Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Facebook

“COMMUNITY STANDARDS” PROTECT PERSONAL ABUSE

Ceist: Have you ever reported nasty, abusive, name-calling, mocking, filthy comments to Facebook or Twitter? If not, you should try it; you’ll get a reply, a very informative reply. They both have their Community Standards which you can read and your complaint will be judged by whether or not a Standard has been breached.

The problem is that the Standards are not at all communal. They are highly individualistic – essentially liberal – but they have a selected list of sentiments which have been deemed unacceptable. That is to say, promoting violence or affronting on the basis of gender, disability, sexual orientation, race etc. will likely be censored and the offender may be suspended. However, with a nod to defending freedom of speech, personal abuse is permitted and this is where there’s a high dive into libertarianism, an isolating individualism.

Let us suppose that on Twitter you have been subjected to weeks or months of common abuse: ridicule, name-calling, accusations of wrongdoing, attribution of views you don’t have, foul-mouthed innuendo etc. You decide to submit a report. What happens next is that you receive an expression of regret which TELLS you that you have been offended by something which unfortunately complies with community standards, that you should not have to endure offence and suggesting that you block, cut off contact with, the offender. In other words, the victim is allowed no reaction other than offence and must take responsibility for their own isolation from the supposed offence while the offender can carry on abusing others.

Now, let’s clear up something here. There is a world of difference between i) allowing someone to censor expression by claiming to be offended (Salman Rushdie has done an excellent demolition job on this.) and ii) allowing an intruder to ruin a conversation. Look at it this way: if a group were having a conversation on a street corner and an intruder persisted in coming up to them, casting rude/obscene comments, that would be regarded as simple bad behaviour and no one would argue that the discussants were responsible. Bluntly, addressing on-line nastiness has nothing whatsoever to do with being offended and a lot do with saving ordinary conversation.

If the sort of vile stuff directed most prominently at female politicians but also at anyone trying to make a civil point is in compliance with “community standards”, then whoever takes care of those rules misunderstands both “community” and “standards”.

At this point we come to an old political divide, opposing traditions: liberal versus public service. The liberal approach – in the past applied to print media – is to have everyone more or less free to say and do as they please and competition will produce a desirable outcome; essentially it’s a market. The public service approach – in the past applied to broadcasting – is to subject a media provider to obligations to supply a public good which a market may fail to do – typically, ensure coverage of current affairs, public controversy and in accordance with rules like objectivity, fairness etc.

There’s now a political choice to be made, just as there was for newsprint and for broadcasting. In dealing with social media platforms does the state go basically liberal, allow them do as they please including the formulation of their own standards; or should “community” be taken back such that the state acting in the public interest will decide on, formulate and legislate to have social media conform to the standards of a real-world community.

Of course this is a simplification whose purpose is to draw attention to an old political choice. It might be said that the policy choice doesn’t belong to the I.T. age. However, this has been the controversy at the centre of thinking about virtual worlds right back to when John Perry Barlowe’s 1996 “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” sought to prevent government crossing into the vast new spaces beyond the cyber frontier.

In summary, in our ordinary day-to-day community we all know damn well that personally abusive tweets/comments have nothing to do with either freedom of expression or the right to offend.

The fear is that researchers in the future will examine the archives, think them complete or at least representative and be wrong, utterly wrong.

Archivists are concerned that the effective lifetime of a considerable amount of on-line record may be as brief as 90 days. Their response to this may be at the limits of what can be done or it may be conditioned by their own dated approach or both. The response in Ireland is an attempt to grab and store the content of web sites. These websites are the traditional sources of information (state agencies and the like) who now update regularly, in many cases making their earlier record impossible to retrieve. Clearly this is work worth doing but it may be missing some of the most influential comment which will be denied to tomorrow’s historians and give a wholly misleading impression of what happened.

A considerable amount – perhaps the bulk – of organised comment and influence has been occurring on Facebook and other social media. That is to say, it does not appear on any website. In April 2020 in Ireland racist, nationalist and anti-government sentiment was mobilised behind shared scare stories – lies – about possibly covid-carrying passengers being waved through the ports or forming close contact bus queues. Now, it would be impossible to have an understanding of this period in Ireland without consideration of this activity and yet it is not being archived. Indeed, it may not practicable or even possible to do so.


