When you take Facebook too far ....
How would you feel if your picture was in a national newspaper under the headline “I set up the Moat Facebook tributes”? That was what befell Siobhan O’Dowd, left, this morning after using Facebook to glorify the killer gunman Raoul Moat.
It reminds me of advice given at a talk I heard on Business Ethics: “Before doing anything in business or personally, imagine what it would look like on the front page of the Times”. Many business people over the years have failed to do this!
But this story also highlights how Facebook, and social media in general, is taking such a key part in our lives.
Siobhan is reported as saying she set up the Facebook “wall” simply for a few friends, not to glorify Moat’s actions, but how he had evaded police for so long.
She took down the page last night. But not before she had attracted some 38000 followers, dozens of “offensive” comments, the fury of the Prime Minister, and a host of other problems she and her daughter will probably regret for the rest of their lives. Had she followed the advice on Facebook privacy? I doubt it.
The other interesting aspect is that Facebook refused to take the wall down themselves. Their terms prohibit anything illegal, specifically anything that incites violence. Apparently there was no such breach.
Whilst at least one national newspaper has said they obviously support free speech, they thought Facebook should nonetheless hang their heads in shame. But what if Facebook started taking down users’ walls willy nilly? The press would lay into them for that as well.
Your views?
.
At the moment, state controlled censorship does not happen in our democracy. Indeed, in the USA - where Facebook was founded - there is constitutional protection for all citizens for complete freedom of speech. Mr Cameron may not like what happened in this instance, but then he might not like the conversations taking place in pubs up and down the land. The only difference is, on Facebook he is aware of those conversations.
ReplyDeleteThe internet and sites like Facebook get constant criticism, particularly from right wing politicians. The problem is, as far as they see it, that the web is creating nasty thinking and dreadful behaviour. In reality, nasty thinking and dreadful behaviour has always been with us. Now, online, it is simply more visible.
In fact, Facebook is doing us a favour. By allowing pages like this to be published it is enabling us to see the extent of the negative thinking that exists. This, in turn, allows for social normative pressures to increase, reducing the likelihood of such thinking re-occurring. Without the exposure of such thinking, all that happens is that it festers in society, eventually erupting when it has reached "boiling point".
The whole incident reminds me of 30th April 2007, when Digg was subject to attacks for taking down a posting which breached the copyright of the Motion Picture Association. Within hours, Digg itself was being attacked for caving in under commercial pressure. The result was that in order to preserve Digg itself the owner had to reinstate the "illegal" posting. The 30th April 2007 was the day that most of us realised that the people in charge of the internet are the people themselves - not commercial enterprises, not governments.
This Facebook incident is just another example. Politicians hate it, of course, because it is just more evidence of them losing control.
The press offers only a narrow view of the world, driven as it is by a short-term commercial imperative and an often political editorial viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteBy contrast, Facebook is a medium for unedited and largely unrestricted content. It may be vast, unstructured and carries much that is drivel, but it presents a rough reality that balances the glossing of the commercial press.
We wouldn't want to do without either. We're hooked on "news" and we're hooked on the Internet and its freedoms. And, I dare say, even the tightly-controlled statements of politicians have an attraction by providing fuel for both.