So many media outlets report on online conversations as if there is only one "public", without regard to the context of the participants.
The Situation
This morning, longtime tech industry follower and ThinkUp founder Anil Dash posted the tweet above that engaged a massive debate amongst journalists on Twitter. The gist of the debate was that while the media views the social media outlet as a publishing platform (which it is) and that it's truly a public forum (which is also is), the scarier point that Anil makes is that the average person doesn't always realize that.
@PE_Feeds @JamesDiGioia @anildash @jaredbkeller @KiraBind @AntDeRosa There's no expectation of privacy on twitter if your tweets are public.
@anildash @shaneferro @PE_Feeds @jaredbkeller @KiraBind @AntDeRosa Maybe I'm wrong, but do "normal" people think Twitter isn't public?
@JamesDiGioia @shaneferro @PE_Feeds @jaredbkeller @KiraBind @AntDeRosa Twitter says it's for "conversation". What does that imply?
The Backstory
When you look up the definitions of Twitter, you get answers like "an online social networking and microblogging service" and "to talk in a quick and informal way about unimportant things" (ouch, Merriam), but if I were to define the service, I would call it a "constantly updating wasteland of information."
Since its inception in 2006, Twitter has slowly found ways to create filters within this wasteland so users can tailor the service to find content they care about, from Twitter Lists to hashtag searches and the acquisition of TweetDeck. Like Facebook's beginnings, users truly didn't get the real usage of the service until these filters came more into play, and while they've made Twitter more useful (and better) as a whole, I would argue the largest contingent that it's helped is the media.
Back in the 1990s, blogging was at a massive peak but the media at that point wasn't utilizing content from the Livejournals and Myspaces of the world to write articles. The biggest reason was that there wasn't an easy way to filter out for finding specific content at that point. These days, it is extremely easy for a reporter to search Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, or even e-mail for evidence to support their theses (regardless of bias) OR for content which they can build off articles for. For spheres like e-mail where the belief that information shared isn't "public," it can still be made public through the Freedom of Information Act (via requests), usually for trial evidence reasons.
@anildash @shaneferro @JamesDiGioia @PE_Feeds @KiraBind @AntDeRosa Indeed. And the legal doesn't necessarily match with social
@anildash @JamesDiGioia @shaneferro @PE_Feeds @KiraBind @AntDeRosa Like think of the whole 'creepshots' thing
Let's take a quick look at three cases where individuals or groups posted private information without thinking how public (or even viral) their content could get:
@joeljohnson @dannosowitz @samfbiddle rape survivors who were surprised to be published w/o permission on Buzzfeed are privileged? Really?
Case 1: Shared Without "Consent"
One of Anil's tweets today caught my eye when he addressed a tweet by Gawker Editorial Director Joel Johnson that admittedly gave me multiple chills down my spine. (I'm so sorry, Joel. I cannot even fathom to think the horror you want through, man.)
I did some quick research and found two key articles, one by Rega Jha and another by Jessica Testa. While I would argue against Anil in that both articles were published without permission (Rega's article quoted Project Unbreakable and Jessica's has a specific disclaimer), it doesn't mean that there aren't other media publications that have quoted individuals sharing information that can be gut-wrenching and difficult to process (like being raped, having an abortion, being assaulted, etc.). I'm sure many of my colleagues and friends have examples, so I won't source any now.
UPDATE (4:38 PM): Jessica Testa's article sharing the responses Twitter user @steenfox got from a very tough question about sexual assault (which The Root also covered this morning) was the original reason why Anil brought up the public vs. private landscape for social media posts. @steenfox spoke with Jessica and also wished this could have been handled better. There were two poignant responses from the media: The Atlantic's Philip Bump and Gawker's Hamilton Nolan with the ultimate point that information shared on Twitter is public.
Both sides have valid points but what is deeper about this issue is while Jessica's and The Root's pieces will get traffic and viewership and @steenfox's original collection of responses will be lost, we all should applaud @steenfox in taking the initiative to address this question. Jessica fixed her article to remove those who wanted to remove their responses in the article and hopefully all sides can focus on the positive.
