Some problems emerge suddenly and are seen immediately in their full awfulness; others grow incrementally, masking their eventual scale until it becomes inescapable.
Online abuse is as old as the internet, just as verbal abuse is as old as humanity. But on this island a particular form of abuse attaches itself to those who write critically about one political party: Sinn Féin.
Three weeks ago I wrote in these pages about Sinn Féin’s dramatic policy shifts and their significance for the party which may lead the next Irish government.
That Sinn Féin has repudiated much of what it once espoused is simply a statement of fact. Some republicans view it as the pragmatism necessary to attain real power; others see it as selling out. But whatever the interpretation of why Sinn Féin has changed, it has changed.
And it’s not just Sinn Féin’s approach to violence which is different.
The party’s revolution is seen in its embrace of capitalism, its support for abortion, its abandonment of hostility towards the EU, its backing for the PSNI and An Garda Síochána, its endorsement of the Special Criminal Court, and in a plethora of other areas.
It’s entirely possible to support Sinn Féin and recognise all those changes. Indeed, many people only support Sinn Féin today because it has abandoned lots of its past stances.
But for many of the party’s online advocates, this was unacceptable. The response was wearily familiar to anyone who writes about Mary Lou McDonald’s party in anything less than reverential terms.
There were various strategies adopted. Anonymous accounts pretended to be terribly disappointed in me — they apparently thought I was a great chap when I was criticising the DUP, until this article opened their eyes to my inalterable bigotry.
This is transparent: Do what we like, and we’ll praise you; step out of line and we’ll decry you. No journalist worth the name would play along with this any more than they would with a press officer doing likewise.
Others were sneering. It was “fake news” from a “unionist scribe” who as a “west Brit” was too stupid to understand the sophisticated reasons behind their beloved party’s u-turns.
But the abuse quickly started, as it invariably does. Some of it was sectarian. There were references to “planters” and my “overindulgence and self-intoxication in bigoted Orangeism”.
Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan’s exclusive take on the day’s news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.
Ben Lowry, the editor of Northern Ireland’s most unionist newspaper, the News Letter, was referred to abusively as “Bin Lorry”, while one person with ‘Sinn Féin’ in their biography asked: “Are you a spy?”.
It’s a dangerous suggestion, and one which multiple anonymous republican Twitter accounts have suddenly started suggesting towards several awkward journalists.
Some of these people are so indoctrinated they cannot comprehend there may be individuals whose allegiance is not primarily tied to a flag or ideology.
“DUPers haven’t attracted your criticism though,” one claimed, unperturbed by the fact my house was on the line when I faced down threats from five senior DUP figures over my book exposing the party’s appalling conduct in the RHI scandal or that I’ve received more legal threats from DUP members than from those in any other party.
Last week the Belfast Telegraph published an in-depth interview with Northern Ireland’s most influential broadcaster, Stephen Nolan. There was a deluge of repugnant responses from anonymous accounts.
There were sectarian slurs, homophobic slurs, mockery of his appearance, the same dangerous claims that he is an MI5 agent and more. It just so happens that Nolan has been boycotted by Sinn Féin for years after exposing too many of the party’s scandals.
Sinn Féin has always denied having any role in organising or condoning these abusive accounts. Two years ago the party expelled a member found to be behind a derogatory, anonymous Twitter account and three weeks ago Ms McDonald called for those engaging in online abuse to stop.
Sinn Féin is clearly not alone in benefiting from the anonymous digital punishment beatings of those who have displeased them.
Leo Varadkar did not deny he had suggested the creation of anonymous accounts to help him win the Fine Gael leadership in 2017 and there have been a growing number of fake loyalist accounts, some deeply sectarian. But those accounts are mostly erratic; they’ll send a slur to a nationalist politician one day, but attack the DUP the next for being too soft.
Many accounts which attach themselves to Sinn Féin are different, as their loyalty is extreme. Almost nothing the party says will be criticised and watching them change direction together as a herd is a sight to behold.
Yet too many people view what they see on social media as reflective of wider society and then indulge it, not realising how a tiny number of fake accounts can create the illusion of popular feeling.
In some cases, this presumably works in scaring journalists or others into submission. In other cases, it quite obviously fails. If those behind the abuse think it’s working, then they should consider that this article wouldn’t have been written without it.
