This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/16/the-guardian-view-on-twitters-blue-ticks-a-conflict-of-interest
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| The Guardian view on Twitter’s blue ticks: a conflict of interest | The Guardian view on Twitter’s blue ticks: a conflict of interest |
| (about 1 month later) | |
| In the early days of the digital revolution, it seemed the old hierarchies might be eliminated. The lone blogger could challenge the media giant. The idealism did not last long. Old corporates learned how to exploit the new market; new tech companies acquired huge empires, with their own hierarchies. People with more “friends” and “followers” have more impact. More significantly, the people who run Facebook and Twitter wield phenomenal and mostly invisible power over their realms. | In the early days of the digital revolution, it seemed the old hierarchies might be eliminated. The lone blogger could challenge the media giant. The idealism did not last long. Old corporates learned how to exploit the new market; new tech companies acquired huge empires, with their own hierarchies. People with more “friends” and “followers” have more impact. More significantly, the people who run Facebook and Twitter wield phenomenal and mostly invisible power over their realms. |
| Sometimes, the new digital overlords are forced out of the shadows. So it was this week when Twitter rescinded “blue tick” verification from accounts belonging to far-right activists, including Jason Kessler, a US white supremacist, and Tommy Robinson, founder of the English Defence League. Those who have been “de-verified” complain that Twitter is subjecting them to political discrimination. Twitter says that verification, designed to show that high-profile accounts belonged to the named owner and not impostors, had come to be interpreted as approval. The company didn’t want to be seen giving that kudos to hate-mongers. | Sometimes, the new digital overlords are forced out of the shadows. So it was this week when Twitter rescinded “blue tick” verification from accounts belonging to far-right activists, including Jason Kessler, a US white supremacist, and Tommy Robinson, founder of the English Defence League. Those who have been “de-verified” complain that Twitter is subjecting them to political discrimination. Twitter says that verification, designed to show that high-profile accounts belonged to the named owner and not impostors, had come to be interpreted as approval. The company didn’t want to be seen giving that kudos to hate-mongers. |
| This raises the question of why fascists haven’t been kicked off the site altogether. True, the line between promoting nationalist politics and fomenting violence is hard to police, and free speech offers some protection. The real reason is that Twitter (and Facebook) have a conflict of interest: shareable controversy is part of their trade. In the traffic business there aren’t many incentives to force people off the road. | This raises the question of why fascists haven’t been kicked off the site altogether. True, the line between promoting nationalist politics and fomenting violence is hard to police, and free speech offers some protection. The real reason is that Twitter (and Facebook) have a conflict of interest: shareable controversy is part of their trade. In the traffic business there aren’t many incentives to force people off the road. |
| But social media companies are running out of excuses when it comes to applying ethical judgments on content. They used to hide behind a defence of tech-neutrality – the idea that tool-makers are not accountable when their tools are misused. No one buys that line any more. Whether it is Nazi agitation, jihadi terrorist recruitment, death threats, Kremlin-funded misinformation or child pornography, it is beyond dispute that the owner of the platform has to take some responsibility for the content being published. The harder question is whether those companies can ever be trusted to apply their own rules, or whether more aggressive regulation is unavoidable. | But social media companies are running out of excuses when it comes to applying ethical judgments on content. They used to hide behind a defence of tech-neutrality – the idea that tool-makers are not accountable when their tools are misused. No one buys that line any more. Whether it is Nazi agitation, jihadi terrorist recruitment, death threats, Kremlin-funded misinformation or child pornography, it is beyond dispute that the owner of the platform has to take some responsibility for the content being published. The harder question is whether those companies can ever be trusted to apply their own rules, or whether more aggressive regulation is unavoidable. |
| Facebook and Twitter are not public assets, although many users treat them as utilities. Anyone imagining that a state-approved tech company would be benign is making heroic assumptions about the trustworthiness of governments in charge of information flows. That doesn’t mean regulators should leave tech giants to their own devices. If penalties for allowing hatred to proliferate had commercial bite, the hosts would have more incentive to act. Alongside concern that private companies have captured public discourse, it is worth noting that part of the problem is a lack of competition; not too much private enterprise, but too little. | Facebook and Twitter are not public assets, although many users treat them as utilities. Anyone imagining that a state-approved tech company would be benign is making heroic assumptions about the trustworthiness of governments in charge of information flows. That doesn’t mean regulators should leave tech giants to their own devices. If penalties for allowing hatred to proliferate had commercial bite, the hosts would have more incentive to act. Alongside concern that private companies have captured public discourse, it is worth noting that part of the problem is a lack of competition; not too much private enterprise, but too little. |
| One reason Facebook doesn’t clean up its content is a lack of rivals offering a more hygienic service. But when users already have personal networks on one platform, there isn’t much appeal in migrating to an unknown startup. In time, the current social media monopolies might be superseded by events or innovations. Meanwhile, companies that find themselves in the role of curator to democracy’s digital forums must accept that the wild west era of unregulated free-for-all is over. | One reason Facebook doesn’t clean up its content is a lack of rivals offering a more hygienic service. But when users already have personal networks on one platform, there isn’t much appeal in migrating to an unknown startup. In time, the current social media monopolies might be superseded by events or innovations. Meanwhile, companies that find themselves in the role of curator to democracy’s digital forums must accept that the wild west era of unregulated free-for-all is over. |
| Social media | Social media |
| Opinion | Opinion |
| Digital media | Digital media |
| Blogging | Blogging |
| Internet | Internet |
| editorials | editorials |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |