The Narrative Prevails?

Yesterday saw the March 26 demonstrations, a half-a-million strong anti-cuts march across London. The route, organised by the TUC in conjunction with the Met Police, was stuck to by the vast majority of people. It was peaceful, successful, and very well policed.

These protests were advertised as a family-friendly event, and that it was. The police upped their game, allowing Liberty (the legal observers for this event) into their control rooms. The TUC had employed stewards to co-operate with and assist the police. All fine, and commendable behaviour.

The Plot Thickens

Now famously, the BBC cut away from Ed Miliband’s speech to show a group (whom had diverted from the main protest group) deploying hit and run tactics, smashing windows of banks and the Ritz hotel. Sky News did a similar tactic, and the #shameOnBBC and #shameOnSky hashtags quickly did the rounds on Twitter. The nature of 24-hour news means such action was inevitable. Editors at the BBC (and Sky, in theory) must balance the need for a fair, representative coverage events with being the first to break the story. In this case, I think the BBC made an incorrect decision – and they knew it. The BBC were largely fair and representative outside of these ‘breaking news’ events, continually stressing that the ‘Black Bloc’ protestors were an extremely small minority, however, which is worth pointing out here.

When the Black Bloc broke off, suddenly the news coverage was covering two events. This later again became confused with a third simultaneous protest – that of UK Uncut’s occupations of tax-avoiding companies, including a secret occupation. At the speed these events were unfolding, it became difficult for the media to portray and understand what exactly was going on. UK Uncut’s secret occupation turned out to be at Fortnum and Mason. The store was inundated with occupiers. Video footage from the event showed that, from the inside, the occupation was largely peaceful (although no doubt extremely stressful and scary for the shoppers caught in the middle).

In came the riot cops. The entrance was blocked, with many of the UK Uncut activists being photographed, cuffed and arrested. UK Uncut is a peaceful, although sporadic and chaotic movement – a fact many on Twitter defended. Look at previous footage – they don’t destroy, they occupy and educate.

The narrative was blurred even further. The Black Bloc became confused with the UK Uncut activists at Fortnum and Mason, and additionally with the large rave going on at Trafalgar Square, organised as a 24-hour protest by the Education Activist Network. The police made 201 arrests (141 of which were at Fortnum and Masons), although the crowds at Trafalgar Square weren’t cleared until 2:45am.

Protestors I knew managed to break the police lines and escape via Charing Cross station. Others weren’t so lucky and were kept within the containment zone. The police were very often surrounded, and attacked. They also did their fair share of fighting too. Footage shows questionable force used for an arrest that I can’t seem to justify from the context of the video. Policing an operation of such a scale, with such variance is inevitably going to be hard work.

2 Cents

In my (outsider) view, the police didn’t do enough to remove the Black Bloc threat early on. Aerial photographs from the rolling news cameras showed the police attempting action, and retreating. The Black Bloc movement was highly mobile, violent and evidently difficult to police. I have no doubts in my mind their actions were deliberate to avoid being caught in a kettle. Whilst I condemn their actions, it is not them, nor the police who are the real enemies. There was violence on both sides, a riot cop punched a woman in the face live on BBC News. The Police would do well to remember they work for the people, something demonstrated in Wisconsin, where the police joined the protest. Questions will be raised about the kettling tactic again. It does not work.

That said, I also disagree with the new style of protesting brought in by the Blair Government – that of shuffling down a pre-arranged route in an orderly queue. That’s why there were simultaneous protests, each in solidarity over the government’s cuts. The protestors have a right to protest. With hindsight, it is clear that smashed windows and graffiti mean nothing to heavily-insured multinational conglomerations – although the images last. These images will (but shouldn’t) detract from the TUC’s message. They do not detract from the sheer anger people from all demographics are expressing towards the Tory’s purely ideological cuts.

Of course, the course of events has put the alternative message back on the defensive. Yesterday, the Tories could only muster Francis Maude and Matthew Sinclair to defend the establishment on BBC News. Francis Maude warned we should be wary of placing the blame for the deficit on one person, whilst in the same sentence blaming it on Gordon Brown. Am I back in May 2010?! Matthew Sinclair, head of the TaxPayer’s Alliance (a supposedly neutral pressure group, but in reality a group of out-of-touch Tory rent-a-quotes) belittled the protest, calling it a folly and out of touch with the vast majority of the public.

