Alistair's Blog

Government: Don't feed the trolls

Posted by Colin Jacobs | Censorship, General | Tuesday 2 March 2010 4:32 pm

There are jerks on the internet. Given how many jerks there are off the internet, this shouldn't surprise anyone. (I'm willing to bet that the first cave painting was barely dry before a jerk came along and drew an oversized penis on one of the animals.)

Nevertheless, the offensive defacement last week of two Facebook pages, tributes to slain Queensland children Elliott Fletcher and Trinity Bates, became a minor flap in the media. Words like %u201Csinister%u201D, %u201Cdisgusting%u201D and %u201Csick%u201D quickly appeared in various articles.

Where an outraged media go, politicians quickly follow. Barely one news cycle after the story about tasteless Facebook pranks, Senator Nick Xenophon has proposed an %u201Conline ombudsman%u201D to %u201Cdeal with such incidents%u201D, an idea tentatively endorsed by the Prime Minister. Meanwhile, Queensland premier Anna Bligh wrote to Facebook angrily demanding an explanation.

This is the cue for tired cyber-libertarians to again point out the internet is global and dynamic and instructing the Australian civil service to police it might be a touch impractical. But this cycle %u2014 internet nastiness, media attention, government condemnation %u2014 is repeating itself with depressing regularity. (The mandatory internet filter and proposed crackdown on racist material online are still current news.)

Can anyone seriously imagine a government department, staffed by dozens of bureaucrats, investigating a tasteless Facebook page set up by a bored high-schooler? This appears to be exactly what our leaders are suggesting, and it's easy to point out the flaws in such an idea. But has debating schemes on their merits become counter-productive?

Let's take a step back for a moment. Perhaps what we should really be discussing is whether this is an appropriate topic for lawmakers to tackle at all. The internet is a positive part of our daily lives %u2014 nobody is seriously contending that it is so broken that it needs the Australian Labor Party to fix it. When did we become so over-sensitive that a dodgy web page requires intervention by the premier, Senate and prime minister?

Certainly, the tawdriness of these pages is depressing, even outrageous, and few could dispute that. Its newsworthiness is at best arguable. So how did it become a legislative priority? Given that no serious lasting harm or economic damage can be caused by such a defaced web page, how could one seriously argue this is a matter suitable for prime ministerial comment?

Moreover, it says something unflattering about our national character that, when something like this comes to light, we turn at once to our politicians to save us. This isn't a trait one would associate with a mature society confident in its place in the world. It's a trait one would more likely associate with mollycoddled children.

The stereotypical view of Americans holds them to be forever demanding %u201Coffensive%u201D things be taken down, banned, censored or zero-toleranced, and one might wonder if the same trend is happening here %u2014 where we have no Bill of Rights to stem the tide. Being offended isn't like being physically assaulted. Like most people who read the news in this day and age, I'm offended pretty much all the time, but I can get over it and still have a productive day. Those that can't shouldn't be setting the bar for regulation of the media.

I submit then that next time a web page is defaced, a racist game is published, or somebody is upset by a cyber-stalker, let's handle it calmly like adults. Suck it up.

The appropriate place for complaints is the host of the content, who may or may not take it down, as Facebook promptly did last week. Let's leave the politicians out of it. I don't care what the PM thinks about Facebook any more than I want his comments on a TV turkey slap. They have more important things to worry about.

(Originally published in Crikey.)

Comments (10)

10 Comments �

1. Comment by Matt %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 4:57 pm

   It's refreshing to see articles like this which cut right through all the hysteria and FUD and detail the situation for what it truly is. Keep up the good work!

2. Comment by Chase %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

   Its things like this that make me feel ashamed of the human race =[

   I dont understand how that i at the age of 18, seem to be more intelligent then the men and women running the entire country.

   well maybe intelligent isnt the word, a whole lot less ignorant maybe sounds ebtter.

   Why cant we have people with experience in things managing government departments =[
   even a 13 year old script kiddy could make more educated decisions on policy relating to the internet, then mr stephen conroy.

   It just depresses me =[

   Great article btw. I agree with it 100%, and assumably so will 90% of the other people who read it.

3. Comment by Baswell %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

   Not to mention the person starting the tribute page has the power to delete any post on it. If you start a page, you are responsible for it, OK? No need for Facebook, let alone the PM, to get involved.

4. Comment by Anestis %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 5:34 pm

   There was also very little mention (a comment was made on Sunrise) of Facebook employees deleting photos and profiles of women posting photos of them breastfeeding their babies.

   Facebook says these photos are offensive and contain nudity, yet they try to tempt single men to sign up to dating services via sponsored ads of beautiful busty women. Talk about a double standard.

   There is a group on Facebook that is titled %u201CIf breastfeeding offends you, then put a blanket over your head%u201D. Photos are constantly removed from this group.

   And yet, breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world for a new mother to do. Many women breastfeed their children in public, and no one complains, and if they do, they usually get told off by others to shut up.

   Facebook definitely needs to take a serious look at how it operates, but it is not up to the Australian government to tell it what it can and can't do.

5. Comment by Stuart %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

   I too have difficulty understanding the claim that being offended constitutes actual harm.

   There are already remedies available for this sort of thing, either informal (such as the page owner, or facebook, moderating the content) or formal (libel, slander and anti-discrimination laws). Much like the push for internet censorship, an internet ombudsman would be an ineffective and expensive waste of time for a problem that is arguably already being addressed.

6. Comment by Simon %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 6:13 pm

   Good article.

   But just a comment %u2013 I think the anti-censorship campaign seriously needs to stop apologising for all the bad stuff on the web. Everyone knows it exists, and it tends to distract attention from the real message.

   IMHO it's far more important to keep the focus on the poor governance, scope creep and potential impacts on free speech further down the road.

7. Comment by Colin Jacobs %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

   @Simon: What do you mean? I don't think acknowledging the existence of nasty material is really %u201Capologising%u201D for it %u2013 especially when that is where the public attention is. I'm starting to think the best strategy is to say %u201Cyes, it's there, but so what?%u201D

8. Comment by Craig %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

   If the Government is offended by Facebook, who knows what they have to say about 4chan.

9. Comment by steve %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

   Nothing, it's on the blacklist so no can say ANYTHING or they will be filtered.

10. Comment by Ed %u2014 March 2, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

    I don't see how an Internet Ombudsmen would operate or by what guidelines%u2026 The Trade Industry Ombudsmen relies on decades, if not centuries, of common law and statute regarding fair trading and the like, where actual goods or services are in dispute. As opposed to regulating freely-accessible, yet distasteful, webpages, which are already moderated.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Struggling US Airways Introduces $100 Million Bomb Fee

January 18, 2010 | Issue 46•03

TEMPE, AZ—With holiday traffic down almost 4 percent compared to last year and business continuing to decline, US Airways announced Monday that it would allow VIP customers to bring bombs on board its flights for a one-time $100 million fee. "At US Airways, we want to show the world that we're willing to go the distance for customers our competitors repeatedly ignore," a press release read in part. "Your enrollment fee grants you full access to our prestigious Bomber's Club at participating airports, early boarding with choice of seat, the option to bring aboard knives and guns for a small additional surcharge, and allowance for an extra carry-on, which can of course be used for your bomb." The airline noted that an additional $50 million dollar deposit was required and would not be refunded in the event of a detonation.

Don't read this on a plane.

We all know the whole Snuggie thing is idiotic. But this comic really boils the idiocy down to its pure essence. Magnifique.

[Chainsaw Suit via The Daily What]