Can we be friends?

Yesterday a comment popped up on my Facebook feed, about a photo I'd shared. The photo was an image from the guys at Letters for Ranjini about the recent reports of children self-harming in Australian detention centers. Now if you're a regular here you'll notice that I've written about Ranjini before, maybe even a few times. Suffice to say I feel strongly on the issue of children in immigration detention.

Now the comment I received on the photo was of the typical 'go back to where you came from' mantra. It came from a so-called 'Facebook friend'; you know the type, you click accept even though you haven't seen them in ten years. This guy had obviously not looked into the story and was reacting purely on pre-conceived ideas. 

What the hell can you do or say when faced with ignorance like that? 

I wrote a reply (I felt I was being quite restrained) suggesting my 'friend' look into the issue before making judgements and reminding him we are talking about vulnerable children. In my gut though I just wanted to hit 'delete friend' and be done with him.

In the end I decided to wait a couple of hours just in case he replied to my comment. I wanted the chance to engage with this guys ideas, maybe offer a more compassionate perspective to his hardline stance. That's when I started thinking...

My reaction to his comment was in it's own way just as narrow and pointless as his dismissal of the photo. Here I was ready to censor this guy out of my life just because I found his views abhorrent. Effectively I wanted to deny him his right to free speech (at least in dialogue with me) and send him packing.

The whole point of getting online and sharing views is that we are engaging in a community of ideas. Not all these ideas will be pleasant or well thought out, and guaranteed you won't agree with them all. My reaction is one I think we all feel occasionally; to ignore unpleasant comments, ideas & opinions in favour of those we agree with. We have to fight this impulse...

Engaging only with simpatico peers doesn't foster action, or advance progressive ideas. We can end up participating in a little club of self congratulation, forgetting any opposition exists. Free speech means freedom for all speakers and as uncomfortable as it may be, challenging negative views is the only way to contribute to change.

I plan to remember this and hopefully it will change my relationships both online and out in the world...

Chomsky vs. Twitter

Last time I wrote I threw in a quote by Noam Chomsky regarding the de-facto mental slavery we are subject to when powerful interests are allowed to dictate the narratives, the advertising, the media we consume. If you haven't come across Chomsky before I'm going to let you Google him, but suffice to say that I've heard him described as the most influential intellectual of the last fifty years (more than once). Chomsky writes passionately about the individual in the face of larger corporate, political and media influences. He is an advocate of individual action and thought free from coercion. 

I'm a fan of Noam, but in my reading for the last post I also came across some comments he made about social media and Twitter. It seemed he was not a fan of the brevity or relative flippancy of tweets and their limited character. He has also described in interviews a view that communication via devices tends towards the "superficial, shallow, evanescent" while Twitter perhaps "draw(s) people away from real serious communication". 

Let's face it, he has a point and in Noam's defense these comments were made around the same time Charlie Sheen was lighting up Twitter with a very dim bulb. At it's worst social media is people you've never met telling you they're hungry and then posting a picture of what they're eating (before anyone says anything I do realise that the worst is more like racism, sexism, trolls and attitudes best left in the middle ages). Beyond the shallow though Twitter et al. is also a democratizing force as it allows the audience to decide which voices are heard through comments, critiques and simply by ignoring the undesirable.

If we accept the premise that Twitter is often heavy with trivia and ephemera, this does not exclude the possibility for meaning within 140 characters. Brevity seems to be a particular bugbear for Chomsky as he feels it negates or sidelines controversial, non-mainstream discussion. But 140 characters is merely a window to another world that people may choose to explore at the cost of a mere click. Personally I am drawn back to tweeters who lead to me to more interesting information through links.

As a gateway social media has as many doors to Narnia as it does to last seasons Kardashian closet. The mere presence of crap does not negate it's power to distribute voices however. Just as the printing press gave us newspapers it also helped fill them with comics and personals. We have the opportunity to control the content as it evolves and part of that evolution is engaging, discussing and aggregating voices towards social causes. Daily people create their own content and distribute it via the interweb and social media is a resource they utilise to get word out.

