Twitter. It can be rough.

I’m relatively new to Twitter. Well, not really, but I say relatively since I joined in 2012, Twitter launched in 2006 and I follow many people who have been on there since 2009. Engaging with people you don’t know can be a frightening experience. It definitely was for me. As someone who is  stupidly shy in real life, learning to talk online with people I didn’t know was (and still is) incredibly intimidating. Usually interactions are pleasant or at worst they are respectful disagreements. However, I have observed more recently hostility on the rise. Sometimes it seems it is a result of over familiarity such that a comment or remark sparks some people call a pile on (see below) as the comment/remark fails to meet what a persons followers have come to expect from their interactions. At other times it’s a lack of familiarity where sarcasm is misconstrued as actual belief. And of course, there are times where some people are just vile and ignorant.

I want to explain some of these terms for new, infrequent or non-Twitter users.  I’m not here proclaiming to be the Twitter police or any kind of authority on Twitter or dictating how people should behave online. I just thought I’d share my experience and understanding (please correct where I have misunderstood or where you disagree!). I don’t even know what I’m trying to achieve by doing so. It just feels like something I should do. Especially given events of late.

With pile-ons there are occasions where solidarity is the right response. For example, where minorities come under attack from majorities or where individuals are singled out for the purpose of breaking their spirit i.e.supporting someone who is being bullied. There are also occasions where solidarity goes beyond being about justice, fairness, or truth and devolves into pack mentality creating an unsafe online space. One key problem for me is that sometimes it’s hard to decipher if what is happening is solidarity or the pack. This is particularly difficult when I am unfamiliar with a particular issue. A lot of feelings emerge when these situations arise. Fear is a big one. Often I stay silent because I am too scared of the repercussions. When I do muster up the courage to speak, I meet my friend doubt. Will they turn on me if I offer an opposing or critical view? Alternatively, am I part of a pack or is this solidarity? Do I have enough knowledge to add anything constructive? Am I overshadowing rather than amplifying the voices of those affected? How will I cope if people are outright mean, nasty, rude to me?  And yes – to be perfectly clear, I have had hurt feelings online. I have felt isolated and even ridiculed by people I respect. But I have come to accept that this is part of having an online life.

What is a subtweet? In short, referencing an individual through some form of identifier (i.e. twitter name, online persona, initials, pronoun, comment made by that person etc) without mentioning their twitter handle in the subtweet.

The issue of subtweets also has positive and negative attributes. For example, wanting to criticise an argument or article without drawing the author into it, seems a perfectly legitimate reason to subtweet. Especially if the author has a propensity to notch up the volatility. But to cast aspersions or criticisms about a person and/or their actions/decisions? In my personal view, it’s perfectly fine when it’s a public figure. But I’m not comfortable when it’s a private individual. Of course there are no hard and fast rules, and I’m mindful that there will always be exceptions to any rule or norm.

Another common term used is ‘calling out’. This is where a person reprimands another user or users who have behaved or commented in manner that is, for example, bigoted or bullyish, often followed by a bit of education on why the behaviour, comment etc was not ok.  Sometimes this can lead to a pile on, and in fact, is usually the catalyst. Moreover, calling out can itself can instigate a pile on where the particular issue is incredibly contentious. Some people believe they have a duty to call out others on everything, while others consider calling out to be unproductive in most cases. I have no settled position. I think in many cases it’s perfectly justified (especially racism, discrimination, prejudice) and in other cases it can be more damaging than helpful, in particular, where the point is to vilify not to educate.

Lately, there has been some talk about safety on Twitter. It is incredibly important. Why? Because Twitter is an inherently unsafe place.There are of course ways to minimise harmful or triggering interactions, but there is no foolproof fix. Aside from the technical side – using a protected account,  blocking harmful accounts, and setting other security features, we need to also look at ourselves and how we behave. Because only we are in control of that. One way to do this is to take accountability for our actions and words, take the time to understand the other, apologise when in the wrong and forgive. This is the approach I intend to take going forward. The last one is the hardest.  But probably the most important. I leave you with an unattributed quote [if interested, click the link to see the contention around its origins]

Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.

 

Advertisements

Māori Party online communication needs some attention

Recently (as in the past week), I became a member of the Māori Party. For transparency, it cost me $2 and I gave an $8 koha. Having never been a member of any political party before I was somewhat dubious. I joined because I wanted to participate in the discussions around Māori economic development and self-determination as well as see how they are going to run their 2014 election campaign.

Whether or not I will cast my vote in their favour on election day will depend on a number of factors, particularly since I have a huge aversion to the State and I want to see how intensely the Māori Party are going to back the kinds of regulations, or taxes on certain things that I view as wholly undesirable, e.g. the awful sugar or fat tax, which I see as a paternalist tax on the poor, and also what kind of stand they will take toward the Greens progressive pro-choice policy. Of course, there are numerous other things that I will consider, but at the moment those two things come to mind.

Unfortnately, I have stumbled across a wrinkle that quickly needs ironing out – online communication and social media.

Matthew Beveridge (as many will know) authors the Social Media & The 2014 General Election website. On it, he compiles the statistical usage of MP’s, Candidates and the Political Party’s on Twitter and  analyses their level of genuine engagement. He also looks at the graphics, timing and context of when and how tweets are sent. As expected, his blog suggests that the Internet Party are doing an astounding job of tweet traffic as are the Greens. In respect of the Māori Party, Te Ururoa Flavell is putting in an epic effort to increase his genuine engagement. While the effort is admirable, the party as a whole must do more. If consdiering other newcomers to Twitter, e.g. Internet Party Leader Laila Harre has made a valiant effort in that regard, one of my favourites being the content linked to in this tweet:

I by no means expect the Māori Party to be tweeting ,gifs of that kind, by the way, but I do expect prompt responses on Twitter or Facebook or by email from the Party account and some humour wouldn’t go astray. Having had the pleasure of being in a room when Dr Pita Sharples is giving a presentation humour certainly exists as part of the culture of the party.

Going back to my initial point, when I joined the Māori Party, I expected at the very least an automated email saying Thanks for joining  and some general info about contact information and some graphic that indicated the Māori Party were preaparing for campaign mode. But nothing, except a username and password which I’m not quite sure what to do with at the moment.

I appreciate that the traditional kanohi ki te kanohi (face to face/eye to eye) approach is favoured by the Māori Party, and I agree that it is and will always be very important. But I also think if the Māori Party want to make it through this election they must increase their online presence through genuine engagement. As Beveridge noted in a twitter conversation, social media would enable the Māori Party to tap into a market of under 25 year old Māori. Currently, Mana have a monopoly on that demographic on Facebook, and the Internet Party are increasingly appealing to them on Twitter.

Mike Treen, an IMP advocate writes:

The Maori Party needs to be taken out as a National support party

Once the campaigning really starts, if the Māori Party are largely absent in social media, they will not be able to counter the influence that will attempt to undermine the party as National lapdogs. This doesn’t mean responding with eye for eye attacks, the Māori Party should be able to rise above that level of politicking, but should also emphasise their independence as a party that can and is willing to work across the spectrum. I note that the Māori Party have a Facebook page that has a mere 2,039 likes and a Twitter following of a meagre 1481 followers. If the Māori Party have a dedicated Social Media person, then they need to take the Party to the next level of engagement. If not, they need to get one, and now.