Tired of cynical gossips? Would you consider confrontation?

A while ago I reluctantly gave up communicating with a Facebook friend. He’s a socialist and has interesting things to say but he has a dismal view of human nature which prompts him to think that whatever a person says, it’s not an honest expression of their view. He is one of a number among my FB friends who resort to this form of ad hominem attack. No, on second thoughts, they don’t resort to it; that suggests a chosen tactic. Rather, they really do believe that everyone is dishonest in argument, that everyone makes their points not because they’ve thought about them but because they serve some hidden purpose or some organisation with which a speaker is associated.

Over the years I’ve grown weary of this nonsense. I’ve concluded that there’s really no point in talking to people who dismiss me as dishonest, accuse me of saying things not because I’ve thought about them but because I am a member of the Labour Party, or had worked for RTE, or had lectured in UCD, or I’m a man, or am nearing seventy etc. etc.

However, it’s not simply a matter of walking away from a small number of grouchy cynics. Their view is widespread. It is considered normal and is not challenged.

When Simon Coveney, Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland) recently changed his position from one of outright opposition to abortion to a position favouring a change in the Irish constitution to allow the Dáil (parliament) to legislate on abortion, he presented his reasons, his line of thinking. He was plausible. The response from those opposing change was not to address what he said but to discredit him as insincere, dishonestly making points to cover up a volte-face so as to serve the Government.

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? No, they wouldn’t – not if they were decent people who had no evidence to support that view. More seriously, they were allowed to say it without challenge. The reaction of radio journalism was placid, as if something entirely uncontroversial had happened. A person had just been called a liar on national radio and … well, and nothing, just accordance with a dominant way of thinking.

It might be said that calling out ad hominem argument is best avoided during a contentious amendment campaign, that balance is best achieved by letting everyone say as they wish while according equal time to both sides. This would be both a perverse misunderstanding of balance and a suggestion that journalists at other times challenge shoddy debate. They don’t; they tend to report it faithfully.

Here’s the problem: It’s no wonder that cynics think they are normal when mass media permit – even, encourage – people to make up stories about a parson’s motivations. Media – journalists – should be more concerned about their stewardship of public discourse. They should give the cynics a choice: talk about the topic or get off the programme. That might demonstrate that many people have higher standards. It might also encourage citizens in ordinary conversation to say something explicit to their cynical friends: “You reveal a lot about your own motivations when you make assumptions like that.” Thinking citizens might be even more blunt: “Just because you think like that, don’t assume that the rest of us do. You’re not normal.”*

Getting back to journalists, they have to decide on their audience: are they serving gossiping cynics or citizens who want to hear from those who talk about the point?

 

_____________________________________

* Increasingly I’m of the view that the defence of public discourse is down to the citizen: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/day-to-day-conversation-and-the-struggle-for-decency/

The 1916 Proclamation: sacred text or material for discussion

Mary Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein posted the following on Facebook and in a few hours, i.e. by midday on April 1st 2015, it had been shared over a thousand times.

“There was some mention earlier on that the Taoiseach and the Fine Gael/Labour government want to rewrite the Proclamation as we head towards 2016.

The Proclamation of the Irish Republic belongs to the people of Ireland. No government, not least the current government, has any right to alter or rewrite it.” – https://www.facebook.com/MaryLouMcDonaldTD/photos/a.498206116331.275763.58340031331/10152707553836332/?type=1&theater

Clearly it is ridiculous to suggest that a document produced a century ago could be rewritten. Three things, however, need to be said. Firstly, it is important that no document be elevated to the status of sacred text to be placed beyond examination and criticism. In the case of the 1916 proclamation its opening lines for example about Ireland summoning her children to her flag are incompatible with citizenship of a republic. Summoning children is more deeply daft and offensive than the UK monarchic tradition of referring to citizens as subjects.

Secondly, MLMcD is taking the familiar authoritarian line of speaking for the people. To say that the wording of a text belongs to the people of Ireland is meaningless other than in reference to the constitution where that ownership involves not stiffened preservation but vesting the power to change the text in a referendum. While the claim that the 1916 proclamation belongs to the people is meaningless, the devious intention behind the claim is not. This is an incident in a longer power play. It is a device that has been used many times. The trick is to put matters beyond discussion, to create blinding loyalty, respect and willing obedience. A person or group is to be insinuated as the true representative of the people and/or interpreter of special texts in opposition to an elected government, parliament or indeed the entire constitutional state. It is profoundly undemocratic relying on a perverse understanding of “the people”.

Thirdly, if the Taoiseach or anyone else wants to open a discussion on some sort of Proclamation for a New Republic, then let a debate begin. However, it must be emphasised that the discussion is essentially about choosing between contested political values. To be effective it will be a fraught discussion because Ireland is unused to contests over values, setting priorities and limits, and marking behaviour and beliefs as unacceptable – with the intention of change from time to time.

On-line threats and an off-line police force

On two occasions in the past I’ve tried unsuccessfully to report to An Garda an on-line threat of violence. Today I tried a third time. Here’s what happened.

A newspaper report with a picture of a convicted sex offender was shared on Facebook with a comment that he was living on a particular road in Dublin. This drew a comment which read, “Petrol bomb the fucker out.” The person who made the comment seemed to do so under his real name and there was considerable detail on his page. I wanted to get a Garda to look at the FB thread and decide what to do.

I knew that reporting this to my local Garda station was pointless as they do not have unrestricted access to the net.

I didn’t think a 999 call was warranted so I rang the general number for Garda Headquarters and asked could I be connected to any Garda who had access to Facebook. Without speaking to me, the Garda transferred me to a phone system which was not in working order. I tried this twice more, explaining that the system to which I was being passed was not working. At no stage did this Garda utter anything other than a couple of grunts.

I then tried ringing the Garda Personnel Dept. I apologised to the Garda who answered and explained the situation. This Garda was helpful. She consulted her sergeant and tried to find me a phone number of a Garda with access to Facebook. Eventually we had to give up on this. She urged me to contact the station local to the incident and she gave me the phone number.

I rang them to be told by a helpful Garda that they had no access to the internet and that they couldn’t deal with me on the phone. I would have to come to the station. Alternatively, I could go to my local station and they would take details for forwarding on.

Petty managers in many organisations restrict access to the net in the belief that staff will do nothing all day but talk to friends. This sort of nonsense was said years ago in relation to the telephone. In this case we are talking about a police force and petrol bomb threat.

The new Minister for Justice should immediately lift all restrictions on Garda access to the net and seek the removal of the foolish manager/s who initiated and maintained this restriction.

For anyone who takes an interest in citizenship this may be the most informative recorded phone message so far

I’ve been lazy and far too slow to write about the way in which automated systems are being designed to exclude citizen participation. As some of you may know, I was banned from FB for a period because of a particular comment I posted and I still cannot see how the comment could have caused any problem whatsoever.* I’ve failed to get an explanation from FB by way of their on-line reply forms. I discovered that they have a phone number in Dublin. I called and was met with the familiar, “Press 1 or 2 or 3 …” runaround. Selecting 1 produced a recording telling me that I was dealing with an on-line company and that I should use the on-line forms which I’d already found were ignored. OK, so many large organisations – including the HSE ** – take the view that dealing with citizens is done by way of mass media only. However, while the HSE press office will respond to a citizen, FB make it absolutely clear that they will talk only to accredited and “legitimate” journalists. If this interests you, from Ireland call 01 5530550 and select 3 to hear what for me is an extraordinary message.
______________________________________________________________________________
* https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/on-being-silenced-on-facebook-and-unable-to-discover-why/
** HSE is Ireland’s Health Services Executive.

On being silenced on Facebook and unable to discover why

Yesterday I was “suspended” from Facebook for 12 hrs. This morning (Thursday 17th Oct. 2013) long after the 12 hr. sentence has expired, I find that I can access my account but I’m not allowed to post because, I’m told, I’ve violated FB’s Community Standards.*

Here is what happened yesterday and it involves two unconnected posts which appeared on Facebook. They were posted several hours apart. The first post was written by me and I was challenging someone who was trying to change the subject of a thread by presenting allegations which could not be checked. The second was a post written by someone else and about which I complained to FB. My objection was genuine but I also wanted to test FB’s attitude to posts of this kind which have become common in Ireland. **

Here’s what I said early in the day and which hours later FB told me violated their Community Standards and warranted my being banned,
“Sandra, It’s always possible to stop a discussion by resorting to a “what about?” It is conservative and prevents reform. Discussion of doctors’ income does not preclude a separate discussion of cllrs’ expenses. However, you cannot make an allegation without at least naming the Cllr because it prevents the figures being checked. Indeed, you should provide a link to the information.”

In the afternoon I submitted an entirely unconnected complaint to Facebook. I complained about a post which suggested violence towards a possible election candidate whose name was mentioned in the thread.
Here’s the post about which I complained in the afternoon,
“Put him in a ward, an intensive care ward.”
Facebook responded saying that this did not breach their Community Standards.

I then posted my complaint together with FB’s response on FB and a discussion ensued about freedom of speech.

Some hours later Facebook informed me that my own morning post (which appears above) was a violation of their Community Standards, that they had removed it and that I was barred from the site for 12 hrs. The 12hrs. have passed and I’m no longer barred but I’m now silenced; I’m not allowed post on FB. I’ve read and reread my words, together with the text of the Community Standards*, and I cannot for the life of me see how it could possibly breach any standard whatsoever.

More interestingly, I’m at a loss to see how my ordinary post could be a violation while the violent post about which I complained could be deemed fine.

I could take all this as a fortunate boost to my street cred; I’m a PhD in my mid-sixties and I’ve been banned by Facebook. Cool or what! I could ask FB to explain but that’s next to impossible. They don’t do phones and one contacts them by filling in on-line forms. However, having filled in the only form that could possibly refer to my suspended account, a message appeared informing me that I had not been disconnected. This morning I had access to a different form and this I managed to send.

It may be a long shot but perhaps someone at Facebook still surfs the net and may find my blog.

_____________________________________________________________
* https://touch.facebook.com/communitystandards?_rdr
** This might be of interest: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/citizens-children-and-social-media-the-problems-arent-new-but-many-parents-are-copping-out/

Could inaccurate use of the term “tech sector” be misguiding education policy?

I realise that Una Mulally’s piece in the Irish Times on Saturday (*) last was essentially about the lifestyles of young workers in successful, fashionable companies located in Dublin’s docklands but there is something odd about it which prompted me to return to doubts I have about the basis on which rests the view that Ireland needs to increase the numbers graduating in science and engineering.

While I fear that the level of general knowledge and basic expertise in maths, science and engineering is well short of what a competent citizen requires to participate fully today, I can’t seem to find data which compels support for the view that the third level educational system should increase significantly the number of specialist graduates. The conventional media view, fuelled by those who teach maths, science and engineering – especially I.T – is that students are foolish if they do not clamour for entry to these courses which more or less guarantee employment. This is at odds with anecdotal evidence which suggests at least some level of unemployment. The key to this puzzle may lie in the term “tech sector”.

Here’s what Una Mulally reports, “Apparently some kind of economic crisis is going on, but in Dublin’s tech sector, where Facebook, Google, Twitter, LinkedIn, eBay, PayPal and Microsoft reign, the only way is up.” She then goes on to talk about skill shortages in Ireland which result in the immigration of bright young people from across Europe. However, here’s the interesting aspect: the only specific skill mentioned is languages and the only formal degree mentioned is a PhD in politics held by a young Italian woman who works in Dublin for PayPal.

With the possible exception of risk management (**) none of the jobs mentioned suggest that a degree in science or technology is a requirement; these people are working in marketing, customer support, business development and recruitment. However, they see themselves as working in the “tech sector”. It seems plausible to suggest that when journalists talk about career opportunities in the “tech sector”, they are not talking exclusively about technical jobs but about jobs traditionally filled by humanities and business graduates who now need a range of skills – well short of graduate level expertise – such as to make them employable not in a technological role but in office-type industries created by or fundamentally changed by I.T. generally and the net in particular. (***)

The almost cavalier use of the term “tech sector” may be contributing to woolly thinking about third level education in two distinct ways. (****) Firstly, there is risk that the requirement for science and engineering graduates becomes overstated. Secondly, there is a risk that the degree to which the office workplace has changed is not recognised and – language skills aside – this may be why the companies mentioned in the article need to search far and wide when recruiting graduates.
______________________________________________

* http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2013/0209/1224329821083.html

** The article doesn’t mention it but it is posibble that maths graduates are involved here.

*** I’ve written before about the changes wrought by technology and the skills which are now essentially a precondition for the employment of humanities graduates: https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2010/05/26/increased-emphasis-on-vocational-education-is-a-pretty-bad-idea-now/

**** The two are discussed here:https://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/the-smart-economy-and-technologys-democratic-vector/

If Savita Halappanaver and Galway University Hospital are to feature in Irish public controversy, we should emphasise the most relevant controvery

In day to day conversations and on Facebook I’ve been avoiding speculation and talking instead about a range of possibilities as to what could have gone so wrong in Galway University hospital which has an excellent record. It is however time now to speculate for a very good reason.