Is there anything to say though?

Embedded in the technology is the mechanism that (hopefully) will see us guide this evolution towards a positive channeling of public voices; Twitter and other microblogging sites are equipped with functions to retweet, comment or simply stop following. While publishing may be free and easy, editing happens at the hands of the public at large. This means that the network of users vote with their 140 characters on whether an opinion expressed is viable. I wrote recently of my first experience with a truly abhorrent Twitter post and how at the hands of the 'Twitterverse' the poster was duly chastened. 

In one of the interviews mentioned above Chomsky describes a 'good public citizen' as one "who participates in the management of public affairs". Amongst the idle thoughts and tummy rumblings social media offers a platform for participation that is open and uncensored as yet. Entry criteria for participation is the possession of an online device, and this can be a steep price in some markets, as I've discussed in a previous post. This is changing though and with access comes a proliferation of new voices. For those that can afford it, this is cheap compared to running for office in a developed western democracy.

These technologies offer both shallow, narcissistic interactions and the potential to engage in the public sphere like never before. It requires a little creativity to straddle the line and becomes a daily commitment if you really intend to engage, but I've found it worth the effort. In a future where this technology will become second nature I wonder if our questioning it's validity at length (longer than the aforementioned 140) will seem quaint. Till then I choose to embrace the voice it affords me.

Representation?!

A tale of indifference from your elected representatives...

I've now written twice on the story of Ranjini and her brand new son Paari; locked up in Australian immigration detention during her pregnancy, then returned only days after Paari's birth. My plan is to continue writing in the hope that rallying support around this issue might see sense prevail and result in an outcome that sees a weeks old baby released from jail.

This outcome seems less and less likely when our elected representatives refuse to engage on the issue in a meaningful way, preferring to stonewall opposition to the official policy. I am not the only person writing on this issue, far from it. I first read about Ranjini's story through GetUp! and 'Letters for Ranjini'. Both of these organisations have been actively campaigning to see Ranjini and Paari allowed to reunite with their family. As a result of this campaigning a lot of letters have been written to a lot of local members requesting action.

Unfortunately the responses received by 'Letter's for Ranjini' were less than inspirational on the part of the government. While you might hope for a resounding success or fear an outright rejection, the replies from Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson reflect the worst of bureaucratic obfuscation designed to do nothing more than placate the reader. Both letters read as virtual carbon copies of each other. They are clearly form letters designed to deflect community concern over the issue of what they like to call 'irregular maritime arrivals' (asylum seekers in the regular parlance). These replies refer to Ranjini's case only in the final paragraph and speak nothing of addressing the urgent concern of having a newborn child locked up.

On their website 'Letter's for Ranjini' call these replies a complete disregard for democracy, but I would go a step further. These politicians attempt to use stock standard letters to placate their constituents because they have no regard for the intelligence and sincerity of collective community action. They feel they are safe within the 'democracy' because they sit in safe seats of regard Ranjini's story a fringe political issue.  

This is not an acceptable response from Australia's political representatives, no matter their political persuasion. Politicians govern at the will of the people and they must be reminded of the voices behind their power, that they may use it to some good end. Consider this and write to your local member; you can get most of them on Twitter if you don't have time for an email. Go to 'Letters For Ranjini's' - Facebook page and give them a 'like' so that they can continue this struggle. Most importantly though is to take back your voice and refuse to accept a stock reply from a politician; ask why, ask for more information and make them justify their position. Remember you gave them their job...  

________

More on Ranjini's story:

Here are some sites you might like to check out for more information about Ranjini's story and the issue of the detention of children in immigration detention facilities in Australia...

Rightzblock - Life Imprisonment? 

My first post detailing Ranjini's plight before Paari's birth.

Rightzblock - Followup to Ranjini's Story 

Detailing the shameful act of imprisoning Paari days after his birth.

Letters for Ranjini 

Campaigning for justice on behalf of Ranjini; write a letter of support!

Chilout 

Fantastic organisation campaigning on behalf of children in immigration detention.

Chris Bowen - Minister for Immigration 

Drop the minister a line; email, twitter or call to express your concerns 

over the issue of children being locked up! 

Invasion Day?

It's Australia day tomorrow, at least from where I'm sitting in Avignon. If you're back home the dawn will be breaking over our national holiday in a few short hours. Given it's a saturday I'd guess that a lot of people will miss that dawn and wake late feeling a little hungover and ready to do it all again in the name of national pride.

On Facebook I see a lot of friends planning and prepping for a big day around the bbq, at the beach, in the sun or wherever there is a flowing supply of beer. On Twitter it's a little different as I listen to a lot of people speculating over the meaning of our national day. Some tweets wonder out loud about how respectful it is to drape a flag across your shoulders and then proceed to get stinking drunk. Others openly deplore the gronks who use the day to spew racism at anyone who doesn't fit their (white) image of Australian. Many invoke the new name adopted for the day several years ago... 'Invasion Day'

My absolute favourites make clever use of the current debate over the treatment and fate of asylum seekers arriving by boat. They remind us that Australia's foundation myth involves people arriving by boat to a land that wasn't theirs, that these people did not have respect and assimilation on their minds when they met the locals and they continued to arrive as economic migrants because the 'lucky country' just seemed so damn good. Check out Bloody Boat People! for one of the best...

The term 'Invasion Day' hits a sensitive point with a lot of Australians. They see it as demeaning and disrespecting the fabulous country that Australia is today. They drag out another controversial term in 'black armband history' to deflect the argument. Now I hate it when people try to deflect or shut down an argument rather than face it (Rightzblock - I have a Right to my Opinion!), better to unpack all the discomfort and get it out there.

Shakespeare gave us "I think the lady doth protest too much" and he meant that when someone's shouting and kicking up a storm about something their motive may be a guilty conscience. No Australian alive today was present when the First Fleet from England arrived and began the takeover, but that doesn't mean that we don't today enjoy the spoils of what they achieved that day. If you don't like the term 'invasion day' perhaps you need to think about why you have this reaction, as well as why some people think it's an appropriate term.

Usually when two nations meet over a disputed territory they negotiate a treaty to settle the land. At present no treaty with Australia's first people exists. The Mabo decision granted limited land rights to some indigenous Australians, but this is not available to all. We apologised to the stolen generation in 2008 but that doesn't mean that the trauma of families torn apart disappears. Hell, we don't even recognise Indigenous Australia's in our constitution! - check out You, Me Unity

I think these are the reasons many people consider the 26th of January as 'Invasion Day' and if you're not comfortable for that term to sit alongside 'Australia Day', ask yourself why?

Tweeting the Zeitgeist

I've been a little slow on my social media uptake so it was with great surprise last night when I found myself engaging in a tweetfest that actually affected something in the real world.

It was about three in the morning and I was loving another bout of insomnia. Luckily being in Avignon in the south of France I was perfectly in time for Sydney news and media and just general wakefulness. As I scrolled down my news feed I scanned the headlines (I think of tweets as headlines and prefer the ones that open into a world larger than 140 characters) looking for something interesting...

@GetUp - 'We should expect more from our political candidates & community leaders 

than homophobia, hate speech. #TessCorbett @BernardGaynor'

No idea what this was about but respecting @GetUp's take on issues I decided to dig around. Turns out @BernardGaynor is a senate candidate for a new political entity in Australia known as Katter's Australia Party (Katter's Aus Party). Gaynor had taken to Twitter to back up another party nominee, Tess Corbett and her comments made comparing homosexuality to bestiality...

@BernardGaynor -  'I wouldn't let a gay person teach my children 

and I'm not afraid to say it #auspol'

Uhmmm... ok! I was suitably aghast, I mean I'd heard that people tweet all sorts of crazy bullshit but had never actually had the opportunity to read it. This was completely different to retweeting inspirational articles about issues I believe in; here was someone making pejorative comments about people that included friends, coworkers, cool strangers that I haven't meant yet. I was kinda pissed but also felt strangely powerless to do anything against this hate speech.

