2013-05-18T23:08:01-04:00 Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=jamie-bartlett Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jamie Bartlett Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3201456 2013-05-02T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-02T12:39:28-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
The Facebook profile of a Ukip candidate was scoured and a photo was found of him either doing a Nazi salute; trying to snatch a phone; or impersonating a pot plant, depending on who you believe. Chuka Umunna has been criticised for his - pretty cringeworthy - comments on the networking site 'Asmallworld'. In a brilliant spoof, the Onion reported that the every potential 2040 US presidential candidate is already "unelectable due to Facebook". Our digital indiscretions are becoming fair game: I predict that each political party will soon be employing a team of modern day mudlarks to trawl opponents' social media profiles looking for dirt; and simultaneously trying to tidy up their own candidates' indiscretions. Maybe they do already.

Things could turn nasty, because misinformation is especially easy to produce. As I wrote here about an alleged tweet by the English Defence League, it is very trivial to produce fake Tweets or photoshopped images, and many seasoned experts have been fooled - recall the case of the American PhD student pretending to be a persecuted lesbian Syrian blogger. Two years ago, the News of the World had to settle out of court after making accusations of infidelity on the basis of a fake Facebook page.

Even without the dark arts, this will all get messy. It is, after all, quite difficult to make a fair and accurate judgment about a person's character or views on the basis of something they may or may not have said on a social media page three years ago when drunk or angry. The very basis of liberalism and free expression is an underlying view that people can and do change their mind: otherwise, what is the point in arguing anything out, after all? Raking through everything anyone has ever said or done - and context is usually stripped out when it's up there on a screen before your eyes - could be ossifying.

If this means people stop saying silly, nasty things online, or the truth about nasty people comes to light, then perhaps some good could come of this. But if it leads, as I fear it might, to a situation where every public figure is expected to have a managed and crafted digital persona full of 'on-message' soundbites and focus-grouped comments, or is afraid to say what they think, then politics may be about to get just a little bit more uninspiring.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3160673 2013-04-26T04:13:38-04:00 2013-04-26T09:04:19-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
But the issue the Bill was trying to address won't go away, and we can be sure that fairly soon, perhaps masqerading under another name, it will reappear. Both Committees - there were two, one in secret - that reviewed the Draft Bill accepted that changes in the way we communicate makes it harder for the security services, HMRC and the police to get hold of the information they need to do their work effectively. Both agreed that new powers were needed soon: but didn't think much of the Home Office's proposals.

That being the case, I'm not sure this is the time for congratulatory blogs. Making sure security service and policing powers are up to date and adequate - of course while avoiding unnecessary intrusion, misuse and expense - is something we all have a very big interest in. There is some middle ground, and we need to find it quickly, rather than digging trenches around liberty and security. Calling the Bill a "snooper's charter" that legitimates mass surveillance is an inaccurate charge in my view. But so is saying the Bill's many thoughtful opponents are on the side of criminals.

So Communications Data will be back in one form or another. A delay now is a chance for the Home Office to do what they might have done all along: extensive, careful, and meaningful consultation with all groups involved to seek out some comprimise. This should result in eliminating worrying ambiguities, giving a tighter clarity of purpose and targeted collection, and tougher scrutiny and oversight. Of course, even these changes would do no more than keep everyone mildly displeased. But when it comes to security and Internet freedom, that might be the best we can manage.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3117220 2013-04-21T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-23T04:39:16-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
Ever since the Osama Bin Laden raid was live-blogged, it has been clear that Twitter is allowing an explosion in 'citizen-witnessing'. Big events offline now often spike online shortly thereafter as 'Twitcidents'. Given the immediacy and ease of propagation, plausible misinformation often spreads very quickly causing a statistically significant change in the text stream. This is how trending topics are sparked - sudden change in the 'burstiness' of key words or phrases that an algorithm thinks is outside its normal distribution. (This is why words like 'the' and 'LOL' don't trend). For those of us scrolling a timeline full of interesting but unverified stories, it is hard to know what to trust.