The strategy undertaken by the Tories is to claim there is no alternative to their cuts. Yesterday, this argument was shattered. Whilst political parties and unions are still devising their concrete alternatives, hundreds of thousands showed that there is another way. Whilst initial news reports indicate the Government don’t intend to change their course of action, I believe that change is in the air. As the new tax year starts and the brunt of the cuts begins to bite, more and more people will lose their jobs. More and more will become poorer, watching big businesses get richer as starving the beast reduces their taxes. This anger will surely be felt at the ballot box, but public opinion goes further than that. The Government will no doubt be aware of a growing movement against them. They’re only adding fuel to the fire.

For those who say protest doesn’t work, I direct you to the civil rights movement, and to the revolutions in the Middle East. To those who say protest doesn’t work in this country, I direct you to the poll tax riots, to the Suffragettes. The 26th of March march was bigger than the poll tax riots. Protesting is in our nature.

Things You Should Definitely Do On Facebook

In some parallel universe, all of the following are considered socially acceptable.

Comment and Wall Confusion

You know when someone posts a status update? Why not use this as a convenient time to recognise they actually exist by posting some irrelevant and mundane comment? Bonus points if you interrupt a comment chain during a conversation. Forget writing on their wall, where that stuff should actually go, that’s too many clicks away, and there’s a data limit to deal with!

“Checking In”

Why not update all your friends on your exact location and current activities by “checking in” on Facebook? Everybody gives a shit about what you’re getting up to, all the time. They’re just sitting there (at home, obviously. Probably crying and simultaneously masturbating because they’re not as popular as you) and just waiting to comment on your every move.

Even better, if you’re one of those people who has everything public, applications using the Facebook Graph API can see where you are too!

Spam Posts

Posting spam to your wall accidentally, say, if some rogue app got installed, is for losers. You should be publishing everything that every application you use wants you to publish. That’s just how we roll, we like to know what fun things you’re doing while we sit and eat and stalk people’s profiles. We’re all waiting for the call to arms to visit your fucking farm. Don’t bother creating friend lists so that your application wall posts are only seen by people who are genuinely interested, that’s just a waste of time. Imagine how many flowers you could have planted in that time!

Abusing Your Friend’s Trust

There is nothing funnier than somebody logging into your profile and saying you love anal sex. Decades of the LGBT community desperately trying to become less and less prejudiced against is just forgotten with that clearly well-written piece of wit. Every time it cracks me up, honestly.

Regardless of the cause, I love it when you create a group and invite me into it. I’ve pretty much given my permission anyway, what with their being no way to turn this off by default. It fills me with joy when I hear my phone chime every 2 minutes with every successive wall post on the group. All those people who become suddenly hostile to your cause to raise money for a charity are just freaks of nature, right? Weirdos.

Remember how I said I love it when people check in to places? It’s even better when you tag your friends too. Especially when they’re going to be away from the Internet for a while so they can’t remove the tag and we can all have a good lol about it. It’s just funny when they change their relationship status to single because you checked them into their girlfriend’s sister’s bed.

Seriously

Some of these annoyances, such as people starting a wall conversation on a status update and application wall posts, are a mixture of idiocy and poor usability design. Checking in to locations and updating status/profile picture/photo albums every five minutes is nothing more than a desperate plea for attention.

People create groups for genuine reasons, such as raising money for charity. The constant spam in those groups, coupled with Facebook’s “everything on by default” standard settings makes people instantly hostile to your cause (the lack of ability to disallow people inviting you to a group is disgraceful, by the way). Again, the frustration here is a mixture of bad UI design, idiocy and ignorance/oversight.

The worst abuse of trust is when people decide to take your information into their hands. Again, Facebook’s standard settings allow your friends to check you into locations, and allow their applications access to some of your personal information. That can be misjudged as you acknowledging the share. Facebook rape is so common that it takes something truly creative for anybody to find it funny anymore *, and I’m really surprised more people haven’t added the check-in scenario I posted above to their utility belts.