I read through the post again and some of the follow up this goon had made attempting to justify his position. Some people had made some equally crazy comments wishing violence and death on the guy. I wanted to write something but didn't want to join the club of people venting their spleen. Basically I wanted to be clever, witty and concise (the last not being a huge problem on Twitter)...

@rightzblock - '@GetUp now you know people just don't vote for

 @BernardGaynor and take his voice away!'

I felt proud, I felt engaged, I reread it and realized my punctuation made the message a little ambiguous but I had said something against this guy. The way Twitter works though @BernardGaynor might never know that I thoroughly abhorred his narrow minded perspective...

@rightzblock - '@BernardGaynor Australia is a secular state, 

don't bring your misguided religious beliefs to the political debate!'

Now I felt better. I had spoken my beliefs in 140 characters or less and let some bigot know he had no place spreading his views. I could sleep easy, and despite the insomnia, several hours later I did.

In the morning I woke up and after covering coffee and the obligatory ablutions I got a little curious about what I'd been reading last night. I found this: The Australian - Twitter Gay Slur Story

I was stoked, energised and generally pretty damn happy... Of course this story has ignored thousands of others who also got online and expressed their unhappiness at this guys bigotry and insensitivity. Collectively they made the difference and were there representing the Australian public over the wicked minority. For me though it felt good that I had spoken when I felt moved to speak and stood up for my convictions.

When I sit down to write this blog I always hope that someone will read it and take away something of my message. It's hard to know when you write alone and receive little feedback; mostly your own opinions. The blog's pretty new though and I accept that few people even know it exists. But I do believe strongly in the power of our voices when we speak out on the things we believe (Rightzblock - The right to free speech?), it was great to see how it can come to fruition...

I have a right to my opinion...

I hate that expression!

Nothing marks a conversational dead end faster than one party boldly stating that they have a right to their own opinion. Translated for the crowd this usually means: 'I disagree with you and I don't want to talk about it anymore!'

This particular invocation of 'rights' blew up on Australian TVs recently when the prominent media presenter David Koch made comments about breast-feeding. Kochie was commenting on a news story detailing how a Queensland woman was asked to cover up while breast-feeding at a public pool. His comments included the advice that breast-feeding women should be "discrete" and "classy" while lactating in public. These comments promoted a response from breast-feeding mothers that ranged from measured to vitriolic and culminated in a rally outside Kochie's breakfast program. In a final sally against his critics Kochie invoked his implied 'rights' (SMH - Kochie editorial),attempting to end the discussion.

What is this 'right' though? The sentence itself is worth a quick look because quite frankly it is ludicrous and redundant. Having opinions is intrinsic to our thoughtful, individual, messed up humanity. Within the privacy of our own thoughts we cannot help but form opinions, so asserting a right is nonsensical unless you fear brainwashing. When someone feels the need to assert this as a 'right' they are really indicating that they don't intend to engage you any further, lest their opinion shifts; becomes a little less theirs, maybe more your own.

I think  this whole notion of being free to express one's opinion gets a little tangled up in the much vaunted First Amendment to the American Constitution. That's the one guaranteeing, to paraphrase, 'free speech'. Seems like everyone knows of this and feels that it applies to them too; shout your opinion loud and proud people. While I agree with the principle of freedom of expression it's worth noting that it doesn't quite work that way in Australia. We have no equivalent to America's first amendment enshrined in Australian law. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship describes 'Freedom of Speech' as one of Australia's five fundamental freedoms (Aus Dept Immigration), but it's not quite that clear cut. What we have is a common law protection of freedom of political expression, which I gather means you are free to critique the government of the day without persecution. However our general right to free expression is tempered by qualifications against the incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination. 