According to James Surowiecki in his book Wisdom of the Crowds, collectives are a better way of arriving at certain kinds of truths under certain conditions: a diversity of opinion, independence, decentralisation, and aggregation.

Social media does not always meet these conditions. People share stories on Twitter for lots of reasons, and not always because they think it is accurate. Outlandish rumours often spread quickly, because they are interesting, and people like interesting things. During the London riots stories of tigers loose on Primrose Hill and the Army at Bank went viral, and this weight gave them a credibility it took hours to crack. Tweets by phoney accounts - including one of President al-Assad - have been picked up by major news outlets.

Generally, though, untrue stories are usually fairly short lived due to some of the Twitter user community acting as information brokers who will actively check and debunk information that they have found to be false or unreliable. Looking at the stories on Twitter during the Chiliean earthquake, one academic group found that Twitter weeded out falsehoods: 95 per cent of 'confirmed truth' tweets, were 'affirmed'; by users, while only 0.3 were denied.

By contrast, around 50 per cent of tweets later found to be false were 'denied' by users. A paper published this year by academics at Chicago looking at Twitter during the Arab uprising found that certain ordinary users rose to prominence through networked gatekeeping actions - those seen as useful and trustworthy sources tended to rise to the top, and then generate more traffic.

Although there is a self-correcting function, this can take some time, and given the networked nature of Twitter, misinformation often remain uncorrected within groups. The 2011 London riots were widely discussed on Twitter, and although the rumours - including the Tiger running around in NW1 - were dispelled, it was only after some time, and remained prominent within certain groups that may not have had such a diverse information source. (Or just didn't care).

The competition among journalists to get the scoop will ensure rumours continue to zip around. But there are ways to use Twitter to take advantage of the incredible amount of citizen journalism it offers. Twitter users play a number of different roles in exchanging information. They can generate information about events first-hand. They can request information about events. They can 'broker' information by responding to information requests, checking information and adding additional information from other sources and they can propagate information that already exists within the social media stream.

To get the best out of crowd sourced Twitter scoops, the best thing to do is create a group of varied, unconnected users, those with a solid record and ideally geographically close to an event. Look out for independent corroboration across different users, and be mindful that hundreds of re-Tweets rarely give more weight to the original Tweet that spawned it. Use other social media sources besides Twitter. And don't believe every Tweet you read - but don't discount them all either.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3036046 2013-04-08T07:16:26-04:00 2013-04-08T07:40:44-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/ Onion reported that the every potential 2040 presidential candidate is "now unelectable due to Facebook".

For what little it's worth, I think Paris showed a fair measure of decency and courage to get out in front the country's media yesterday to apologise. She is only 17. Maybe I am being too generous because, like Paris, I used to live in Sheerness, so I'm defending a fellow Islander. But whether you like it or not, a lot of teenagers talk trash on social media. And if the idea of a Youth PCC is to connect particularly disengaged, disinterested young people with the police, Paris might actually be a pretty good person to do that - especially after this experience.

Anyway, for some reason, police misuse of Twitter is a particular popular branch of this news genre. I released a report on police use of social media last month, and the truth is the British Police are actually rather good on Twitter. Nearly all forces have feeds. The Met Twitter account has almost 100,000 followers, and Greater Manchester Police over 120,000. Some forces have multiple accounts for towns, boroughs, neighbourhood forces. West Midlands Police lists 157 of them. Many individual officers have one too. Given the sheer number of accounts, remarkably few of them do silly things.

In fact, Twitter is being mostly used to inform the public rapidly and directly about things going on in their area. Staffordshire Police have been using Twitter for dispelling bogus rumours since 2010, starting with dealing with English Defence League protests and counter-protest. West Midlands Force used social media and particularly Twitter to counter rumours of an attack on the police station by posting 'twitpics' of officers standing outside the station. Nottinghamshire and Greater Manchester Police used social media in a similar way to provide reassurance and appeals for information during the August 2011 disorder, with a great deal of success. And our work found that the majority of people that follow police accounts are local to that force - suggestive that they are seen as a useful source of local information.

