IT was not supposed to be like this. Not long ago, the internet was expected to open up a brave new world of democratised information, empower citizen journalists, break down the barriers between the citizens and their representatives, open up new fields of discourse and generally improve our lives. It would sweep away the gatekeepers to and guardians of the powerful, the commentators, the insiders, those “in the know” and let us all see what is going on.
And it sort of has. Most of us have in our pockets or handbags devices that can access almost the entirety of human knowledge and see people or events in real time on the other side of the world – or this week, on other worlds. No longer are we dependent upon people in far off stuffy newsrooms or smoke-filled clubs to decide for us what is news and what is not, we can see for ourselves and draw our own conclusions.
And this is where the problems start. Without context, research, insight and nuance most of us can’t draw an informed conclusion. When Michael Gove said “people have had enough of experts”, even if he lost me forever, he was onto something.
I like experts. It is a wise man knows what he doesn’t know and I know I don’t know much. Over the years I have been careful to surround myself with clever people and take their advice. But instead we have seen through social media, and indeed traditional media, more and more opinion masquerading as news (the irony I am writing this in an opinion column is not lost on me) and feelings being amplified as if they somehow matter more than digested and contextualised facts.
Why on earth news outlets do vox pops in the street asking punters what they think about things is beyond me. If I wanted to ask advice from random passers-by I could do it myself. I want a guide to the world, an interpreter, someone who has researched and thought about stuff so I can benefit from their expertise. That is and remains the biggest challenge facing all news media for years to come – if every fact is available, who sorts the wheat from the chaff?
And even worse, within that already frenetic blizzard of factoids we have bad actors taking advantage of bad platforms. Social media in Scotland’s politics briefly was a great empowerer and leveller. Frankly, it isn’t now. I have written before that I spend less and less time online because I simply don’t need the energy that the online environment has become, and where I have a pretty thick skin why on earth should I give anonymous idiots a way to reach into my day and be obnoxious to me?
WATCH: Kate Forbes calls for measures to tackle online abuse faced by MSPs
When I say bad platforms, I mean it – the tech companies are not doing anything like what they could to tackle abuse because it is an integral part of their business model and they are making millions if not billions from it. The abuse politicians get is toe-curling, myself included. It has to stop, but it won’t stop unless we demand the platforms stop it. To my mind much of it stems from the fact that it is far too easy to set up phoney or multiple accounts on Twitter or on Facebook.
I was proud to organise a briefing this week for the SNP Group at Westminster from the Clean Up The Internet campaign, which has I believe a workable set of proposals which needs to be implemented urgently. With John Nicolson our spokesperson on this topic I think there is something we can get behind.
Their ideas are elegantly simple. They propose that the platforms should give a way for everyone to verify their identity – and a way for users to screen out unverified accounts so they will only see “real” people. There are some valid reasons why people might want anonymous accounts, whistleblowers or the like, but by and large of course these will not be abusive accounts anyway. Online banks can verify identity sufficient for anti-money laundering purposes, the technology is there to do this cheaply and at scale now.
It is proven that the majority of abuse and misinformation comes from fake or multiple accounts, this would at a stroke remove them from the experience of the platforms and make them a far nicer place. It would benefit the discourse in Scotland too because I am 100% certain half the abuse politicians get would stop – because people are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and saying things they would never say if they were identifiable.
Would this limit free speech? I don’t think so, and it would massively improve accountability and honesty.
I’m a politician, I’m game for an argument and I take my duty of accountability seriously. I was one of the early adopters of Twitter especially and have actually made some friends and lot of contacts through it. But the way I used to use it is light years away from how I use it now because of just how tiresome it is to see every post about anything, however innocuous, be piled onto with a tiresome chorus of whataboutery, snark and abuse. So I think these proposals are important, and we’d all benefit from them.
Remember, if that democratised information is polluted by bad actors, we’ll be back with those in power telling us what news is.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel