Twitter is dead. Long Live Twitter!
Even the birds in my garden seem unusually quiet. Frightened to tweet lest somebody sues them, I guess.
It wasn’t always like this. Once upon a time, many moons ago, before the tree had grown a light covering of deadly fungus there was a website called Twitter. People on Twitter would chat, share stories, wit and information. Sometimes they would debate and disagree but it was mostly done with respect, in the kindly spirit of early adopters on a journey as if Wild West pioneers disagreeing about whether sunset would be crimson or orange.
We would marvel at how useful it was, while friends and partners looked at us with pity. “Only those who don’t have any real friends,” they would scoff , ”have to find virtual ones instead.” We would sigh quietly with the satisfaction that they just didn’t get it. And we were happy that way – we liked the exclusivity.
As news organisations woke up to the power of Twitter, it fast became the place to find breaking news. Combined with the real-time information being posted by ordinary people in extraordinary places, whether Cairo, Tehran or a football match, the power of Twitter started to dawn on more and more people.
Then it became popular. Sadly it attracted all sorts of ghastly egos and trolls too, the BBC started sending journalists on Twitter training courses, businesses adopted Twitter strategies and made employees tweet for commercial gain. Twitter was the easiest social network to understand, so even the dimmest and most Luddite could use it. Anyone could convince themselves that they were part of the internet age by posting something about Victoria’s dress on Strictly Come Dancing. Or about paedophiles.
Yes, I know, it doesn’t follow. But that’s the thing about Twitter. People use it to spout any old nonsense that comes into their head. And they have, to horrendous degree. It made Chris Morris’s satire seem old.
So it is good that Twitter has been sent a shocking bolt of electricity by Lord McAlpine’s lawyers as they pursue those who tweeted falsehood and innuendo about him. There is nothing bullying about fighting to restore his reputation. With a bit of luck, the ones who were most guilty of tweeting vicious nonsense will go away for good, scared of which court their views might land them.
Others will think again before pressing “Tweet”. David Aaronovitch and Charlie Brooker have both written handy guides to post-paedogeddon Twitter in their weekly columns in the the Times and the Guardian. They both amount to the same message – don’t be stupid, don’t be vicious, don’t thrown accusations around (or even hint at them) unless you can defend them in court, don’t say something on Twitter you wouldn’t say to somebody’s face. It is all good advice. But I still find myself torn about Twitter going forward.
I love the immediacy of Twitter, but I hate some of its consequences. I love the intimacy, but I hate the intrusion. I love the addictiveness but hate feeling compelled to check my feed. I love that I can tell people about the news as we make it but hate feeling that it is now part of my job.
Twitter isn’t as much fun as it used to be. That’s just a fact. It is now an everyday tool, like a phone or a television. The same rules apply. You don’t believe any old thing you hear from a random telephone sales rep, you consult more than one news source as a consumer and you don’t walk in to crowded theatres and shout unchecked libels.
Once everyone realises that the sames things apply to Twitter the current madness, libel, hatred and trolling will hopefully plummet. Perhaps we might recapture some of that spirit of the early days. Twitter is dead. Long live Twitter.
Follow @krishgm on Twitter.
There are 9 comments on this post
I could not have put it better myself. Treat people as you would like to be treated yourself is was that TWEATED…….
Well said – & that’s a neat & appropriate phrase Charles.
The other reason why the birds aren’t tweeitng in your garden, Krishnan, is because there are likely to be relatively few of them these days. I’ve been in the same house for over 30 years & have a fair-sized garden which we’ve adapted as far as possible to help wildlife. But we’ve noticed a massive decline in house sparrows & definietly a smaller drop in thrushes, greenfinches – indeed finches of all sorts – with only blackbird, robin & blue tit numbers about stable. Yet there’ve been increases in magpies, collared doves, crows and jays (& squirrels & foxes for that matter). IS this adaptation to global warming and/or the pesticides which I assume some of my neighbours must be using? Or is this another instance where the larger & fiercer have forced out the smaller & weaker?
Krishnan,
No surprise there, then.
What would you prefer…….a “Twitterati”? Contributors who only agreed with you, or used your conversational style?
The fact is you can already exchange the kind of smug self satisfaction you seem to prefer. You can do it via email groups and lists. That way you exclude the inconvenience of disagreement or boorishness. Or just mere difference of manners and courtesy.
I have never used Twitter for the simple reason I don’t need it. If I wish to go public with my opinions I limit myself to blog responses of this nature. And I never respond to responses – the road to hell.
There’s no point joining a club if you don’t like its constitution. Which seems to me to be nothing more than common sense.
On this issue I think you are guilty of “wishful elitism.” Tsk tsk.
Fair points, however what people did on twitter was ‘spread’ allegations that were in the public domain for some 20 years unchallenged legally in any way. So, now is it incumbent on every individual to KNOW that something that is freely available online is defamatory? This really creates a dilemma. Newspapers have libeled individuals and this has been repeated across social networks with impunity. An example is of course Christopher Jefferies the Bristol man wrongly accused of murder, and plenty of untrue slurs were made on his character before he was freed uncharged. Difference being of course he was not a mighty, wealthy and powerful Lord. Justice serves those who can afford it, and in my humble opinion Lord Mc Alpine should have dealt with the root of these rumours a long time ago. Attacking the branch as opposed to the root seems ill advised at best.
I agree that McAlpine deserves redress from media figures and organisations, but pursuing unknown tweeters to the nth degree by virtue of very deep pockets is just ridiculous and draconian. I hope that those who tweeted are not browbeaten into unnecessary co-operation with lawyers otherwise they could end up in more bother by signing their lives away for a token £5 damages and probably an undertaking. This will end the same way as those superinjunctions …. if it ends up in court, the law will be forced to see sense, just because of the unenforcability of a mass legal action against tweeters. “Never issue an order you don’t think will be obeyed”
Basically it just reinforces the point that British libels laws are an absurd Victorian hangover. People rightly treat what they say on Twitter in the same way they would a conversation in the pub. I would much rather see a US-style First Amendment protection of free speech.
Absurd Victorian hangover…… Please.
Twitter isn’t a conversation down the pub or a txt to your mate. Its published for others to see. Get over it, act responsibly, if you gossip and make defamatory comments don’t complain if someone wishes to act upon them. Just because its easy and convenient to use doesn’t make it exempt.
Twitter Liberalism was always an illusion, twitter is no different from any other electronic publication, be it blog, website or social media network. They’re all governed by laws of publication, it doesn’t matter if its a news organisation tweeting or an individual, they’re treated equally.
Used to love the liberalism, but like Pandora’s box, a whole different sub culture has been tweaked into our lives. Twitter is now a chore.
The retreat from litigation is starting. McAlpine’s lawyers are asking errant tweeters with less than 500 followers to say sorry and donate to Children in Need in McAlpine’s name. The big names will settle out of court and this will go nowhere near a court. Fair enough, just keep it out of the courts.