I don't think Kochie's comments come anywhere near inciting hatred, violence or discrimination but nor does this mean he just gets to claim he has a right to comment unfettered. As a public commentator and media personality Kochie must acknowledge his role in creating an filtering public opinion. His website notes a poll describing him as one of the top fifty most respected people in Australia. People listen to him and through them Kochie can direct the public narrative and understanding of an issue. Breast feeding mothers everywhere rightly feared that Kochie's comments could result in their being shamed and ridiculed for the very natural act of feeding their child.

In this light, the backlash against his breast-feeding comments does not amount to an attempt to censor Kochie's implied right to express himself, rather it is the exercise of that same right being used to dissent against his opinions. When Kochie derides his critics as "the noisy social media brigade" he demeans private individuals attempting to meet him on common ground. He fails to afford them the platform he already enjoys.

Implicit in a right of free expression (qualified or otherwise) is another's right to oppose your opinion. We generally just call this a public debate and encourage it as a healthy part of our society. By bluntly declaring "I have an opinion... always have, always will", Kochie came dangerously close to an attempt to suppress this. Fortunately he seems like a decent bloke and for those who read to the end of his response, he attempts redemption by acknowledging the role of public debate. In what some commentators claimed as backtracking, Kochie described the protest against his comments as "terrific" and encouraged open discussion with the protest leader Amy Ahearn.

Crisis averted, and the whole event threatens to disappear in the relentless turning of the news cycle. Perhaps some good may come of engaging people in thinking about the roles and rights of new mothers and the trials they face in daily life. But I would warm however against allowing the dreadful false adage of 'a right to my opinion' to creep back into your public or private life. Debate and discussion form an important part of our intellectual lives; you don't have to change your mind, but it's worth considering why your partner disagrees...

___

Throughout my blogging I've considered issues of free speech and the way the rights of expression intersects with our daily lives. Check out a discussion of the voices you're not hearing online @ Rightzblock - The Right to Free Speech? or my discussion of the role of civil disobedience, the ultimate expression of opinion @ Rightzblock - You Can't Do That!

The Product?

If you're not paying for it then you're the product.

I keep hearing people talking about social media and the online world in these terms. Usually not very far into the conversation issues of privacy and access are also being mentioned and the argument can start to sound part civil rights issue and part conspiracy theory; that somehow the online illuminati are staging mass identity theft/profiling of us all.

I'm still not sure what to make of it all and so I dutifully ensure my privacy settings are set high and perhaps more importantly I self censor rigorously (which for some people might just mean not going near a computer whilst drunk!). Still though, I find it quite strange after searching on a whim for a flight somewhere that I soon find advertisements for holidays on my FB and other pages.

Am I savvy because I know this or a retard for not yet adequately getting around it and protecting my online life? I have no idea what the answer to that question is or even if it's the sort of question that can be answered at the moment. Whenever we use an app, whether to shop, search, poke, check in or any of the functions they offer, there is potential for data to be mined from us and sent back to the developer. What it might be used for is likely still being explored but I pause when I think someone could know what I'm thinking (from status updates and tweets), what I'm reading (from purchases) and where I go and when (check ins and the like). Thank goodness I don't live in a repressive state where that sort of information can get you in trouble.

In my last post I was wondering out loud about the potential for mobile applications and social media to change our thinking about parts and peoples we don't know or understand that well. Consider the African continent where smartphone penetration is closing in on 20% or one in five people. It's higher in Northern and Southern Africa and pretty low in Central Africa. This compares with almost 40% in Australia.

(here's a nice site for some stats http://www.mikekujawski.ca/2012/05/30/finally-some-2012-statistics-for-the-african-mobile-phone-market/)

This can have amazing impacts as was shown throughout the Arab Spring uprisings but it also brings up questions about the rights of people acquiring smartphones and the information they share. An external company may have incentives to develop and offer free software and applications for people in this developing market, which they can then transition into a data mining, money spinning operation (Facebook I'm looking at you). On the other hand there are great initiatives like Apps4Africa (http://apps4africa.org/) that encourage local developers to target problems and needs at a local level.

