The cheapening of discourse

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 14/10/2023 (729 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Sometimes, a single social media post sends you a wake-up call — and that wake-up call is that the world is a more bitter and hateful place than you can imagine.

For me, it was an experience on Twitter two weeks ago.

(I’m going to call it Twitter in this column, rather than “X,” its new chosen name, because in its communications with me, the company still identifies itself as Twitter, complete with the familiar little blue bird icon.)

Here’s the tweet I sent: “When Sask Premier Scott Moe chose to use the words ‘judicial overreach’ to condemn a court decision (read it) on the nebulous and uncodified concept of parent’s rights, the signal he was sending was clear. He’s joined the hard right.”

The idea that Moe is trending more towards the right is hardly a groundbreaking opinion.

After all, the children’s rights issue Moe now wants to cancel out in Saskatchewan using the notwithstanding clause was put in place by … Moe’s own Saskatchewan Party, two years after it became government in 2007.

That’s when it adopted Saskatchewan’s Children’s Advocate’s first principles, which include “those rights defined by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.” (Just one of the problems of being a party in power for 16 years or so and having your own record hanging around your legislative neck.)

But that’s neither here nor there.

At this point, that tweet has been viewed more than 41,800 times, with, at last count, 511 comments, roughly half of them hostile. Some suggested reporting me to the RCMP and having the police search my computer. Others wanted me fired. Plenty just made oblique and not-that-oblique references to child grooming and pedophilia.

But there were two that got my particular attention.

“Hey groomer, go f—- yourself! You’re not going to be f—-ing children under (Moe’s) watch, and parents are going to keep him in power for life now! Someone shut these pedophiles up already!” wrote a self-professed family man in sales from Saskatchewan.

Another kind Twitter user took my photograph from my profile, and posted it in the form of a “wanted” poster, with the caption “You might be a pedo if…”

While I found those two deeply disturbing, I also thought they’d be an excellent test case for finding out what Twitter’s limits were.

So I reported them both, and waited to see the response.

Twitter’s answer? “We’re writing to let you know that after reviewing the available information, we didn’t find a violation of our rules in the content you reported.”

Neither of those deeply offensive, libellous attacks constituted a violation of Twitter’s community standards — simply put, such attacks have their stamp of approval.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

There is a simple solution. X already moderates content, deciding what can and can’t be on its site. It takes an active role in making those decisions. It also amplifies individual tweets through its “For You” algorithm. In other words, it’s not just providing a space — it’s deciding both what to publish and what prominence to give what it publishes.

Since Twitter has such an active hand, make it legally and financially responsible for what it publishes (along with the original tweeters of offensive material) and watch how diligent the company becomes in weeding out libel and defamation.

That’s what the media already does, with things like letters to the editor — I’ve handled op-ed and letters pages for years, and not only am I keenly aware that the newspapers I’ve worked for are legally responsible for the opinion pieces we carry, but I’ve also had legal training precisely in what can be published, and what can’t. (And still, I’ve gotten it wrong on occasion.)

One interesting aside? Since the growth of social media, there’s been a remarkable cheapening of discourse, even in the submission of letters to the editor. I’m now unable to run plenty of letters that start well, but then turn the corner and start talking about “Turdeau” or “Pedo Justin” or countless other libellous comments about, well, just about anyone.

To be clear about this, I’m in favour of freedom of speech — what I’m not in favour of is people who believe freedom of speech means there can be no personal consequences for what they choose to say.

I’ll leave you with this simple thought: if someone posted a wanted poster of Elon Musk, captioned, “You might be a pedo if…” would that be a violation of Twitter’s community standards?

I’m absolutely certain it would be. And if it is, the concept of freedom of speech on that platform is merely part of the divine right of a billionaire deciding what he’d like you to see.

Russell Wangersky is the Comment Editor of the Free Press. He can be reached at russell.wangersky@freepress.mb.ca