I have written an essay for the University of Glasgow Social Sciences Hub on the role of social media in protests and disorder in divided societies. In the piece, I reflect on something I wrote about the 2011 English riots and consider how online platforms are used by citizens to frame contentious issues. I argue that the indirect effects of online incivility seen during divisive events can be detrimental for efforts to promote peace and reconciliation in divided societies.
Thanks to Andrew MacIver for the help in publishing this. It can be read in full here and you can buy a copy of Digital Contention in a Divided Society here.
We discussed the privacy concerns raised in relation to Threads, whether it can replace the immediacy and news of Twitter, and what politicians hope to gain from setting up accounts on the new platform.
A few selected quotes are below:
On the future for Twitter if Threads continues to grow in popularity:
“I do wonder if it doesn’t have the key functionality of Twitter, which is to break news and tofollow things, and that’s hashtag focused. To me, it probably has a limit in terms of how manypeople will give up on Twitter completely and move there. Unless Twitter does collapse and maybe that does happen“.
On whether people will migrate from Twitter to Threads in large numbers:
“I think it’s harder to pack up and move an entire group of people there [..] Particularly when they’re used to the kind of rhythms of Twitter and whether it’s following events or following things which are breaking“.
On why politicians might sign up to Threads:
“But there is a question mark there about these platforms, it’s as if almost every politician or party has to be on them because they think that’s where they’re going to reach younger people“
Yesterday I participated in a segment on BBC Radio Ulster Talkback about the future of Twitter under Elon Musk. Presented by William Crawley, I joined Brenda Gough and Andrew Pierce to discuss the future of microblogging site in the wake of users leaving for sites like Mastodon. We also how the moderation rules on non-profit sites compare to Twitter.
You can listen to the segment here (it begins at 38:29 and finishes at 56:51).
Many thanks to William, Claire and the Talkback team for the invitation to participate.
Bored Panda interview about how people share content on social media
I was interviewed by Ieva Gailiūtė for Lithuanian publication Bored Panda this week. We discussed why people share things on social media without checking their accuracy, and the negative impacts of people being shamed for historic posts.
Some quotes from the interview are below:
When asked why social media users often share their thoughts without thinking twice, Dr. Reilly explained the design of online platforms encourages instant responses and reactions. “The stories, images and posts that feature prominently in our social media timelines are often the most likely to elicit emotional responses from us.”
“The ‘publish then filter’ model of these sites also means our opinions are published immediately with no cooling off period for us to consider whether we want to post them or not,” he added.
When asked whether our online contributions always become permanent, Dr. Reilly told us, “Yes and No. It’s true that social media posts are no longer your property when you share them publicly, or even privately given that they can be shared by others. Even on encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Snapchat, people can take screenshots of content deleted by others and share them later.”
“However, there needs to be a motivation for someone to do this,” he continued. “This is why we see so many politicians being shamed for historic (and often deleted) social media posts. The consequences can be severe, ranging from embarrassment, reputational harm, people losing jobs and even worse.” Especially because sometimes, digital content can be made permanent in ways we never imagined. The posts can be changed, modified, or altered into something completely different from what they originally intended to be.
“People should ideally verify the information before they share it, but many don’t,” he said. “However, it should also be noted that people are better at detecting ‘fake news’ and disinformation than they are often given credit for.”
So even when we can essentially say whatever we want online — whether it’s objectively true or not — and not really have very serious consequences for it, we should all strive to make social media a better place. “Read the story before you share it. Satisfy yourself that it is based on an authoritative source. If it makes you feel an extreme emotion then be wary — this is often a sign that it is disinformation designed to polarize audiences,” Dr. Reilly concluded.
Many thanks to Ieva for the invitation. The article can be read here
Elon Musk floated the idea to charge governments and companies on the microblogging site
Yesterday I was interviewed by Roberto Perrone on BBC Three Counties Radio about Elon Musk’s proposal to charge commercial companies and governments to use the platform. I raised some questions about the desirability and feasibility of Musk’s plan to make algorithms open source, authenticate humans and remove bots, and whether users might leave the site if these charges are introduced.
Thanks to Rob, Usman, and the BBC Three Counties Radio team for the interview.
Yesterday I was interviewed by Elise Evans on BBC Radio WM Breakfast about social media and ‘fake news’ during the Ukrainian conflict. This was in response to a report that footage from a disaster movie filmed in Birmingham had been used on social media to suggest the war was a hoax.
We discussed what online platforms are doing to deal with ‘fake news’ and how we can identify false images and videos circulating online.
Thanks to Elise, Louise, Megan and the BBC Radio WM team for the interview.
Interviewed by Egan Richardson, YLE News (Finland) about Facebook and polarisation
This week I was interviewed by Egan Richardson for the All Points North podcast on YLE News (Finland). In light of the decision by YLE News to stop comments on its Facebook posts, we discussed the role of social media platforms in amplifying polarisation and the efficacy of their responses to problems such as hate speech and misinformation. I argued that online platforms often engage in PR exercises to deal with issues such as hate speech and misinformation. Self-regulation is an insufficient policy response to online harms.
A blogpost summarising the interview can be read here and the audio can be accessed here (the segment begins around 16:30).
Many thanks to Egan for the invitation and the interesting chat- great to see a former #digiadvocate doing so well in their career!
Yesterday I was interviewed by Andy Twigge on Breakfast on BBC Radio Derby about social media and ‘fake news’. This was in response to a photoshopped image of a road sign in Burton which had circulated on Facebook, before being reported in national media outlets like the Daily Mail and the Mirror. We discussed the reasons why people share ‘fake news’, how we should respond to this, and whether we need a ‘cooling off’ period before posting content online.
Thanks to Andy, Jonathan and the BBC Radio Derby team for the interview. It can be accessed here
Yorkshire Post special issue on COVID-19, 30 January 2021.
I was interviewed last week for an article that appeared in Saturday’s edition of the Yorkshire Post. As part of their special news report to mark the anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was asked to comment on the impact of misinformation on vaccine hesitancy, and the reasons why people may believe false information about the virus and its treatment.
Article on misinformation and impact on vaccine take-up
The article can be read here. Many thanks to Geri Scott for her time and the interview.
Image of protesters at Capitol Building, Washington D.C, 6 January 2021
Yesterday I was interviewed by Stephen Jones (Press Association) about Donald Trump’s role in amplifying disinformation about the 2020 US Presidential Election. We discussed a variety of issues, including the rise of the right-wing information ecosystem in the US, how social media companies like Facebook have responded to disinformation campaigns, and Trump’s use of online platforms to question the credibility of the 2020 US Election result.
Thanks to Stephen for the interview, which can be read in the following publications:
Dr Paul Reilly 