So don't be put off by Paris - follow your local force. You might be surprised.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2763790 2013-02-26T04:47:28-05:00 2013-04-27T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/ I predicted that Beppe Grillo and his Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S - Five Star Movement) would outperform the polls by four to five percentage points in the Italian general election. I didn't, however, expect him to secure one in every four votes.

What is going on? In general, polling organisations are getting more accurate, and on the whole, they get it right. Nate Silver correctly predicted all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential election. But an average of polls calculated before the polling blackout (Italy does not publish polls two weeks before an election) puts the M5S at somewhere between 15 and 16 per cent, a massive 10 percentage points below the final result.

Grillo causes a big problem for polling companies. While mainstream candidates tend to end up close to predictions, new, populist, and radical parties often confound them. Their vote is fickle - many voters change their minds on election day. Far-right parties like Marine Le Pen and her radical right Front National often get a curtain bonus, where people are embarrassed to admit their preference to a polling company, but will cross the box in the safety of the booth. New upstarts often do well in the polls, only to see the electorate opt for the devil they know.

Grillo is different: he is a comedian, who refuses to speak to the Italian media. He couldn't stand himself, because he his own movement's rules don't allow him to, because he has a criminal record. The reason he has done so well is his ability to get his vote out. With turnout low across the board - bad weather probably contributed to that - his share of the vote increased. The reason his vote turned up was social media. Grillo has, by an enormous margin, the largest social media following in Italy - in fact, in Europe. He has over one million Facebook friends, and a similar number of Twitter followers (Bersani has about a quarter of that). And he uses this huge social media profile to make things happen offline. Grillo has constantly
encouraged his supporters to discuss the issues he raises on his blog as they relate to local questions in their cities and towns in 'meet up groups' - and there are hundreds of them. According to new report of his supporters, he has around 250,000 people who consider themselves members of the party: an army of volunteers and door knockers that
used to take years to recruit.

This election was a litmus test that many politicians are asking: can social media campaigning and support translate into actual votes? The answer is a big, five star, yes.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2748463 2013-02-23T09:05:04-05:00 2013-04-25T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
So how well will Grillo fare? He presents a problem for polling companies. Over the past few years, polls have become more accurate: Nate Silver correctly predicted all 50 states in the 2012 US presidential election. An average of polls calculated before the polling blackout (Italy does not publish polls two weeks before an election) puts the M5S at somewhere between 15 and 16 per cent.

However, new/populist/radical parties like the M5S can confound predictions for a variety of reasons. In the 2012 French presidential elections, Jean Luc Melenchon, a populist radical left wing candidate, was predicted to score betwen 12 - 15 per cent, but ultimately secured only 11 per cent on election day, while Marine Le Pen and her radical right Front National were underestimated, gaining 20 per cent. Most radical right parties tend to benefit from a 'curtain bonus' - people are embarrassed to admit their preference to a polling company, only to cross the box in the safety of the booth. By contrast both Hollande and Sarkozy ended up close to the pollsters' predictions.

But Grillo is awkward. A relative newcomer to formal politics, he is a comedian who launches funny tirades at other candidates (he calls Berlusconi 'psycho-dwarf'), he refuses to speak to the Italian media, and despite being the leader of the M5S party, won't actually be standing for election himself. Ordinarily this would probably mean Grillo's support is overestimated by the polls. Yet normal rules don't apply. Grillo has, by an enormous margin, the largest social media following in Italy - in fact, in Europe.

He has over one million Facebook friends, and a similar number of Twitter followers (Bersani has about a quarter of that). He uses this huge social media profile to make things happen offline. Grillo has constantly encouraged his supporters to discuss the issues he raises on his blog as they relate to local questions in their cities and towns. For example, as of 8th November 2012, there were officially 532 Grillo meet-up groups, containing 87,895 members spanning over 400 cities. This sort of local organisation used to take years to build. Our recent report about his supporters showed they are motivated and mobilised - which means ready to get out and vote, and encourage their friends to as well. This can make a huge difference if apathy is high for other parties. In 2011 the Internet-based Pirate Party were expected to receive five per cent of the vote for the Berlin House of Representatives: they managed nine.

