoyable.  Concentrate on the 99.75% and the 99.8%.  I know it's not human to do so, but they really do deserve your attention more.



There we go.  I feel better for having written this anyway, which I guess is the whole point of blogging.  I hope you've enjoyed reading it.  I'm now off to "make like a tree and wobble off".  Yes, what the *actual* fuck <does> that mean...?