While researching the data retention issue via Twitter I came across the #ccRoxon hashtag, a tongue-in-cheek nod to do Nicola Roxon a favour by copying her into online coversations. Through the hashtag, I came across Nicola Roxon's You Tube video addressing data retention: Attorney-General's update on the inquiry into potential reforms to national security legislation.
The #ccRoxon campaign duly noted that her office had disabled comments to the aforementioned video. Her office obviously has much to learn in creating open, two-way communication processes with their target communities via social media, as many on Twitter pointed out. Only when trying to embed the video in this blog (as you can see I have only linked to it above) did I discover that they have also disabled embedding the video - also not the best social media strategy if you want people to share and spread your message.
From a Political Economy theoretical stand point, this You Tube example shows how government are yet to fully embrace social media and its intended use. It appears that they wish to use the platform as just another means to spread their messages to a mass audience and are unwilling to be open to constructive criticism or feedback from their target market: citizens of Australia.
This leads me to examining Nicola Roxon's video from a Media Audience theoretical perspective. The 'imagined audience' Jim Macnamara alluded to last week is one that the Attorney General's office is probably guilty of in their use of You Tube to reach their 'audience'. Trying to reach a mass market, whilst switching off the feedback button will not go far in today's social media landscape.
"...You Tube... and other user-generated mediia illustrate that the genie is out of the the bottle in terms of people being static target audiences or 'consumers' passively acqiescing to messages." (Macnamara 2010 p124). Citizens are not static audiences that passively accept messages even if they are on emergent media platforms. From a moderation perspective, this leads me to ask: Does removing the ability to comment using the same platform be cosidered the ultimate form of social media moderation suicide?
#StopTheTrolls, a traditional mass media outlet's attempt
to colonise or influence emergent media?
There has been much commentary on the Daily Telegraph's campaign to stop individuals using Twitter to harass and bully others. From a political economy perspective, here is a social media issue being influenced by traditional media. Said traditional media is also inviting political influence to try and 'Stop the Trolls' , NSW Premier @barryofarrell was actively involved in bringing light to @RobbieFarah 's plea, (only to later be outed as a troll himself). Is #StopTheTrolls a marriage of political, economic and tradtional media heavyweights attempting to, moderate, colonise or control emergent media?
The trolling issue may never have come to light were it not for rise of the prosumer and the Hyperindividualization of media audiences (Deuze 2005 in Macnamara 2010 p124) through social media sites such as Twitter. Does Hyperindividualization, the extreme individualisation of audience, (when combined with social media platforms), give permission to individuals to voice their opinions directly to 'personalities' even if their social media actions could be classed as harassment? Or are social media platforms simply the new avenue for 'fan mail' - or in Charlotte Dawson's case, the ultimate hate mail?
Twitter recently handed over an Occupy protestor's data, thus complying with a Judge's order. Can this be considered self-moderation by a social media platform? A classic case study of political economic theory in social media? Or simply an example Nicola Roxon can now give as to why her Data Retention proposal is in the nation's best interests?
Attempting to moderate, control or colonise social media and the internet's much fragmented audience seems to be an easy headline grab these days.
References: Macnamara 2010, The 21st Century Media Revolution Emergent Communication Practices.
I'm still stunned that the institutions that brought us papparazzi, phone hacking, spy cameras and today tonight/ACA can attempt to take the high moral ground on trolling. I'd suggest this is an example of an elite, power hungry organisation desperately trying to hold on the only way they know how - ruthlessly using politicians and celebrities to their own ends (PS great fact checking when picking their celebrities, that's the way to really maintain media standards!).
ReplyDeleteThe comment issue in the political realm is difficult. Unfortunately we have political parties bereft of honour, so it can be pretty much guaranteed that if Nicola Roxon leaves the comments option open, branches of the Libs and Nats will organise a campaign of negative comments from their members. There isn't a great deal of evidence that any political party in Australia respects their communities enough to stop attempting manipulation.