But what is happening is not just about the person ostensibly targeted, it is about manufacturing a sense of public opinion by weaponising social media’s vulnerabilities.
For years, I blocked almost no one on social media, believing firmly in free speech — even if that is offensive speech. I still believe that, but have come to take a different view of apparently co-ordinated attempts to manufacture public sentiment.
Many of these accounts have only a handful of followers, in part because they often get banned due to their behaviour and have to start afresh. They get around this by constantly replying to the tweets of those who have large numbers of followers, knowing that will be seen by more people. By blocking them, they are unable to do so.
There is a danger of this problem becoming embedded and accepted, with other political parties joining in more effectively. That would undermine democracy, coarsen our public discourse and fracture our society.
Lots of issues with this piece.
Firstly online abuse is a stain on society, it’s not a political issue, football, music….supporters will be abusive about any subject.
His last paragraph infers that SF supporters are the only ones doing it or that it’s coordinated by SF themselves which obviously isn’t the case. Any political tweet will have arseholes on it from across the spectrum. It’s a terrible look for the parties why would they want it? I know or know of people who have taken part in online abuse and it’s definitely not coordinated by anyone, these people aren’t even associated with political parties.
Ben Lowry and Stephen Nolan are vile, sensationalists who create and feed off the sectarian divide. Scumbags. Nothing to do with any boycott or any political party. Nolan was talking about a funeral for a whole year ffs, constantly has Bryson, Allister and various regulars who have very suspect backgrounds. It’s time to talk about real issues people want and need not green and orange.
That said, some of the abuse listed is obviously unacceptable and as I said earlier just does bad for the political party you claim to support. They both have done enough terrible reports for you to criticise them without resorting to that stuff.
Would also point out that not every nationalist/republican is a shinner. We can think your columns shite without having to vote or campaign for SF.
If you hate SF, stop talking about them. Others being shite plays a part but the more you talk about them the bigger they getting.
The Independent is a pitiful rag. Haven’t voted in 10+ years. Will be voting SF next time out.
Who’d have thought that people who support a thing are more receptive to positive coverage of that thing? Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Unionist supporters are obviously far too sophisticated for that kind of basic human reaction.
4 comments
Some problems emerge suddenly and are seen immediately in their full awfulness; others grow incrementally, masking their eventual scale until it becomes inescapable.
Online abuse is as old as the internet, just as verbal abuse is as old as humanity. But on this island a particular form of abuse attaches itself to those who write critically about one political party: Sinn Féin.
Three weeks ago I wrote in these pages about Sinn Féin’s dramatic policy shifts and their significance for the party which may lead the next Irish government.
That Sinn Féin has repudiated much of what it once espoused is simply a statement of fact. Some republicans view it as the pragmatism necessary to attain real power; others see it as selling out. But whatever the interpretation of why Sinn Féin has changed, it has changed.
And it’s not just Sinn Féin’s approach to violence which is different.
The party’s revolution is seen in its embrace of capitalism, its support for abortion, its abandonment of hostility towards the EU, its backing for the PSNI and An Garda Síochána, its endorsement of the Special Criminal Court, and in a plethora of other areas.
It’s entirely possible to support Sinn Féin and recognise all those changes. Indeed, many people only support Sinn Féin today because it has abandoned lots of its past stances.
But for many of the party’s online advocates, this was unacceptable. The response was wearily familiar to anyone who writes about Mary Lou McDonald’s party in anything less than reverential terms.
There were various strategies adopted. Anonymous accounts pretended to be terribly disappointed in me — they apparently thought I was a great chap when I was criticising the DUP, until this article opened their eyes to my inalterable bigotry.
This is transparent: Do what we like, and we’ll praise you; step out of line and we’ll decry you. No journalist worth the name would play along with this any more than they would with a press officer doing likewise.
Others were sneering. It was “fake news” from a “unionist scribe” who as a “west Brit” was too stupid to understand the sophisticated reasons behind their beloved party’s u-turns.
But the abuse quickly started, as it invariably does. Some of it was sectarian. There were references to “planters” and my “overindulgence and self-intoxication in bigoted Orangeism”.
Get ahead of the day with the morning headlines at 7.30am and Fionnán Sheahan’s exclusive take on the day’s news every afternoon, with our free daily newsletter.
Ben Lowry, the editor of Northern Ireland’s most unionist newspaper, the News Letter, was referred to abusively as “Bin Lorry”, while one person with ‘Sinn Féin’ in their biography asked: “Are you a spy?”.