For a pollster this election will be something of a litmus test. Will social media campaigning and support translate into actual votes? I think it will. He won't have the curtain bonus of stigmatised far-right parties and candidates, and inside the booth some voters might think again about voting for an unknown is too risky. But his enormous social media following should weigh in his favour. Taken together then, I'm placing the probable result at somewhere around 18 - 19 per cent. Not confounding the pollsters by much, but certainly enough to make any politician with a looming election take serious note.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2739469 2013-02-22T04:10:46-05:00 2013-04-23T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/ paper at Demos about Islamist terrorists in Europe. What we found was that they were not attracted to al-Qaeda by religion or ideology alone - but also by the glamour and excitement that al-Qaeda purports to offer. In fact, the behaviour of several wannabe Holy Warriors is remarkably similar to those spoofed in Three Lions, Chris Morris' satire of home grown terrorists: In a recent case in Canada, members of the Toronto 18 cell were discussing plans to decapitate the Canadian prime minister - before realising they couldn't remember what his name was.

A cyber-jihadist convicted in Britain in 2006 of incitement to commit acts of terrorism was known by the pseudonym of Irhaabii 007 (Irhaabii means terrorist in Arabic). A womanising, hard-drinking British secret agent is not the role model Osama bin Laden had in mind for his holy vanguard.

Like every anti-establishment movement before it, the al-Qaeda has become cool and recruiters know that and take care to cultivate this image. In our work, we found one terrorist recruiter who urged young male Muslims to join global jihad for "the adventure - it's better than a holiday", while one potential recruit was told that he would get the chance to "shoot a few rounds with a 9mm". For young men raised on a diet of Western culture, this all sound quite exciting.

The case of the three Birmingham based extremists convicted yesterday, Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali seems to fit that trend. At various points they were driving around motorways mimicking Murray Walker: "it's the four suicide bombers, driving around ready to take on England"; Khlad also is recorded having said "this is going to kick them (the infidels) that go the pub, and that... ". Boasting about the size of the attack, and the carnage it would unleash - bigger than 7/7 they thought - is a common trope among these groups.

There is little doubt these invididuals were extremists who had taken on a twisted form of religion, a rapid anti-Westernism, which they used to justify their plan. But to understand and reduce the appeal, such as through 'prevent' work, part of the task is to deglamourise the idea of Jihad and Holy War. Islamist terrorists are not Holy Warriors worthy of immitation; they are often narcissitic, misguided, selfish individuals. If you are angry with the world, there are better ways of changing it. Naseer, Khalid and Ali have done quite a bit of that work for us.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2684070 2013-02-14T13:16:55-05:00 2013-04-16T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/ his blog, which established him as a public figure focusing on political and societal issues. In the ensuing years, this became the most visited political blog in Italy and was the launching pad for other online and offline initiatives.

Grillo is a genuine anti-establishment politician. He believes that the Italian political system is closed and corrupt. In 2007, he organized an event called 'Vaffanculo day' ('Fuck-off day'), a
message directed in particular towards Italy's party political class. A lot of Italians appear to agree -- since then, Grillo has become one of Italy's most successful politicians -- and he has done it all through a pretty unique blend of humor, organization, outspokenness about corruption and Italy's closed system of politics, and social media.

Following the success of 'Fuck-off day", Grillo set up his 'Movimento 5 Stelle' in 2009 -- a sort of umbrella movement under which candidates could run, as long as they did not belong to any party; had never received a criminal sentence; promised not to serve more than one term in office; and resided in the constituency where they stood for election.

Grillo refuses to talk to Italian media, preferring to communicate directly through his blog, and a lot of people listen. He is Europe's most social media savvy politician, with over 1 million Facebook friends, and 880,000 Twitter followers. He uses this -- and the wildly popular blog -- to proselytize, advertise, organize. As of November 8, 2012, there were officially 532 Grillo meet-up groups, containing 87,895 members and spanning 446 cities and 12 countries (although they were mainly based in Italy).