Privacy Is Key

Tom Scott showed us what is possible using publicly-available personal information from Facebook, and I’m sure that’s on the moderate side of what the Graph API can open. The main principle to abide by is if it’s public, Google can see it. Try googling your phone number, or even your name (if it’s sufficiently uncommon). Employers can look at that, they can see your drunk photographs, and it will affect your employment prospects. Have a look through your privacy settings and keep information private where necessary – and try to make looking through those settings a monthly/bi-monthly habit. Here’s some ones you should probably turn off.

In terms of reducing the amount of nonsense you see on your wall, I highly recommend the Fluff Busting Purity extension, which is available for Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. It sits quietly in the background and filters out annoyances. It is fully user-customisable so you can moderate exactly how the tool works, and even remove some ads. WIN.

* I in no way condone Facebook rape (and I also believe the use of ‘rape’ does no good into affecting how we as a culture perceive the severity of actual rape) and in fact might be a crime under the Computer Misuse Act 1990; but the most ingenious one I’ve seen is to change somebody’s birthday to two day’s time. As this e-card perfectly sums up, people don’t bother fact-checking or questioning what they see:

AV Referendum: Yes or No, But Don’t Abstain!

The Alternate Vote system is currently used by Scottish and Northern Ireland by-elections, although you may be more accustomed to its workings in the Labour leadership contest. Londoners use an offspring of the AV (Instant Runoff) system called the Supplementary Vote to elect the Mayor of London. On May 5th, a referendum will be held, asking the following question:

“At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?”

The campaigns have kicked off, with the polls showing that it’s still pretty neck and neck.

I’m Voting Yes

Looking at the election data from the 2010 General Election, notice the following:

• Conservatives, 36%, 307 seats won.
• Labour, 29%, 258 seats won.
• Liberal Democrats, 23%, 57 seats won.

The first thing I notice is that the difference between 23% and 29% is 201 seats. The Conservatives have the major power advantage in the Coalition Government, outranking Lib Dems by over 5:1. It is for this reason that Labour have recently been calling the government Tory-led. To look at why this is happening, it is important to understand that Labour has traditionally held strong vote shares in urban constituencies; the opposite being true for the Conservatives. Looking at the proportional map on the BBC site I linked to above highlights this for the 2010 data. The Lib Dem support is more spread out, meaning that it translates less of its vote share into seats. This is why I believe that a proportional system is needed.

But wait, AV isn’t PR! You’re right - it’s not. The No2AV campaign, when they’re not releasing misleading statistics and publishing offensive and plain incorrect adverts, make the point that people are only using this referendum as a springboard to change the voting system to some Proportional Representation system (there are many). I think that is quite a reasonable statement actually.

The process of evolution involves making small, incremental changes, which over a longer period time constitute a larger-scale change. The phrase “Rome was not built in a day” comes to mind. The AV voting system is certainly not proportional, but it means that in any constituency the person elected can command an actual majority (i.e over 50%).

Under First Past The Post, the majority wins. Consider the Cardiff North constituency, which in the 2010 election voted as follows:

• Conservative – 37.5%
• Labour – 37.1%
• Liberal Democrat – 18.3%
• Others – 7.1%

The Conservatives won with a majority of 0.4%. In FPTP that’s a seat to the Tories, even though 62.5% of the constituency did not vote for Jonathan Evans. It’s hard to predict what the results would have been under any other voting system (and be dubious of anyone who tries!), but regardless, it is clear that FPTP is not giving us “strong, stable governments”, but the illusion of such.

That is why I will be voting yes – sure, it’s not the voting system I want, but it’s miles better than what we’ve got.

The Real Message: Get Out and Vote!

Regardless of your voting intentions, whether you agree with me, or David Allen Green’s New Statesman post on why he’s voting no; please vote. Don’t abstain. National-level referendums are rare, and they’re a chance for your own voice to be heard in Parliament, regardless of which party ‘represents’ your constituency. Don’t just join the #mehtoAV crowd, please use this opportunity. This referendum will affect the future of our Parliament. If we all abstained then we’d never get a referendum again (that’ll piss of the right-wingers who want a referendum on Europe!).