(On a side note, difficult topics like this are one thing but another case which I won't touch on in this article is photography credit, which ranges from the AP/Shepard Fairey "HOPE" mess to other media publications crowdsourcing photos shared on social media without proper credit with some justice obtained)
UPDATE 2 (6:45 PM): I'm also adding The Daily Dot's Kate Knibbs and Pando's Nathaniel Mott for some other good deep dives into this. I also posted Re/Code's Mike Isaac below with two perfect tweets on those using Twitter professionally versus socially.
one caveat and then i will stop talking -- unlike journos who stare at tweetdeck, many people dont know how twitter really works, so...
to have one of their tweets show up in a viral story could be pretty fucked up and jarring
@anildash @joeljohnson @dannosowitz the subject matter is horrific but that doesn't make it any less private. twitter. is. public.
On a quick aside, Joel had also posted a letter from programmer Bill Zeller back in 2011 which is a horrific, heart-wrenchingly powerful read that I highly recommend.
@PE_Feeds Remember the numa numa guy?
Case 2: Viral Videos
This is the easiest one. There are more than enough examples where individuals have posted original content without even thinking how the public landscape would take it (or even how quickly it would spread throughout the Internet). As one of my friends Shane Ferro pointed out, one easy example was Gary Brolsma, aka the "Numa Numa Guy." He shied away from all the crazy attention due to his video, and while he seems to be doing okay, the speed on which viral content spreads through the Internet continues to get faster and faster, and sites like BuzzFeed, Upworthy, and Gawker through now-former employee Neetzan Zimmerman (who now works for the fast-rising startup Whisper) have made part of their business off of this.
i get @anildash's point though, i'm often horrified that people read the garbage i write on blogs
Case 3: Influencer Word Vomit
I have the utmost respect for Nitasha Tiku and Sam Biddle, the team behind the current inception of Valleywag. They call out massive BS among Silicon Valley and some of their articles will call out unaware denizens, well-known or not, making some, well, rather outlandish comments and posts.
Basic thesis: say something relatively idiotic, you get caught.
BuzzFeed has also done work on this area often, from original responses to various current events (I'm just hopping around here, date-wise, FYI). Other prominent print media organizations have referred to social media for responses, but it's basically an endless stream coming from an infinitely large wasteland that is social media. Is this a good thing? Of course, because anyone can source from the well.
Where We Go From Here
So with this debate, what's next? I would argue two key points and one point of irony:
1. Media organizations should continue to value the ethics of posting content from individuals. While I yearn for the day that all publications consider taking unbiased ethical stances to important events across all verticals, I understand the revenue and traffic implications that come with writing with an agenda, but I truly believe every journalist has the ethical right (like men and women of medicine with the Hippocratic Oath) to consider all sources and evidence on both sides with all information he or she deals with. The current political landscape has become so polarized, and in my honest opinion, so has media.
2. WE ALL NEED TO EMBRACE THE ADAGE "THINK BEFORE YOU ACT" MORE. Many of us have let our emotions get the best of us, and a lot of content that's posted by individuals are emotionally driven without rational thinking. (Hey, that's how sites like Politwoops and PolitiFact do well.) While I believe journalists have an ethical right to consider the sources, we as human beings also have an ethical and moral right to consider what we're about to do when we're going to post that insult, that argument, that revelation, and hit the "Publish" button.
It's not even just about negative responses and snarkasm, it's about unveiling some personal information about ourselves. I rarely discourage friends and loved ones from doing so, but it's truly up to you in terms of whether or not you want to share it. There are and always will be people out there who will use your information if they choose to, which to me is the saddest revelation.
IRONY: I'm posting this on BuzzFeed, which I've referred to multiple times in this post has made a business of finding content through social media outlets. But it's ok, I'm ready to accept any kind of virality it gets (I'm setting my over/under at 10 views).
I leave you all with two perfect tweets from the NYT's Jenna Wortham:
Extra thoughts on this: It seems like some people have co-opted Twitter to suit their needs, regardless of original intent/design (1)
and expectations / desires for gradients of public visibility have evolved ahead of the Twitter's ability / desire to service them. (2)
Share This Article