Grillo and his movement are now polling third for the upcoming Italian general election -- a growth rate that even UKIP can't match. My report on Grillo, released today, reveals his supporters to be frustrated, disenchanted with the Italian system, and highly motivated about changing it. Other political parties, in Italy and beyond, need to look at the frustrations Grillo is tapping into, and how he is able to channel them effectively. Nothing funny about that.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2618017 2013-02-05T19:00:00-05:00 2013-04-07T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/ Daily Mirror, he wrote an article about my grandmother Gladys and another Gladys who lived nearby. Apparently these two women had a lot in common. The headline was 'Glad to Meet You'. My grandmother told me Piers had made most of it up.)

After I wrote a Demos paper about conspiracy theories, I spent some time arguing with conspiracy theorists, including Alex himself. I was invited onto his talkshow to discuss a paper I'd written which argued schools should teach more critical thinking, but I was immediately sucked into the finer details of Demos' funding arrangements, 7/7; Princess Diana, and the New World Order. A 15-minute interview turned into an hour, all conducted over Skype with a dodgy Internet connection. It was a bit of an ambush. But I learnt a lot about Jones technique and conspiracy theory method: and I think Piers made some critical errors.

First, Piers hubristically believed he would use logic and facts to debate and vanquish his opponent. But conspiracy theories work to a number of logical fallacies and apply selective use of standards of evidence, which are then sealed up in a self-fulfilling cycle of intrigue: no evidence of explosives in the twin towers? Ha! That proves the authorities are really smart - it must be a bigger conspiracy than we thought! Adherents will look for, and invariably find some evidence of a shadowy link: a former Demos director now works for government? Ha! You are part of the conspiracy!

Second, don't assume conspiracy theorists are simply ill-informed. Jones is hyper-informed; probably over-informed. He spends many hours a day sifting media and doing research. He, and other conspiracy theorists, often know more about the minutiae than any non-specialist. Don't argue on all the details, as you'll be portrayed as a lazy, gulliable fool who believes the 'official account' without having checked it out for yourself. 'The government has lied before - why trust them now' runs the argument. It's better to pick one piece of the puzzle and study that meticulously (FYI, for 9/11 conspiracy theories, the telephone calls of people on the flights is a pretty good place to start)

Third, don't think conspiracy theorists like Alex will sit quietly and humbly, grateful to be in the spotlight. Mr Jones either utterly convinced of the rightousness of his cause, or so cynical as to realise this is a lucrative money-maker. Either way, he is going to talk, shout, self-promote, and do whatever else he can to drive more traffic to his website.

And finally, if you are the host of CNN's flagship talkshow, probably best not to invite people like Alex Jones on to your show. And if you do, at least be prepared.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2582831 2013-01-30T13:30:39-05:00 2013-04-01T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
First, move quickly. Both the Joint Committee and the (largely unreported but very important) Intelligence and Security Committee accepted that, although imperfect, legislation is probably required to fill a capability gap, and soon. This fundamental point, that law enforcement and intelligence agencies do need new powers to discharge their functions effectively, was largely ignored by media coverage.

Second, amend clause 1. A major sticking point for many critics is that the powers available in the current draft essentially allow the Secretary of State to collect whatever is deemed necessary by executive order, whenever it is deemed necessary. Clearer limits on this power would go some way to assuaging legitimate concerns about mission creep.

Third, the system of oversight and scrutiny - the centralized 'Single Point Of Contact' system and the duty of the Information Commissioner - should be set down on the face of the Bill. Only legislation will satisfy legitimate worries about possible misuse, which is vital given the scope of the Bill.

Fourth, the use of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) needs to be more clearly specified as a last resort when vitally important information is desperately needed and all other avenues are exhausted. DPI has caused great consternation because it would essentially require government installing technology that allows direct access to network traffic. The technology itself is not particularly novel - DPI is routinely used by commercial companies - but government use is something different. As experience shows, once you build a capability it is hard not to use it.

Fifth, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), which this bill amends, makes a distinction between content and communication. Intercepting the 'content' of a communication is deemed as more intrusive to our privacy, and so is regulated more tightly. However, when RIPA was passed in 2000, communications data mainly covered who you telephoned, when, and subscriber information. Now it covers far more, such as the websites you visited and your GPS location, which is updated constantly. This is more instrusive than had been envisioned over a decade ago, and I believe the Bill should reflect that - perhaps creating (sorry if this is getting technical) a graduated system, whereby some types of communications data require more oversight, and those decisions perhaps made by a centralized quasi-judicial body.