Speculation on the events leading to the death of Savita Halappanavar has for some time now been fuelling arguments for and against the enactment of legislation – as recommended by the Supreme Court a full two decades ago – to regulate and clarify the Irish constitutional position: that an abortion is permissible to protect the life of the mother. It needs to be emphasised that the only circumstance in which this young woman’s death has relevance to the debate on the need to move on such legislation is if there is any scenario in which the medical staff weighed the baby’s life against the mother’s and favoured the baby.

The reason I am about to speculate is that the most likely happenings in Galway are being ignored in favour of accounts which can be used to engage in the current debate. However, the most likely account has enormous significance for the abortion debate beyond the rare cases of risk to a mother’s life but a long way short of anything that could be described as liberal abortion law, never mind abortion on demand.

Incidentally, while I’m attracted in principle to the view that there should be no speculation and therefore no debate until an enquiry has established the facts of what happened, in practice holding such a line was never possible and is completely irrelevant now after weeks of comment.

The following is most likely what happened. I can only assume that it is ignored by media because it is irrelevant to the current spectacular row over the need for legislation to protect the life of a mother.

The death of Mrs. Halappanavar was the first maternal death at Galway University Hospital in 17 years. [i] We are not, therefore, talking about a hospital with a poor record. Moreover, despite all the allegations about “Catholic country” comments and missing notes – both of which need thorough investigation – it doesn’t seem remotely likely that the hospital staff were unaware of the legal or Catholic church position but for some unexplained reason decided to favour the baby’s life over the mother’s life. On the contrary it is, I think, safe to assume that the staff involved were caring, experienced and familiar with law and Catholic doctrine.

It is virtually certain that if at any moment from her first entering the hospital, it became clear that Mrs. Halappanavar’s life was in danger, these staff would have performed an abortion. So what happened? Here is the most likely explanation.

Mrs. Halappanavar was miscarrying, i.e. the baby at that age was doomed to die. However, Mrs. Halappanavar was not yet in mortal danger and there were no indications that she might die. Because, Catholic teaching and Irish law give an equal right to life to mother and to baby until the mother’s life is threatened, an unfortunate baby with just a short time to live would be monitored and allowed to die naturally. A mother’s distress, discomfort or illness would be irrelevant. Threat to life is the sole criterion for legal abortion in Ireland.

The truth that Irish media have been neglecting is that Mrs. Halappanavar’s treatment and death have very likely got nothing whatsoever to do with clarifying a mother’s superior right to life when her life is threatened but a great deal to do with the treatment/management of miscarriage. The position in Ireland is that abortion is not a permissible part of that treatment/management.

I’ve no information on how often abortion might be considered in the treatment of miscarriage but it does seem to be an issue for Catholic hospitals outside Ireland.

“The experiences of physicians in our study indicate that uterine evacuation may not be approved during miscarriage by the hospital ethics committee if foetal heart tones are present and the pregnant woman is not yet ill, in effect delaying care until foetal heart tones cease, the pregnant woman becomes ill, or the patient is transported to a non–Catholic-owned facility for the procedure.”[ii]

If in Ireland we are using the death of a young woman to inform or fuel an important public controversy, it is vital that the full controversy be aired or that the relevant controversy be aired or at the very least that the relevant controversy not be ignored.

[ii] Freedman, L.R. et al “When There’s a Heartbeat: Miscarriage Management in Catholic-Owned Hospitals” in American Journal of Public Health. 2008 October; 98(10): 1774–1778. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/

Republican citizens on Facebook need to choose their friends deliberately

I use FB quite a lot. I behave there much like I do in the wider world. I use it to stay in touch with family, friends and acquaintances. I’m kept informed of events. I see and share interesting pictures. I really enjoy the spoofing and slagging of some very bright people. Significantly, I also participate in debates there. Now, if “debate” has any meaning, at least some of my FB fiends must have views quite different to mine.