Cheers, geoff
Thanks Geoff, your first point is antoher agle I saw in the media - how dare papers like the Telegraph take on Trollers when their columnists are guilty of it almost every other day. Only difference is that they are publishing in traditonal media....
ReplyDeleteI do understand pollies may turn off comments to prevent the opposition from commenting, but with using coial media comes some observnce of conventions it being open to comments. If comments were moderated before being published it would be a step in the right direction.
Hi Sam - not sure if this has come up yet but Twitter's record is far from clear when it comes to censorship. Did you hear about earlier in the year when Twitter rolled out country-specific censorship?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57367843/twitters-censorship-plan-rouses-global-furor/
Thanks for link Natassja. I'll check it out.
ReplyDeleteHi Sam, answering your question I think this is a classic case study of political economic theory in social media. Governments are loosing control around the world because of social media from Arabic countries,USA to local Australia. So they are trying to use all their politics tools in order to regain the power lost because of social media. Consuelo
ReplyDeleteVery comprehensive post Sam, and like Geoff I am still stunned at the holier-than-thou attitude of some of our traditional media doyens about trolling. And your link to the Robbie Farah article was telling too - trolling is obviously in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDeleteOn your question about ultimate fan/hate mail, the fact that social media platforms (and especially Twitter which seems to have far greater reach in this domain) allow people to talk more directly to 'personalities', which leaves open the possibility for abuse, I don't think the platforms themselves are to 'blame' so to speak. The people who use them - 'personalities' and 'fans' - make conscious decisions to use them and if some people breach the protocols and step over the line, it's the people who are at fault, not the platform. It's just that it's easier to make a flippant, but very public, comment on Twitter in a moment of madness (as Mr Farah found out).
And as we've seen over the anti-Muslim video incident of the last couple of weeks, people who have used Twitter unlawfully to incite riot, or are abusive etc, have been arrested. So the existing laws already protect us against inappropriate use. A case against needing Ms Roxon's new laws no less.
Hi Sam. Regarding the moderation of social media by politicians, I took a look at Tony Abbott's Facebook page this week: http://on.fb.me/NU1uIb and was surprised to find that it appears to be a free-for-all. Is this the luxury of opposition, or in the political context is everyone ('mass' media included) not overly concerned by what appears on such a site? Typical of many Facebook pages they take his Twitter feed, but the discussion in the comments is often way off topic!
ReplyDeleteSam I found this article which speaks about an illusion of open debate through social media in many countries such as China or Egypt. My question is what is happening today in Australia? Censorship is happening far away from us or it is closer than we think?
DeleteMy personal opinion is that politicians and media are playing a vital role in the campaign against open dialogue, being the traditional media use as a vehicle to engineer moral panic:harassment, trolls and bulling.
As Lee pointed out “...Censorship is most effective when most people don't know it's happening...”
Further information: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/do-social-media-platforms-promote-or-limit-individual-liberty.
Consuelo
I tend to agree with most posters that the Daily Telegraph has some nerve 'taking on trollers' with its past record. Having said that, it is a different medium, but is it any less harmful? It's also worth noting that no media institution - social, traditional or otherwise -would be innocent in this regard. It's quite a sad reality of the world we live in, really.
ReplyDeleteHi guys, thanks for all the comments and feedback. I juat cam across this today and it does give some perspective on #StopTheTrolls and its influence (or lack thereof)
ReplyDeleteFrom: Twitter's final word on the Stop The Trolls campaign failure
http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/10/05/3604766.htm
The newspaper ran a campaign for a fortnight. However, three weeks in, the petition has ground to a halt at just 732 signatures. In the meantime an anti-Alan Jones petition quickly stormed to over 100,000 signatures.
Nonetheless, two weeks in and The Daily Telegraph was claiming a "major victory in the war on net trolls."
Supporter, Conroy said, "In response to community concern as represented by the Stop The Trolls campaign, Twitter will ensure a much more streamlined process for law enforcement authorities investigating violent behaviour on its site,"
He added, "We've got to send a message and Twitter are now onboard to send the message that this sort of behaviour is not acceptable, that you can't hide behind anonymity,"
...