Sixth, although many critics of the Draft Bill argued that the permissible purposes for the use of communications data should be restricted, I've yet to see anyone suggest which ones, because all the purposes listed are in fact very reasonable. They should remain more or less intact.

Finally, presentation is everything. I think the Home Office may have learned an important lesson from this affair: that terrorism and paedophiles do not automatically trump digital rights. The Home Secretary consistently argued the new Bill is essential to tackle terrorism, serious crime and paedophilia. She may have believed that any law strengthening powers to do that would be more or less accepted. She perhaps underestimated how important digital freedoms and data sovereignty are to people today. And the online and privacy community - often tech savvy, networked, and highly defensive of internet freedom - are a powerful lobby group. Those that disagree with the Bill are not on the side of criminals, and it is not helpful to say they are: it obscures areas of agreement and the possibility of compromise.

Ultimately, some people will never be happy with any measures that are taken. Many civil liberty campaigners believe the entire exercise is unnecessary and even a reformed Bill would be too much. Equally, a watered down version will probably frustrate law enforcement agencies, who would like to 'future proof' the Bill against likely technological changes. You can't please everyone, and this Bill, in whatever revised form, will not. But these changes are probably just about enough to keep everyone only mildly displeased. When it comes to security and Internet freedom, that might be the best we can manage.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2562619 2013-01-27T14:41:57-05:00 2013-03-29T05:12:01-04:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
What about the Internet? We spend a lot of time there of course (on average four hours a day), and it is where we get a lot of our information about other religions and people. It is increasingly where movements and identities are forged - and is a platform for very different groups to interact. But it is not always the ally of multiculturalism. Academics like Eli Pariser and Ethan Zuckerman argue that, rather than being an open, free exchange of information, the Internet is often balkanized, where small like-minded groups coalesce to corroborate their own worldview. Increasingly, we get our news from there too, and an awful lot of misinformation thrown in with it. Groups like the English Defence League protest they are not 'Islamophobic', because -phobia suggests an irrational fear of Islam. Their fears - Islam is destroying British culture, Muslims are either terrorists or groomers - are not irrational: it's all there on the Internet!

So what to do? The government wants more integration. Out there in the real world, encouraging different groups to mix seems to work. This is called 'contact theory', and evidence suggests that people living, working, and meeting together tends to help create mutual bonds of understanding and collective interest - especially when its based on a common goal, like improving the local school. But online, the opposite might be true. A recent analysis of Tweets about the murder of an American abortion doctor found that conversations within the pro-choice camp strengthened their views; but when they interacted with the anti-choice camp, this strengthened their views as well. Anyone who has seen English Defence League and anti-Fascist groups arguing online will know that the more they interact, the angrier they get. The answer is far from obvious, but an education system that teaches people responsible, skeptical and discerning Internet use might be a good place to start.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2328041 2012-12-19T04:40:16-05:00 2013-02-17T05:12:01-05:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
First, the supposed rise of the far-right started well before the 2008 economic crises and subsequent austerity measures: it has been going on for at least twenty years.

Second, it is not a given that far-right parties have benefitted for the current malaise. Marine Le Pen polled in the French elections about the same as her father in 2003. Geert Wilders' PVV in the Netherlands lost ground this year, as did the Danish People's Party. Golden Dawn has seen a surge in support, while the English Defence League appears to be getting smaller (although angrier). It's a mixed picture.

Third, it is in the more prosperous parts of Europe that far-right parties appear to being doing well , perhaps trying to protect what they have: Norway - if you count the Norwegian Progress Party; Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, and Austria. And most research, including mine here shows that supporters of radical or far-right parties are not the losers of globalization: average levels of education and employment. When asked, they cite immigration, a lack of integration by minorities, and national identity being under threat as their motivating force.

