Towards self-moderation?

In previous posts I've discussed and raised questions on the impact and influence of government and tradtional 20th century media on social media through the Data Retention plan and #StopTheTrolls respectively.

Further to my comments (and yours - thank you!) on the Daily Telegraph's #StopTheTrolls campaign, has it actually stopped the trolls? Or was it a cynical, front-page headline-grabbing exercise complete with brand ambasadors? Traditional 20th Century media's attempt to influence emergent media I'd say.

A recently published article from the ABC, Twitter's final word on the Stop The Trolls campaign failure paints an interesting picture.

• The campaign was heavily criticised for calling for legislation which would curtail freedom of expression and the right to criticise or satirise.
• The Daily Telegraph 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.
• Twitter came under pressure from Senator Conroy and despite claims to the contrary by Conroy, the company refused to go into specifics about the discussions it could say "We have not changed our policy or process for working with law enforcement."

The final paragraphs of that story reveal that Twitter has not changed its policies due to some interference from the Australian federal government.

However...

Applying political economy theory to social media would show that for an 'emergent' media, most platofrms have already been colonised by economic forces. Perhaps not the heavy hand of goverment on a particular platform, but most have been colonised by advertisers, or are now private companies with shareholders to please. Sure, social media platfroms are 'open' and can be used by just about anyone with a phone and WiFi connection, but it is hard to argue against Robert McChesney who noted that despite its claims of openness, the internet is likely to be dominated by the same corporations but with the addition of a few more players (in Macnamara 2010)

This leads me to my next question: Is our collective engagement on and through popular social media platforms turning us into a self-moderating public? One that is all too observant of guidelines, protocols, and community standards? With every comment, photo, video or update we post online on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or any of the other social media sites, I'd argue that we are simply contributing to creating a homogenic audience.

Data Retention and Trolling - Political Economy/Media Audiences mash-up

Thanks for all the great feedback to my previous post on Data Retention. To follow-on from last week, the video linked to here speaks volumes of social media from a political economic viewpoint.

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.

Data Retention: Political influence on Social Media?

Last week, the Attorney General Nicola Roxon announced that she was now in favour of government online data retention for two years in order to target criminals, despite earlier claiming that she was not in support of it.

The government would argue that the proposed data retention plan, which would force all Australian telcos and internet service providers to store the online data of all Australians for up to two years, is simply out to target criminals and crooks who are up to no good in your neighbourhood, and that everyday, law-abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. Privacy advocate groups are up in arms at the suggestion that everyone's online presence will be recorded and kept for two years, leaving it open to access and abuse. 

Australia's Attorney General Nicola Roxon.

Will her support of data retention be a friend or foe to social media?

This potential change to the government's access to Australian's online records raises serious questions for users and creators of social media and social media moderators.

Political Economyy Theory sees media "interconnected with and controlled by economic and political power" (Macnamara 2010). From a political economic theorist's perspective, Nicola Roxon's new-found support of data retention would indicate that this is an attempt by government to gain and influence power over users of the internet and social media. Should data retention be legislated, will Australian 'netizens' become more wary of their online behavour and change what sites they visit? Will 'prosumers' of emergent media modify their interaction with others online?

In a sense, social media users may become self-moderating, ensuring that the emergent media platforms they use, and the content they share, will be different, when users are conscious that 'Big Brother' is not just watching, but also recording their online behaviour. In my previous post, SocMedMod Vision Episode 1, I asked social media moderator Courtney Grigor if her communities were moving to self-moderation. She indicated that they were not, however could the government's close observation of online interaction and communities influence a user's actions towards self-moderation? I'd argue that it could possibly influence someone's response to a post or prevent someone from speaking freely. Moderators may find they have less hateful or aggresive  interactions from group members due to Data Retention.

The political economy worldview "has mostly presented a dystopian view of the internet and emergent media, seeing tem as likely to become colonized by the same power elites that dominated 20th Century media" (Macnamara 2010). Proposed data retention legislation could act as the first step political power elites take towards 'colonising' the internet and social media. Should Data Rentention proceed, the question must be asked - Will government become the ultimate social media moderator?

What do you think?

Is data retention the first step towards political colonisation of social media?

Will government become the ultimate social media moderator?