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.