Of course, it's never a simple either/or. As many commentators points out, economics and culture are linked. But I think that the overlooked issue here is one of fairness. The most obvious thing in research I've seen - and consistent in every country - is that supporters of far-right parties have no trust in the political establishment. The justice system doesn't work. The mainstream parties are comprised of liars, and mainstream media can't be trusted. Out of touch liberal elites take too much of the pie for themselves, and offer spin and politically correct bluster in response. It's neither economics nor culture, but a wider collapse of trust in the system. All the evidence suggests trust in the system is falling. It is that, not austerity, that should cause concern.

Finally - and often ignored - this does not mean a serious and prolongued economic downturn would have little or no effect. "The problem with socialism", said Oscar Wilde, "is that it leaves you with no spare evenings". No jobs or prospects means a lot of angry, disenfranchised young men with plenty of spare evenings, and days, to recruit, demonstrate, get active on and offline, organize, and mobilize. Economics might not have been key so far, but the past doesn't always predict the future.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2313942 2012-12-17T04:09:21-05:00 2013-02-15T05:12:01-05:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
As I argued in #intelligence, a paper about social media intelligence, drawing on these citizen vigilantes will be a valuable resource in future. However, this also brings serious difficulties: misinformation is easy to manufacture and spread. Trolling is common, accusations and counters fly daily.

On Friday a screen grab of a Tweet allegedly coming from the English Defence League's official account was widely circulated. It read, in reference to the Newtown shootings, "If those kids were children to filthy leftists, Adam Lanza did the right thing This world is being destroyed by leftists #Newtown #EDL #NFSE".

Horrendous, and on seeing this I offered a note of caution about its veracity, suggesting it could be fake (for which I was accused of being an EDL apologist). But, how to tell?

First, motive. The EDL has a habit of saying very offensive things - members have been known to say supportive things about Anders Breivik. But justifying the completely random, non-political, massacre of children from their official account seemed to me a new departure. That doesn't mean they wouldn't of course.

So second, evidence. Although re-tweeted hundred of times, the evidence appeared to be a single saved screen shot from one individual, who said it had appeared only momentarily before being deleted. This is unusual given thousands of people closely monitor the EDL account. But as proof, this individual also posted a video, which showed the still open page of the tweet from where it was grabbed. The URL of the offending Tweet was 241922092158143412. This is not just a random number: Tweet URLs are sequentially time stamped. A stamp starting 241 - dates the Tweet to some time in September. Friday it was clocking around 279 -. It appears prima facie to have been doctored, using an older Tweet. Creating a fake Tweet (by editing the rendered HTML or even photoshop) is very simple indeed. Moreover, even deleted tweets are still accessible when searching Twitter's Application Programming Interface, which is then made available through third parties (although they should respect deletions, they often slip through). I'm not able to find any it anywhere.

This neatly illustrates the minefield of using what we termed 'SOCMINT' (social media intelligence). Online information is extremely useful, but scepticism is always required: especially with screen-grabs. Although many angrily re-tweeted it and even tried to alert new outlets, there were plenty of others ready to investigate: both an anti-EDL group and programmer came to the same conclusion as me independently. Perhaps the EDL admins are more technically skilled than I give them credit for, and the URL date discrepancy can be explained. In that case, I'll correct this article as soon as I can. I'm not interested in defending the EDL, but little good comes from spreading falsehoods. The EDL, in my experience, say enough offensive things of their own accord: there is little need - or excuse - to make any up.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2205834 2012-12-04T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-03T05:12:01-05:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
But technology can and frequently does change our relationship with the each other and society. It can disrupt and unsettle quite finely balanced moral decisions that we make, and not always for the better. It is neither good nor bad, but it is not exactly neutral, either.

Let us take a topical example. There is growing evidence that 'hate speech' online is growing quickly: including sustained, targeted attacks on individuals and groups. A number of UK charities have started recording speech online - most recently the 'Tell MAMA' initiative. I've experienced some myself, particularly when I debated the US shock jock conspiracy theorist Alex Jones about 9/11. This is my favourite:

"This guy, Jamie Bartlett, is a DICK! I'm ashamed to say he is British. His kind are not popular in this country - he is what we call a twat. The fact that his twat-ism is funded makes it even worse. I'm the calmest, most chilled out person ever, but I feel an overwhelming urge to KICK THE SHIT OUT OF HIM IF HE EVER SHOWS HIS FACE AROUND MY ENDS. C*NT." (Asterix added by me)

That has 16 'thumbs up', by the way.

