It’s been a bad day for social media

Jeremy Wagstaff   |  Mon, 05/18/2009 10:43 AM  |  Sci-Tech

You may be forgiven for thinking I’m a fan of social media, and, in particular, Twitter.

Headlines like “Twitter: the future of news” and “Twitter, the best thing since the invention of the thong” may have given the misleading impression I thought Twitter was a good thing.

In which case I apologize. The truth is I think Twitter is bumping up against its limits. It’s possibly
just a speed bump, but it’s a bump nonetheless.

The problem as I see it is that we thought that social media would scale. In other words, we thought that the more people got involved, the more the crowd would impose its wisdom.

We saw it happen sometimes: Wikipedia, for example, is a benign presence because it (usually, and eventually) forces out the rubbish and allows good sense and quality to take control.
But it doesn’t always work.

Take, for example, Twitter.

Twitter works great for geeky stuff. Fast moving news like an iPhone launch.

And, in some cases, news. Take earthquakes. Twitterers — and their local equivalents — beat traditional news to the Sichuan (and the less famous Grimsby) earthquakes last year.

But these may be exceptions.

When stories get more complex, social media doesn’t always work. The current swine flu scare, for example, is highlighting how rumor and, frankly, stupidity can drown out wisdom and good sense. As well as traditional reporting media.

Twitter, you see, allows you to monitor not just the output of those people you “follow” – i.e., whose updates you receive – but also to track any update that includes a keyword.

Follow “swineflu” and you get a glimpse into an abyss of ignorance and lame humor.

At the time of writing this, tweets on swine flu – updates from Twitter, from someone, somewhere containing the words – are appearing at the rate of more than one a second.

Most of these updates are, to put it charitably, less than helpful:

“31 minutes past my appointment time, still sitting in doc’s waiting room, probably inhaling pure
swine flu.”

The humor is poor:

“If swine flu is only passed on by dirty animals I’ll be ok but I feel sorry for my ex-wife!”

Viral marketing campaign: “Swine Flu … it’s the next SARS!”

Amid the noise is the occasional plea for usable information:

“Can someone tell me how to avoid swine flu? I really don’t want to
get it.”

Some of it is weird:

“Your ad on my swine flu mask. Live/work on Chicago’s northside. Will wear mask at all times when outdoors. No joke. [Message] me if interested.”

I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised about this.

Twitter is a wonderful way to share information. It is immediate and undiscriminating. Anyone can contribute, and a BBC tweet looks exactly the same as a tweet from that guy who lives next door who always has a toothpick in his mouth. It’s a great leveler.

So we believed — and still believe — that it’s a sort of global brain: A way to distribute news and information without censorship and without regard to the importance of the twitterer.

Which is fine if it’s an eyewitness account of a terrorist attack or an earthquake.

But with a potential pandemic it’s just an epidemic of noise.

Some argue it’s fostering panic. Evgeny Morozov of the Open Society Institute writes on the Foreign Policy website that: “The ‘swine flu’ meme has [shown] so far that misinformed and panicking people armed with a platform to broadcast their fears are likely to produce only more fear, misinformation and panic.”

I’m not sure that panic is the right word for what is going on. After all, nearly every mainstream media outlet has put swine flu atop its bulletin for the past few days, so it’s actually not surprising.

Panic’s not the word. I’d say it’s more like a babble of noise — most of it poor attempts at humor — which drowns out the useful stuff.

One of the tenets of social media is that the more people involved, the smarter everyone gets. But Twitter doesn’t always work that way.

Twitter is a stream. A waterfall of words. Great if you’re just gazing, but not if you’re looking for information.

The sad thing is that amid that tweet-a-second cascade are all the links necessary to understand what is going on.

They’re just not being heard.

Sometimes the system works. A good example is what happened in Austin, Texas, when word spread on Twitter earlier this month of a gunman atop a bar. Within half an hour the local newspaper, the Austin American-Statesman, was updating its Twitter feed with the news. An hour or so later the paper was not only carrying what the police were saying, it was actively countering twitter reports of hostages being taken, and of someone getting shot, by saying what the police were
not saying.

The reporter involved Robert Quigley, wrote on a blog that “once we confirmed what was actually happening, the rumors stopped flying (or at least slowed down).

“This is not meant to embarrass anyone — tweets from the public are what often alert us to news events, and they many times have been accurate and excellent reports.”

“But in a case like this one, having a journalist who has access to the police and the habit of verifying information is valuable. It did turn out that the guy did not have a gun, and police now say he was never in danger of harming himself or others.”

This worked, because it was a responsible journalist who understood the medium. More importantly, the volume was not that great, so his voice prevailed.

This isn’t, so far, happening, with swine flu. There are news sites posting links to informed stories. And there’s the Centers for Disease Control, with its own twitter feed. (http://twitter.com/cdcemergency, if you’re interested.)

The problem: They’re only updating the feed every hour, meaning that for every tweet they’re sending out, there are about 4,000 other tweets out there.

In other words, it’s a problem of scale. Twitter works well when there are clearly authoritative voices that prevail. Perhaps when the weekend hubbub dies down, this will be the case with swine flu.

Arguably, Twitter has done its job, because a lot of folk probably heard about the story not through traditional media but through their friends making lame jokes about it.

But I think, for now, this can’t be considered a victory for social media.

 

(c) 2009 Loose Wire Pte Ltd


This story cannot be reproduced without written permission from the writer. Jeremy Wagstaff is a commentator on technology and appears regularly on the BBC World Service. He can be found online at jeremywagstaff.com or via email at jeremy@loose-wire.com

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.