I did a quick Google search using the terms 'ethics of app development' and I got very little. All the top hits were for people wanting to write an ethics application for a research project or associated endeavor.  Curious, I did another search, this time with the search terms 'ethics of software development'. This time I got a lot more success which was comforting, at least people are thinking in the general area. The thing was that of the top hits I saw the most recent was from 2009, a little early for the current app revolution. Now this was an admittedly tiny search, using only narrow terms but I was really hoping for a little more thinking out there about the potential benefits and harms of our mobile, online life and how to address them.

The way I see it is the information economy is growing at a huge rate and this is largely driven by mobile internet usage. This usage is in turn driven by the development and use of apps on people's mobile phones. As this development occurs our thinking in turn must keep pace with the changing nature of content development and sharing. This is predominately going to require innovative thinking about the way to deal with all the incidental content development that happens when we're not thinking about it (location services and the like). Information shared by people online is intimately connected to their identity, their livelihood and sometimes their safety. The key to addressing the issue is probably as always education, but of what nature and how? 

...

I proofread this before I posted and got a little worried that I sounded a bit doom and gloom about spreading technology, which I'm really not. My thoughts tend towards wondering about future scenarios and I often play the devil's advocate. Anyway, here's another article I read while researching this that discusses the amazing potential and achievements mobile access can have in a development information economy... http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/africa/mobile-phones-change-africa/index.html

The right to free speech?

What are you reading this on?

There are more than a billion people on Facebook. I read that on my tablet the other day. I was flicking through some blogs and posts on Flipboard and there it was in the middle of an article about online trends.

Psy’s hit a billion too on Youtube I gather, while Obama won his first presidential election on social media and the Arab Spring owes some of it’s success to Twitter. The fact that everything from Facebook to Twitter allows you to check-in now makes me think that most of these people are watching, talking and organising from mobile devices. Huge numbers of people doing amazing things from their pockets and backpacks.

I tend to write this blog on my laptop but I don’t mind drafting on my phone; so far I lack the patience to type long paragraphs on such a small keyboard. I worry though that people are tuning out after the first 140 characters. Which brings me back to my original question of what are you reading this on, or perhaps more important to think about is whether would you be reading, writing and responding to any of this new media if it weren’t for your device. I don’t think it’s an impossible scenario that in the future the western world will consider access to an online device as a basic right; denial being akin to denying someone their right to speak freely.

We like to think of the online world and social media as being an egalitarian playground where participation has more to do with your cachet in wit and wisdom than your bankroll or influence. This forgets however one very important, very expensive initial entry criteria… our devices.

When I think about the potential for social media to connect, rally and influence I cannot help but wonder what we are missing out on from those who just don’t have access. How would Instagramming our amazing meal photos be understood if people starving in refugee camps could reply with images of their meagre repast? If social media tools like FB and Twitter could play such a powerful role in the Middle East and America, what role might they play in other regions of political or social unrest less able to get online and organise.

Free speech is an ideal much touted but even in places where people can express themselves freely they are not always guaranteed an audience. The mobile-online world allows live content development and publishing as well as access to a huge audience always on the lookout for new things. Think about a cause or charity you believe, maybe donate to. Their webpage probably has a ‘like’ symbol as well as a little blue/white bird and an orange RSS logo all ready for you to click on. They are networked and ready to harness the huge numbers available online to their cause; making a difference through people. If you cannot afford to get on social media though you are essentially stuck in the nineteenth century, waiting for some benevolent colonial to notice and take pity on your plight.

Mobile connectivity has provided so much to the world, shallow as it may seem at times. It is important to remember though that this opportunity is not completely democratic, not free for all. Consider this next time you peruse the voices on Twitter and the channels on Youtube; listen critically to who is talking but question also whose voices are missing. Remember this also when you tweet your own voice what an amazing privilege it is just to have the chance to be heard.