Of course, hate speech has always existed: but there is a growing branch of psychologists who specialize in 'cyber psychology', and believe that the technology itself might be partly causing this sort of thing: not because it gives a platform for views people already have, but because the anonymity, physical distance and speed of communication of social media encourages us to behave in ways we would not do offline. They call this 'online disinhibition effect', and would say that the chap above - the 'most chilled out person ever' remember - is displaying it. This disinhibition effect was first put forward in 1995, when the psychologist John Suler studied the behaviour of participants in chat rooms and found they tended to be aggressive and angry, ignoring social rules and norms at play offline.

Pretty simple stuff, and no doubt confirms a thousand hunches. But many think online disinibition is important is understanding trolling, cyberbullying, and online racism. I have no doubt there will be a lot of bunk and bluster in this new discipline, and plenty of groundless claims based on anecdotes gleaned from Comment is Free threads. But this phenomenon is obviously important. The comment from my new friend above is fairly harmless: for some other people, such as the 15 year old Canadian girl who committed suicide following a sustained campaign of online harassment it is tragically serious, and deserves serious academic attention.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2166037 2012-11-21T19:00:00-05:00 2013-01-21T05:12:01-05:00

Jamie Bartlett http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-bartlett/
Of course, I'm simplifying positions to render my own appear more reasonable, but something is definitely missing: that technology sometimes changes the nature of jurisprudence: and forcing offline law to cover online spaces is disrupting legal concepts and enforceability. The law cannot act entirely at odds with social norms, and those norms are being reshaped by technology.

Take the concept of 'public', which is at the heart of much of the recent bother. Simply put: certain things are illegal in public but not in private. You can be racist in your home in front of your family, even to a small group of likeminded people in a pub. But you cannot grab hold of a public address system and start spewing race hate. Similarly, you might accuse someone of being a paedophile to a friend, but broadcasting that on television is quite a different matter.

So what is Twitter? Recent judgments suggest it is public. Journalists, such as David Aaranovitch in his 10 golden rules of Twitter, appear to be taking a similar tack and so does the government. But this is not strictly true. First, many Twitter users have their tweets as private: only viewable by their followers. Automated data mining software might be able to find them, but they are by any reasonable measure, private.

However, one of your followers might re-tweet your original missive: and suddenly your private chat becomes a public statement in a way never intended. I do not think someone else repeating what you say makes it a public statement at all - but the interface of Twitter, the way it appears on the screen - doesn't lend itself to that interpretation.

Then there is the platform itself: its speed, limited characters, gossipy nature: all lend an air of insignificant to content. People often report things they disagree with but find of interest, without endorsing it: sarcasm is a popular currency. In fact, it can even be helpful: during the 2011 summer riots, looters using Twitter to incite riots/post pictures of their loot were re-tweeted by citizen watchdogs in the hope the police might notice, and to preserve the incriminating content.

It gets even more complicated, because a number of cases are being brought against algorithm writers for the auto-complete: a former first lady of Germany is suing Google because if you type her name the word 'prostitute' comes up as a prompt. As Google argued, they merely catalogue other people's content - so take it up with them. Lord McAlpine was trending on Twitter, and many people were simply reporting that fact (thereby making it more likely to trend, incidentally).

Of course, much of Twitter is public, and is intended to be. The root of the problem is that we suddenly have 10million Twitter users subject to quite complicated publishing law that used to only apply to a small number of trained journalists with legal support. Clearly everyone at school now needs a crash course in publishing law - as they are likely to one day be subject to it. 'Twitter made me do it' is of course not a defence. But 'Twitter made it a lot easier for me to do it, it was taken out of context, and frankly, I didn't really know exactly what I was doing' ought certainly be a mitigating factor.]]>