When I was at ONI, we analyzed a number of trending topics that were controversial in some way or another and that people were claiming had been censored, including #Flotilla and#Wikileaks. In both cases, we found that, while the problem was likely algorithmic, it did seem odd that Twitter would choose not to interfere and set a genuinely newsworthy event to trend. Nonetheless, none of us felt it to be ‘censorship.’

Despite my work (or perhaps because of it), I find those calls to be somewhat obnoxious. First off, Twitter is a private company that has been transparent about their algorithms, like it or not. And they’re not denying you your right to speech, they’re simply not trending your speech. That’s like complaining about being left off Twitter’s recommended user list (*cough Scoble cough*).

I think there’s a question here though: How much do Trending Topics actually matter? First off, they have to represent one of two things: Either an intentionally-created hashtag (usually created with the purpose of trending) or a genuinely popular person or thing at that moment (e.g., a celebrity who has just died). In the case of the former, I think it’s a legitimate method of trying to get attention for a cause, but I don’t know that getting a hashtag on the sidebar matters all that much in the long run (I’ll elaborate in a moment). In terms of the latter, I think it’s certainly important – I wouldn’t have known when Farrah Fawcett (of Charlie’s Angels fame) died if it weren’t for spotting her name on the sidebar. Seriously.

But back to hashtags – As far as I can recall, #syria never really trended, but that hasn’t stopped people from using it, searching it, saving it as a search term, and following it. On the other hand, the ability of a well-worded tweet to go viral is proven: I once tweeted a pithy statement, only to find it retweeted 22,000 times.

I think that raises a bigger point: Trending Topics do not imply quality of content. There are certain hashtags full of valuable content all the time (think of some of the smaller, humor-focused ones, or even #ows or #occupywallstreet when they first started). Then there are other hashtags repeated ad nauseum for the sole purpose of getting the hashtag to trend – The #GiladShalit campaign and the #Gaza solidarity campaign have both done this at times, for example, filling up single tweets with only the hashtag. If I spot an interesting hashtag and click on it, only to find a bunch of garbage, chances are I’m not going to check back. On the other hand, if I spot a non-trending hashtag filled with quality tweets, I might save it as a search.

My point is that people complain about censorship, and there are certainly some valid criticisms of Twitter’s algorithm (I don’t like, for instance, that it’s different for different cities), but without much analysis of whether Trending a topic is actually that useful.

I would also add that I’ve been at several conferences where the hashtag of the conference trended locally – which really only implies (given that there were fewer than 500 people in attendance) that the cities in which those conferences took place had a low threshold for trending topics.

Lastly, a comment: Twitter does in fact censor profanity from the Trending list. Whether they did this with Jeff Jarvis’s #fuckyouwashington remains unknown, but I do find it rather absurd that a company that prides itself on free expression is for some reason abiding by unrequired FCC guidelines.

Last week, the BBC made the decision not to air an appeal on behalf of the Disasters Emergency Committee for Gaza on the basis that “the BBC’s impartiality was in danger of being damaged.” The BBC’s COO, Caroline Thomson, asked “Could the BBC be sure that money raised for this cause would find its way to the right people?”

Tim Llewellyn, former BBC correspondent in the Middle East, immediately questioned the decision, asking:

How is the BBC’s impartiality to be prejudiced by asking others to raise money for the victims of an act of war by a recognised state, an ally of Britain, using the most lethal armaments it can against a defenceless population? What sly little trigger went off in her head when Thomson questioned whether the aid would reach the right people? What right people? Hamas, the elected representatives of the Palestinian people? The hospitals and clinics run by private charities and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency? The mosques? The citizens of Gaza, persecuted beyond measure not only by their Israeli enemies but by the western powers who arm and sustain Israel and defy the democratic vote of the Palestinian people?

Llewellyn’s comments made it immediately clear that Thomson’s views weren’t representative of the majority of the BBC. And then the venerable Tony Benn managed to get on air and ask for aid anyway:

“I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t think we should give aid to Gaza,” says Benn.

The anchor speaking with Benn repeatedly voices concern that funds could go to Hamas, then asks if Benn thinks the appeal will lose money based on the BBC’s decision. Benn’s answer?
“People will die because of the BBC decision – let me be clear about that. And I started my life 60 years ago as a BBC producer, I love the BBC, I support it. But it has capitulated to Israeli pressure. That’s the truth, I have to tell you.”

If only everyone had so much courage. But perhaps the BBC’s poor judgement will indeed improve the campaign’s reach? As Diana from KABOBfest points out:

It is great that they took the decision not to air it; the lines are becoming clear and the backlash they are getting shows the anger at the lobby. BBC employees don’t want to be accused of caving to the lobby (even though they cave every day). Brits are now refusing to pay their mandatory license fee and BBC is feeling the heat for once.

It’s clear to me that the BBC’s decision is morally wrong and unjustifiable, however, Diana has a point. The BBC has long kowtowed to pressure; As Nigel Fountain points out in an otherwise unintelligible Guardian op-ed, the BBC has been here before. Fountain reminds us of a 1974 airing of a South African apartheid propaganda film on the BBC.

Fundamentally, the problem here is the BBC’s impression that their desire is to remain “neutral.” By implying that they must ignore the humanitarian crisis and the victims in Gaza in order to err on the side of neutrality in fact implies that not offending Israel is more important than helping the over 5,000 injured, and countless who have lost homes or livelihood thanks to Israel’s massacre.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

He didn’t mean that. I truly didn’t wake up on the wrong side of the bed, nor do I want to be cynical, but as the slaughtering of innocents and inducing of terror is coming from our side, from Israel (aren’t they one in the same?) and he has remained hopelessly silent, how can our new President possibly stand there and denounce terror when it is his country’s support which is perpetuating it?

What more can I possibly say? That Michelle, Sasha, and Malia looked lovely? That I’m happy to hold on to my reproductive rights? That I’ve lost hope?

I was one of the truly hopeful. I planned my vote sometime back in 2006, and held tight, and although I never believe he’d be our savior, for a long time I thought this meant real change, even if it came very slowly.

And then he was elected. And then he starting plucking zionists for his cabinet. And then a Secretary of Education with no educational experience. And then on December 27, America’s greatest ally started murdering Palestinians and Obama stayed quiet. He continues to to this day.

I am somehow reminded of this famous statement, associated with the Holocaust:

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

What will it take for our country to stand up against Israel’s state-sanctioned terror?

After failing to figure out how to donate to SARC myself, I began looking into other options. The UNRWA is accepting donations online, so I gave $50 there. The Middle East Children’s Alliance also provides medical aid to Gaza, and credit card donations are simple.

Fortunately for me, I was able to donate to SARC anyway, thanks to a friend who’s behind their web 2.0 initiatives:

(Thanks Anas!)

The call ended shortly because neither of us had anything more we could say.

And amidst all this, while people are losing their homes, their children, their lives, an online war is being waged. Israeli organizations, more likely than not backed by the IDF, are hacking Facebook groups, getting people kicked off Twitter or deleting tweets, and getting YouTube videos taken down. Looking at the big picture, it seems like such a waste of time, but the idea of Israel winning the propaganda war and gaining more support…well, that’s what keeps me going.