And hey, if Yes wins, you can still vote FPTP style under AV .

Not Giving Them Money

New Statesman blogger Steven Baxter, or as he’s also known, Anton Vowl, recently published a post called “Don’t Click on the Daily Mail!”. The crux of the argument is that the Daily Mail (and they are by no means alone in this) encourage millions of webpage views using a utility-belt of tactics, and we should avoid them at all cost. Some of these tactics are:

• Flamebaitery – Offensive columnists such as Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Phillips and Jan Moir attack homosexuals for being in public, dead and homosexual. Outrage drives page views.
  
• Lots of pictures – Oh my this is offensive! Let’s post lots of pictures to show you how offensive this is from every angle! Oh yeah, the offensive thing might be underage, too. Or it might be an upskirt shot that was kicking about on our image database.
  
• Celebrity Drivel – Whether they dye their hair, or you have an image of a thin woman who you want to call fat – all of it builds up into traffic-heavy non-stories.
  
• Insult Muslims – Unfortunately, these stories are far too common, far too contrived and far too easily believed by bigots. Idiots shout the loudest, and it all contributes to their traffic.
  
• Insult Facebook – At least 10% of the Mail’s traffic comes from Facebook. It is a massive revenue stream, but it’s something their older readership won’t necessarily use or understand, so it makes perfect sense to say it gives you cancer (like a lot of things, apparently). That’s one way to get a news article to virally spread across a social network!

I hate to say it, but they know what they’re doing and it’s paying for them big-style. But can we fight back? I’d like to summarise some of the tools out there that you can employ to starve their revenue streams, have a laugh at them, and avoid them altogether.

Journalism Warning Labels

Tom Scott created a set of warning labels that can be printed and stuck onto newspapers. The Newscrud tool lets you add these to websites! You can even attach a rebuking blog post or information source, which is awesome. This then gives you a newscrud link which you can send to peers, rather than the plain old Daily Mail link. However, I think this still links to the Daily Mail within an iframe, but there’s a way around that too.

Istyotsy

Istyotsy lets you view the Daily Mail, Daily Express etc by proxy. Istyotsy stores a copy (a cache) of their articles on their own servers, and provide an istyotsy web link you can use. When this link is accessed, the cached version of the article is displayed, rather than going off to the original source every time. This reduces the number of page views to one! Huzzah!

When an istyotsy link is combined with newscrud link (give the istyotsy link to newscrud; the other way around won’t work) – you attack the weak point for massive damage.

Furthermore, Istyotsy strips adverts, doesn’t perform tracking, doesn’t index to search engines like Google and Bing; so cuts off as many page view streams as possible.

AdBlock and Tracking Cookies

The AdBlock extension for Firefox and Chrome is amazing. It pre-filters web pages to reduce the amount of adverts you see online. The built-in filters work well and are regularly updated. You can create custom filters, and even make exceptions. It’s worth getting for general internet browsing.

Advert revenue can be generated in several ways:

• Revenue is paid on a per-click basis.
  
• Revenue is paid per page view.
  
• Both of the above.

AdBlock reliably denies click revenue, but won’t stop page revenue unless the adverts perform some clever trickery to check if they’re not being displayed; which is why I’ve previously suggested istyotsy .

Next up are tracking cookies. Cookies are essentially text files which store information that websites can use. Cookies are the basis of how your shopping basket is stored, or how you can automatically login to websites. They’re not evil, but can be exploited to perform tracking of your web browsing sessions. Tracking isn’t always malicious either, a website may want to track which products you’re viewing to suggest recommendations. Tracking cookies can also go and look across web sites, or even across multiple uses of your web browser. Some search engines do this to improve their search listings.

Your web browser’s options has cookie-related preferences so you can tweak how cookies are handled. If you have the option to clear all data when you close your web browser, do it. You can turn off cookies altogether, but it becomes annoying as you then have to log in to every website manually. It’s a trade-off that can take a bit of tweaking to get right, or you can get extensions to help you .

Google has released advertising opt-out cookie extensions (here and here), and the Disconnect extension for Chrome automatically blocks the big players. This can go a long way to stop websites gaining information from you which can be used to their advantage.

