When crowds turn ugly
Recently, and with worrying regularity, Twitter has become a platform for a series of high-profile bashings. First was Jan Moir thanks to her unpleasant article concerning Stephen Gately, then Ian Morbin, a (former) London Underground worker exposed by a well-timed video, and most recently AA Gill who unwisely used a restaurant review to gush about baboon killing. On each occasion Twitter users have lead the public outcry, calling for resignations or worse, which has lead to some questioning how orchestrated these mobs were, and others wondering whether the timing of such a scandal determined the scale of the impact. 
As a heavy Twitter user, what I find interesting is the increasing use of the platform for these outcries. I also use Facebook regularly, but didn’t once see any evidence of outrage within my group of friends, or even acknowledgment of the above cases; I follow about the same number of people in Twitter that I have friends on Facebook, and both groups contain a mix of media-aware, socially-savvy and generally opinionated people, but there must be something about the Twitter mechanic that leads itself to outrage, (worth noting however that Facebook houses an anti Jan Moir group with over 35 thousand members).
Now, the point of this post is not to:
a) question whether Moir, Morbin or Gill were right or wrong
b) label or condemn those who took part in the online outrages that followed
c) wonder if Facebook is underused as a moral platform.
I simply find it interesting and slightly saddening that the above cases are generally unpleasant affairs for all involved. These cases grab headlines and can obscure the amazing power of Twitter in cases such as Trafigura. Some would argue that the resignation of Ian Morbin is a good thing, and as a long time user of the tube I agreed with the outrage, but with such potential for collaboration and conversation, is finger-pointing the best use of social media?
Wikipedia determines Herd behavior as “how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction”, and I wonder how true this is on Twitter? Is the quick-thinking required by micro-blogging leading users to make rash judgments and act in a manner similar to those closest? When the AA Gill review came to light, there would have been no set goal or decision, but there was a precedent from the Moir and Morbin cases. Did users see a hot topic for outrage and use the amazingly effective tool they had to hand to carry out a job? For the most part I would assume that people were genuinely outraged that he was so proudly talking about the killing of a primate, but I would love to see a more scientific study into the reasoning behind the reactions of the wider group.
As we enter a world of ubiquitous media, where your opinions last forever and there is a social layer to all that we do, what is the logical conclusion for these outrages? If you’re able to form an opinion, express it via a selection of platforms, and influence others not just when they’re logging on but throughout their daily lives, that is a phenomenal amount of power. On the flipside, for the target of such outrage living in an environment of always-on technology, what can they expect on the receiving end of such power? I don’t propose that we begin to curtail our online opinions, but as those involved in online we should be mindful of the increasing power of crowds, and what that means when they’re unhappy.
Ross wrote this on 29.10.09 – 7 comments
It's filed in the Blogging, Ethics, Interesting, NixonMcInnes box
On October 29th, 2009 at 11:56 am, Danielle Sheerin responded:
I wonder how many people who jumped the Jan Moir bnadwagon (for example), actually read her original report and how many simply RT’d the story because Stephen Fry had tweeted about it?
That’s not to say that the original JM article wasn’t reprehensible, just that there seems to be something of an echo effect in Twitter – its so easy to RT something, especially when you are retweeting someone famous – this has a double attraction: 1.with a figure like Stephen Fry you can pretty much trust their intellectual take on an event without having to do too much investigation and thinking yourself and 2. you can ally yourself with that person, effectively name-dropping them into your Twitter stream.
Twitter is great for petitioning but can also obfuscate the deeper issues that might raised in favour of a knee-jerk response. Ultimately its hard to have a reasoned debate in 140 characters…
On October 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm, Tweets that mention When crowds turn ugly @ NixonMcInnes: Social media goodness. Translated. Created. Delivered. -- Topsy.com responded:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ross Breadmore and Dara Fitzgerald, Planet BNM. Planet BNM said: [Blog] NixonMcInnes: When crowds turn ugly http://bit.ly/1zsEKy [...]
On October 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm, Adrian Cockle responded:
This insightful post gives me the perfect excuse to post a link to the every-entertaining Daily Mash’s take.
On October 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm, Laura May Coope responded:
I think one an important factor to remember, is that Twitter allows users to easily access the views and thoughts of celebrities directly – something which Facebook prevents unless you can crack their private accounts (and unless you work for Holy Moly I doubt this is a priority!).