Here’s an interesting proposition: As social media increasingly replace the open web for many people, those among them who value debate, who recognise their need to be confronted by contrary, challenging viewpoints, will have to choose at least some of their on-line friends very deliberately. Because a constant, unrelieved, cosy consensus is not what they want, they may have to seek out antagonistic friends. Perhaps I mean agonistic friends but let’s not quibble.

I’ve been a student of Political Communication for a long time now – since I was introduced to it by Brian Farrell (David’s dad) the best part of thirty years ago. I’d be embarrassed to say how long it took me to realise that I was studying Citizenship.

The conventional view is that there are two very basic approaches to being a citizen: the liberal approach and the republican approach. The liberal wants to choose privacy, to be left alone to enjoy life untroubled by debates, public controversy, politics generally, and wants to be informed only if decisions are to be made which might affect that private way of living. The republican by contrast wants to be involved in all matters affecting the direction of the republic. The two approaches of course are no more than models – extreme ends of a spectrum of participation. However, a citizen cannot avoid taking a decision on roughly what is to be their degree of participation and by implication what ought to be the practice of others.

By inclination I find myself well over towards the republican end. I try to be tolerant of those who want to avoid involvement or to keep it to a minimum and I try to encourage citizens – especially younger citizens – to be discursive, argumentative, involved. This tends to annoy those who would prefer a quieter life and it draws them into what they most want to avoid: a controversy and a basic one at that. They argue that no one wants to hear contrary information and argument, and that those who hold contrary views should keep them to themselves.

Now, in the period dominated by mass media – i.e. before the arrival of ICTs – this dispute centred on the concept of public service. One view was that the market should determine content. If consumers created a demand for news, controversy, opinions, challenges, then a supplier would meet that demand. If not, then there was simply no demand and to insist on supplying such material was authoritarian waste. The opposing view was that this content constituted a public good and in the event of a market failing to deliver, supply should be secured by regulation or by a state provider, e.g. a national public broadcaster.

Things have changed considerably as the web – especially social media and apps – has grown in significance.  Nowadays the web can be essentially liberal in that content is increasingly tailored to suit the individual. What the individual requires is determined by looking at real preferences expressed in purchases and on-line activity. With the help of algorithms a person on-line need never be troubled by the new, the contrary, the challenging. Indeed on FB a click will remove from Friends anyone likely to disagree, question or challenge in any way.[1]

While social media provide a communication environment which is the liberal citizen’s dream, they make life difficult for the republican citizen. Their design protects the user from the new, the challenging, and the serendipitous. It could be argued that while people increasingly leave older media and come to rely on social media, their attention will be drawn to a rich array of exciting material recommended by friends. However, that would happen only if at least some friends were not of a like mind. No, a citizen who chooses to rely on social media and who wants to participate in public controversy – i.e. who really does want to be a republican – will have to make an effort.

The republican citizen on FB will have to examine his/her list of friends, likes etc. specifically with a view to being challenged. He/she will be aware that while talking to like-minded people about agreeable or personal matters is important and pleasurable, it is not enough. The republican citizen needs Facebook friends and contacts with whom to have strong disagreements. There is just one way to address that need: seek out those with whom one disagrees or those who are likely to say or do something new and challenging and send them a friend request.

However, the republican on FB will run into a problem. The problem is that not all – perhaps very few – putative antagonistic friends will want debate. The republican will learn that liberal citizenship is probably the majority position. It may come as a surprise that dislike of challenge is not confined to conservatives. Many who take up seemingly progressive positions don’t like it either. The republican will have to cope with disappointments. The friend who puts forward interesting ideas but “unfriends” (or should it be “defriends”?) anyone who posts a counter argument regarded as threatening to his/her dogma or assumed status will have to be written off and replaced.

Decades after Herbert Marcuse spoke of the role of media in closing down the universe of discourse an almost perfect medium for tedious liberal communication has developed. Of course it doesn’t signal the end of discourse, politics, participation but it does mean that a republican will have to assume greater responsibility for creating his or her own debating chamber.

[1] I’ve restricted this discussion to social media but the use of apps takes the user a further step away from the riches of the open web.