Social Media Patrol

The rise of Twitter has been game-changing for how news is conveyed and consumed. The microblogging site has crafted its own niche; part news source, part social media network. Yet, this has also created a major dilemma. The regulation of content. Should it be done? More realistically, could it be done?

But wait! That would just be ... censorship! A word which conjures thoughts of government secrecy, Orwellian society, or perhaps even China's inability to search the three t's: Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen. Based on the backlash of Malcolm Turnbull's proposed (but then not-proposed) opt-out internet filter blunder last September, the Australian public are, for the most part, wary of censorship.

But don't get your knickers in a twist. Regulation doesn't necessarily propose bans on accessing fetish porn. Ahem. Think about this: after US journalist James Foley was beheaded almost two weeks ago, graphic imagery of the event was posted and shared all across the Twittersphere. The same occurred after the shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri, USA. This disturbing material was available to all 271 million active monthly users. Children and adults alike.



James Foley. AFP: Nicole Tung

Michael Brown. ABC News24.


 Graphic imagery is confronting, and on social media, its difficult to avoid.

As Dr Dean Burnett, a psychiatry lecturer at Uni of Cardiff, UK, puts it, "today’s media makes it easier than ever to find it, and then to share it, even if those with whom you’re sharing have no desire to see it". 

 

If Twitter is a prominent news source, perhaps it needs to be held to the same media code of practice as traditional broadcast or print outlets. Yes, that statement itself rouses a plethora of issues: responsibility, identity, enforcement, jurisdiction, and so on. Here's one slice of the debate though, what should be done about graphic imagery at least?

Twitter's stance:



Such violations include 'obscene or pornographic images' and  'specific threats of violence'.

Unlike the nightly news, or daily broadsheet, They does not have an editor to green light what's published via the forum. Especially considering 500 million tweets are tapped every day! Their stance is justified.

For the most part, imagery violating their policy must be reported. However, that's not to say Twitter is entirely inactive. After the ISIS event, Twitter responded:



So, something is being done, but the problem is, well ... bigger, stronger. Perhaps if people really don't want to see it, they're going to have to do something about it themselves. The question is how?

Let that ruminate for a while. Censorship is unwanted and graphic imagery is unwanted. These co-exist. Being such a contentious issue, they will most likely continue hovering around each other for a long time to come.

More to come soon.