As we see when celebrities launch perfume, clothing lines, magazines, record labels etc fans are easily influenced by those they admire, and are prepared to declare this admiration by sporting a branded t-shirt or a famously endorsed cupcake. Twitter is by far the easiest, cheapest and quickest way to announce your ‘fan’ status with a nugget of information (rather than the slightly more anonymous Facebook fan-page option, which is very often set up by another fan and will never be noticed by the actual public figure in question). A re-tweet is an instant vote, and when discussing something topical and exciting, it allows absolutely anybody to express the view of somebody else, claiming it as their own with a simple ‘RT’ of “me too” sentiment.
The Jan Moir article promoted a yawn effect of public reaction, in that, watching somebody else does it gives you an inexplicable urge to do so yourself. Stephen Fry was amongst a huge list of well known figures that tweeted some kind of dismay towards the Daily Mail piece, prompting a nation of doting readers to immediately join him, quite possibly re-tweeting in a heartbeat, then reading the column afterwards or maybe not even at all – after all the developments were there for instant consumption on Twitter during the day.
Just looking at any well read celebrity based blog or website shows us the public desire to claim ‘FIRST’ after a new post is published – it has no value and shows no skill – but is still regarded as an accomplishment by regular readers. The same goes for followers on Twitter, quickly latching on to breaking news gives some a sense of experience, of being part of the news itself. Although somewhat frightening in scale, this kind of public outcry should no longer come as a surprise and is guaranteed to repeat itself regularly, particularly when the power of celebrity is a catalyst for digital drama.
On October 29th, 2009 at 5:30 pm, Leif Kendall responded:
The funny thing about the Jan Moir business is that her article is typical of the Daily Mail’s ‘news’. That’s just what they do.
If the flocks of liberal Twitterers were to scrutinise the Daily Mail every single day then we would be obliged to have Moir-esque outrages hourly.
I wish Twitter could help us meddle in politics more, and leave petty outrages to the readers of the Daily Mail.
(I’m writing this as a liberal Twitterer who was outraged by Jan Moir’s horrible article)
On October 29th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, Ross responded:
Thanks for the comments everyone. Great use of the word ‘obfuscate’ Danny, and I really like yours and Laura’s points that retweeting a celebs tweet is a quick and easy vote, a sign to the world that you buy into that. Particularly like also that Laura takes this one step further and highlights the need for speed; to be the first to align yourself with a cause for extra kudos. I really didn’t want this post to highlight the negative side of Twitter, but I really believe more than ever that the mechanism makes it too easily to throw your hat in without properly considering the consequences. Part of me is concerned that one day for a clever con-twitterer will capitalize on this and hoodwink the audience in some dreadful way.
In response to Leif’s point, again I really agree, it would be awesome if the power of Twitter could be harnessed in some collective, controlled way, for the good of climate change, civil justice etc. But even this would be massively open to abuse. I guess the problem, and beauty, of social media is that it is fallible, and doesn’t present controlled messages and opinions in the way that mainstream medias do.
As long as we continue to question cases like those mentioned above, and the human reactions that follow, this awareness will ensure that social is a power for good.
On November 3rd, 2009 at 10:11 am, Pete Burden responded:
Elliot Aronson, who wrote the classic book on social psychology, pointed out that people who do crazy things are not necessarily crazy.
It seems to me that Twitter magnifies, accelerates and makes more visible the already crazy behaviour that people engage in – railing at other people for their prejudice while not realising that this itself is another form of prejudice; or worse, persecution.
Attacking other people (however stupid and wrong what they said is) doesn’t usually lead anywhere good. Instead it creates more barriers.
The trouble is that attacking other people is easy and fun. Especially when there is no risk of come-back.
In in my view, dialogue is the answer. Engaging people (however hateful their views, however difficult this is personally) in dialogue and discussion is a better, more productive approach.
Social media can allow that but it’s perhaps rarer in the fast, 140 character, tick-box world. I’d be interested to hear of good examples of social media *promoting* such extended dialogue – and actually helping people change their minds.
By the way, why are Aronson’s great books so expensive? That’s a scandal.
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Animal-Elliot-Aronson/dp/1429203161/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257238426&sr=8-1)