It’s a dangerous suggestion, and one which multiple anonymous republican Twitter accounts have suddenly started suggesting towards several awkward journalists.
Some of these people are so indoctrinated they cannot comprehend there may be individuals whose allegiance is not primarily tied to a flag or ideology.
“DUPers haven’t attracted your criticism though,” one claimed, unperturbed by the fact my house was on the line when I faced down threats from five senior DUP figures over my book exposing the party’s appalling conduct in the RHI scandal or that I’ve received more legal threats from DUP members than from those in any other party.
Last week the Belfast Telegraph published an in-depth interview with Northern Ireland’s most influential broadcaster, Stephen Nolan. There was a deluge of repugnant responses from anonymous accounts.
There were sectarian slurs, homophobic slurs, mockery of his appearance, the same dangerous claims that he is an MI5 agent and more. It just so happens that Nolan has been boycotted by Sinn Féin for years after exposing too many of the party’s scandals.
Sinn Féin has always denied having any role in organising or condoning these abusive accounts. Two years ago the party expelled a member found to be behind a derogatory, anonymous Twitter account and three weeks ago Ms McDonald called for those engaging in online abuse to stop.
Sinn Féin is clearly not alone in benefiting from the anonymous digital punishment beatings of those who have displeased them.
Leo Varadkar did not deny he had suggested the creation of anonymous accounts to help him win the Fine Gael leadership in 2017 and there have been a growing number of fake loyalist accounts, some deeply sectarian. But those accounts are mostly erratic; they’ll send a slur to a nationalist politician one day, but attack the DUP the next for being too soft.
Many accounts which attach themselves to Sinn Féin are different, as their loyalty is extreme. Almost nothing the party says will be criticised and watching them change direction together as a herd is a sight to behold.
Yet too many people view what they see on social media as reflective of wider society and then indulge it, not realising how a tiny number of fake accounts can create the illusion of popular feeling.
In some cases, this presumably works in scaring journalists or others into submission. In other cases, it quite obviously fails. If those behind the abuse think it’s working, then they should consider that this article wouldn’t have been written without it.
But what is happening is not just about the person ostensibly targeted, it is about manufacturing a sense of public opinion by weaponising social media’s vulnerabilities.
For years, I blocked almost no one on social media, believing firmly in free speech — even if that is offensive speech. I still believe that, but have come to take a different view of apparently co-ordinated attempts to manufacture public sentiment.
Many of these accounts have only a handful of followers, in part because they often get banned due to their behaviour and have to start afresh. They get around this by constantly replying to the tweets of those who have large numbers of followers, knowing that will be seen by more people. By blocking them, they are unable to do so.
There is a danger of this problem becoming embedded and accepted, with other political parties joining in more effectively. That would undermine democracy, coarsen our public discourse and fracture our society.
Lots of issues with this piece.
Firstly online abuse is a stain on society, it’s not a political issue, football, music….supporters will be abusive about any subject.
His last paragraph infers that SF supporters are the only ones doing it or that it’s coordinated by SF themselves which obviously isn’t the case. Any political tweet will have arseholes on it from across the spectrum. It’s a terrible look for the parties why would they want it? I know or know of people who have taken part in online abuse and it’s definitely not coordinated by anyone, these people aren’t even associated with political parties.
Ben Lowry and Stephen Nolan are vile, sensationalists who create and feed off the sectarian divide. Scumbags. Nothing to do with any boycott or any political party. Nolan was talking about a funeral for a whole year ffs, constantly has Bryson, Allister and various regulars who have very suspect backgrounds. It’s time to talk about real issues people want and need not green and orange.
That said, some of the abuse listed is obviously unacceptable and as I said earlier just does bad for the political party you claim to support. They both have done enough terrible reports for you to criticise them without resorting to that stuff.
Would also point out that not every nationalist/republican is a shinner. We can think your columns shite without having to vote or campaign for SF.
If you hate SF, stop talking about them. Others being shite plays a part but the more you talk about them the bigger they getting.
The Independent is a pitiful rag. Haven’t voted in 10+ years. Will be voting SF next time out.
Who’d have thought that people who support a thing are more receptive to positive coverage of that thing? Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Unionist supporters are obviously far too sophisticated for that kind of basic human reaction.