When In Doubt, Laugh

Comedian Chris Coltrane launched the Polljack twitter account, which suggested to its legion of followers various Daily Mail polls to hijack, for the sheer fun of it. This often produced hillarious consequences; but be warned, the Polljack account was retired after Chris realised this was driving ad revenue to them.

Abstinence

For times when someone gives you a plain old Daily Mail link, you have the choice to click or not click. I always advise not clicking, but what if you do? Don’t worry, I have your back.

Chrome users can get the Istyotsy Chrome extension, which automatically displays the article through their proxy. Handy.

Firefox users can get the Tea and Kittens extension, which automatically redirects you to teaandkittens.co.uk if you try and visit the Daily Mail or Daily Express. I hope more newspapers are added soon!

Conclusion

If you’ve made it this far, I hereby declare you King / Queen / Non-Gender-Aligned Monarch of the Internet. You can avoid giving as much money to unregulated, racist, homophobic, ableist, sexist, ill-informed, manipulative scumbags as much as possible, like a boss.

I hope you’ve enjoyed reading this (rather long) post as much as I’ve enjoyed writing it – even with the immense chest pains I’m having right now. I better see to that.

Top Gear’s Racism is Endemic

On the 30th January 2011 edition of Top Gear, Richard Hammond decided it would be funny to stereotype Mexicans as:

“lazy, feckless, flatulent and overweight.”

Clarkson and May then went on to say Mexican food is sick with cheese on it, they stand about doing nothing; and a whole load of other offensive stuff. Complaints were received over the remarks.

An apology was quickly fired off, after threats of legal action by some. Steve Coogan said that stereotyping had gone too far on the show:

"With Top Gear it is three rich, middle-aged men laughing at poor Mexicans. Brave, groundbreaking stuff, eh?”

He’s right, of course. Stereotyping is a quick gag that mercilessly divides a wide range of people into a degraded group based on uninformed nonsense. To say that Mexicans are lazy sticks two fingers up at the fact that in America they are more than prepared to work jobs that others class as “below them”.

What concerns me most about the entire episode is the line of defence the BBC took:

"Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and overdramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being overorganised," it said.

"Whilst it may appear offensive to those who have not watched the programme or who are unfamiliar with its humour, the executive producer has made it clear to the ambassador that that was absolutely not the show's intention."

The BBC said stereotype-based comedy was allowed within its guidelines in programmes during which the audience knew it could be expected.

Whilst this may appear as reasonable as some, it does not to me. The argument being deployed here is a time-travel paradox, which I have blogged about before. Would a new viewer to Top Gear, expecting a light entertainment program about cars, expect the presenters to stereotype to the point of sheer racism? Highly doubt it. Only through the show constantly broadcasting these views does it become “expected”, but this is only reliably held by regular viewers.

I like Top Gear

Here’s the admission part. I like Top Gear,even though it revolves around the following format:

• Review of a car nobody can afford.
  
• A short film featuring repeated set-ups.
  
• Sucking up to a celebrity who is plugging their latest book/film/tv show.

Now I don’t care if it is scripted - you can still admire the music and visuals which are consistently outstanding. Top Gear is also a program that can be easily watched with friends. It knows its demographic and never strays outside of it.

How this is Endemic

The issue I take with Top Gear is that these stereotypical, offensive remarks don’t add anything to the program other than a cheap laugh from the audience. I wouldn’t miss them if they disappeared overnight, and I doubt anyone would in fact notice.

What most concerns me is that I am reminded of ‘Sachsgate’ – the content is very similar – offensive remarks get broadcast. Rather than form an angry lynch mob against the presenters, I ask why this was not left on the editing room floor? All of this content would presumably have been signed off by a superior. We know after the Ross/Brand outrage the BBC had tightened up – why is this stuff still getting through?

That’s the problem that needs to be addressed, rather than using a logical paradox to reinforce the current status quo. It isn’t just a couple of motormouths (like what I did there? ), it’s an institutional failure.

A Bit Of Fun

Because Stewart Lee is awesome, I present to you himself ripping Top Gear to shreds: