no Domain yet

The worst thing about the past few years, in some respects, is that the colossal sh*t-storm we're currently experiencing was quite literally foreseen.

Some of us noticed the marked shift in political rhetoric and media bias that began to occur shortly after the Tories returned to government in 2010. We saw how they immediately began to cheat, smear and spin; stoking division and the values of prejudice, turning society against itself.  We saw how gutter tabloids formerly considered fairly harmless, like The Sun and Daily Mail, fast became bibles for the bigoted and puerile.  We watched with horror as the BBC - a much loved and revered British institution - laid waste to a mantle claimed over generations for being one of the world's most fair and reliable news sources (whereas now, it's arguably a propaganda tool Goebbels would be proud of).

Yes. Some of us truly felt the rumblings of these insidious attitudes and manipulations beneath the surface of British society many, many years ago. Attitudes which have, since 2016, onset with the gusto of a freight train. We saw it happening, as if in slow motion. And what did we do?

We turned to Facebook.

See, before The Canary and Another Angry Voice, well before the Media Guidos and Westmonsters, and certainly well before every single Tom, Dick &Harry started mouthing off on social media regarding often ill-informed political views, turning the medium into a damned war-zone, some of us attempted to use Facebook to communicate truth. Some of us were doing it 'before it was cool'. In fact, it's arguably all our fault.

The original 'keyboard warriors'

We actively tried to steer conversation away from the banal and 'stupidifying' media we saw transforming our countrymen and women into vacuous idiots. We attempted to draw our friends' attention to the apparently small detail that they were being fed complete horse sh*t under the pretence of it being pertinent fact. That supposed 'views of the nation' were actually 'views fed to the nation', mostly fitting the agenda of an increasingly brazen Conservative party.

In short, Facebook became the one place alternative voices could be heard. The one and only political arena which a handful of billionaire tax-dodgers couldn't control, deciding both the narrative of world events, and which facts were revealed. An online sanctuary where often smart, informed and attentive people started to debunk myths, build followings and credibility, based on less biased interpretations and more reasoned assessments. Truth has a way of burning brightly when it's told. And suddenly, politicians became more publicly accountable for their words and actions; they became subject to the scrutiny of average citizens - not just the paid employees of media barons with greasy palms.

Later, many of us then saw something in Jeremy Corbyn, elected Labour leader in 2015. For the first time in recent British political history, we saw a politician who was humble, ethical and decent - who talked sense and voiced the same conclusions many of us had already come to. A man who would seemingly put average people first; not the ludicrously wealthy.

It was a beacon of hope, and as a result, we fought even harder. It was when the 'Alt-left' really began: a movement of which I'd consider myself a very small part. No doubt, Corbyn would have been toast without it. By the gods, we almost collectively upset the apple-cart at the General Election! A David and Goliath contest between independent online bloggers and news media, versus government and business backed mainstream media, and though we didn't quite win the battle, there was little doubt we'd shown their power and unchallenged influence was waning.

Ergo, a backlash was inevitable. I've been waiting earnestly, quite curious to see what form it would take.

Drowning out the voices

In hindsight, I suppose it was also inevitable the medium would become noisy - though early on, we who discussed politics on Facebook were the anomalies. We stood out rather like sore thumbs for being the minority not sharing videos of pets, and/or a relentless torrent of selfies in absolutely every bloody situation conceivable. But soon the loudmouth bullies and bigots soon caught on that discussing geopolitical matters in a public arena was the new avenue for asserting dominance, and the medium changed drastically. It soon became the realm of people like Paul Joseph Watson, Katie Hopkins, and Tommy Robinson. A catalyst for Brexit and Trump, looming obscurely in the distance.

But in the wake of Trump and Brexit, eg: now the sh*t has hit the proverbial fan, pesky socialists, libtards and remoaners are fighting back... like all lives depend on it. (Because newsflash, they may very well.)  We were gaining ground. And when the aforementioned apple-cart was nearly upset at GE2017, well... the backlash really kicked into overdrive.

I for one knew this Conservative Party wouldn't let it stand. Exactly in the same way they've attempted to shift constituency boundaries and shrink the number of MPs to give themselves unfair advantage, overspending and embezzling in countless campaigns, leaving the mainstream press to discuss ridiculous smokescreens, like whether Jeremy Corbyn is a Czech spy/Kremlin stooge/antisemite etc. I knew full well they'd find a way to shut down people who debate and challenge public perceptions. Having been a writer for both The Canary and Evolve Politics, I also know by far the lion's share of such organisations' organic traffic comes through Facebook. Twitter and other mediums are negligible. And there's a reason for that.

Social media for cavemen

Without wanting to sound like a old man lamenting the passing of the CD for the MP3, Facebook at least was a social media tool allowing users to express themselves fully. A forum for open discussion and debate. You could write as much or as little as you wanted... post photos or videos, links and articles... choose your audience and who you want to see your posts interact with who you wanted... play games, follow news... limitless options really! An avenue for expression, fun, and articulation.

Twitter dumbed that down. In the 21st century 'Age of Inattentiveness', actually having to read sh*t is too much like a pain in the arse. You gotta condense that stuff down to two lines and  words of three syllables, so that Barry down the bookies can vaguely follow what the f**k you're talking about.

Yes, some people get around it with 'threads' that go on for ever, but what really is the point in that?? In my mind it's actually quite patronising - as if reading one body of text would be just too much for my delicate mind to absorb. Not to mention, most sentient discussion on Twitter usually gives way to outright slagging matches... a truly vile place nowadays. A forum for confrontation, and/or celebrities/wannabe celebrities to mouth off, revelling in their virtual cult of followers. (A crime I guess I can't exactly deny I've been guilty of too.)

Then came Instagram, and Snapchat. Don't even get me started on those. They're the literal regression of humankind: the modern day equivalent of cave-people drawing on rocks to communicate. The death of language. Vacuous egotism to simply mind-numbing, torturous degree. "I don't know any words, or have any thoughts. But I look pretty, and have a great life/car/house/kid/pet/career... LOOK AT ME. AREN'T I GREAT AND POPULAR?" 

Sweet Jesus... it's a big step towards Charlie Brooker's recent Black Mirror premise, of a world where social media interaction and approval decides quality of life - relying exactly on users being vacuous, unobtrusive, unquestioning. Overly committed to a public conception of being successful, likeable, and upstanding.

By the way, if that horrific idea seems a bit far-fetched, be warned... they're already trying it out in China.

The 'Whipping Boy'

It's therefore no surprise that Facebook is the one they're looking to take out of the equation, and subtly (or not so subtly) suggest we should abandon. It's the one that's done the powers-that-be the most damage. It's popular with older and more sentient generations of internet users. Don't be fooled. They've known what Facebook and corporations like Cambridge Analytica were doing for donkey's years. I think we all did. We all knew when we shared those apps and games, made our posts public etc, that someone somewhere would be watching, and gathering data. We just didn't care. Politicians and business have ALWAYS tried to influence and manipulate voters: what's important is that counter-argument and truth are available to the populace as well.

And now, because that medium is the only remaining resistance to mainstream spin, they earnestly want us to go back to using social media as the distraction initially intended... taking selfies and sharing cat videos. A stupid, uninformed and self-involved populace is a pliable populace, impotent to stand in their way. (Evidence of which is all around us.)

I have literally written numerous pieces in the past couple of years warning that a time of censorship was coming, one way or another. Clues and depressing tit-bits from from Theresa May have shown the way for starters; she's hinted several times at the 'need to control the internet'. You don't only censor something by outlawing it - you can do so just as easily by making sure no one sees it, or bothers to pay it heed. I thought Zuckerberg deciding what we'd see in our news feeds was bad enough: this move is far more ambitious, and insidious. It's certainly not coincidence.

Don't worry about Zuckerberg - he'll be fine. But think twice before you delete Facebook, closing the door on political ideas and activism; on 'alternative' voices and opinions. They may very well be trying to tell you truths you won't hear elsewhere.

I can't take it. We're just flaming idiots.

Only in Britain in 2018 could you get called a 'tinfoil hat' and get slagged off simply for daring to urge caution, discourage mob justice by pitchfork, or suggest we should keep an open mind as to who's behind an international assassination attempt.



Indeed, you apparently require sectioning for suggesting we shouldn't unilaterally ramp up for 'Cold War: Pt II'. That is where we are right now.

I replied to this person on Twitter, pressing them for their reasoning. This was their response:




Yep. So apparently, the assumption that a group or persons are responsible for a crime is enough to merit their unequivocal condemnation. (Even when it could potentially mean us all getting nuked back to the stone age. Never mind eh.)

I sure hope that chap doesn't work for the police.

In fact, even a writer I follow and tend to agree with about most things, who I quote all the time, started referring to me as 'infantile', 'narcissistic', and 'ignorant' etc - simply for questioning his analysis. It's a horrid state of affairs. The writer then went on to call me a 'Putin apologist', suggesting that questioning Russia's responsibility was akin to questioning Jimmy Savile's guilt. Pretty shocking.

The definition of idiocy

The definition of idiocy, some say, is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

Even ignoring the concourse of the 20th century, eg: the world wars, NATO, the EU, the fall of the Soviet Union etc, and all the history that led us to this stand-off today, we actually have a shining and unequivocal example of our western governments and media falsely manufacturing/propagating a narrative to justify going to war, in living bloody memory!!!! Erm... hello?? Iraq?? Saddam Hussein, the international bogeyman with his arsenal of WMDs?? (And look at the hornet's nest that opened up.) DO WE EVER F**KING LEARN????

I seem to recall, even back then, those who suggested all was not as it seemed with the Iraq incursion were labelled lunatics, traitors, and 'conspiracy theorists' etc. And of course, that was before social media mobilised roaming gangs with pitchforks in the way they exist today. However, similar ramping up for confrontation on the basis of as yet unsubstantiated claims, but this time against one of the world's most hostile nuclear superpowers? Madness off the bloody scale.

Cui bono? Are Russia the only country that benefited from this alleged assassination attempt? No is the answer. And actually, there are other groups that benefit from the unfolding international fallout and backlash more. That detail alone merits at very least further investigation, scrutiny, and a level of scepticism.

The saddest aspect for me, is that Remainers - eg: pretty much the only 'team' I've identified with since 2016: they seem to be the most eager and unquestioning in their demonisation of all things Russia. The very same team I'd normally have credited with greater overall intelligence and analytical skills!! The reason? They're flocking to a beam of hope that, given this period of US intransigence, fear of Russia will prevent Brexit. Their desire for that outcome is outweighing any and all sense of pragmatism and impartiality. (Such as our friend, Lord Andrew Adonis. A man I previously thought incredibly brave, and smart, is now beating a metaphoric drum for war as much as any Brexiter ever did, because it suits his cause.)

The irony of all this is, I long for nothing more than Brexit to be prevented. And Russia is the one country I've ever been where I didn't feel comfortable, welcome, and didn't generally like the people or atmosphere. I'm no 'friend' of Russia, I do fear them, and think Putin is a monster. I despise his regime's treatment of journalists, LGBT people, opposition politicians etc. I just... as usual... seem to be one of the few willing to acknowledge life is not black/white-goodies/baddies, who doesn't accept the most obvious and immediate explanation. Someone who steps back to look at a larger picture without pre-disposition, attempting to be fair and unbiased.

These days, that apparently makes me a madman.

I did it myself. I made a couple of joke/glib comments that Nationwide's Flo and Joan are actually the famous eyebrow wiggling Cadbury Dairy Milk kids grown up, after a career hiatus. Considering one of the 'wigglers' was a boy, my implied joke was obviously that one of the ditty-singing sisters had undergone a sex change. A fairly crass joke admittedly, not to all tastes, but perfectly innocent.



Because that's all it was: a joke. My sense of humour. I don't actually think either of them has had a sex change, or is remotely masculine. The actual truth is I think they seem like very sweet ladies. I quite enjoy their sibling rivalry set to music, and I also enjoy the interlude of notably organic and humble musical performances - amid all the mass over-produced bullshit and vaunted egos we see in popular music today.

Granted, I'm not sure it has much to do with banking, but hey, that's just marketing in the 21st century. Blame Nationwide, if you will. The idea of genuinely wishing these girls any harm or ill-will, I find truly appalling. I'm sure I'm not alone in having difficulty accepting we now live in a world where two girls singing ditties on TV, receive horrific online abuse.

Social media is quite literally a battlefield today: a war for the soul and heart of western values.

The Death of Observational Comedy

In fairness, there's probably an element of sensationalism for the purposes of a story. I don't think many probably really intended for their comments to be perceived as 'death threats'. If I say I'd like to "harpoon James Corden" and/or "launch him into outer space", I don't actually mean it. I wouldn't pull the trigger on the harpoon gun given the choice. (Maybe just a taser.)

Again, it's just my humour: linguistic license. Colourful language is something this country is very famous for, the most obvious example being Bill Shakespeare. I'm a fan of the bard, having studied his works for more of my school career than I'd care to admit, and I'd like to think if he was writing today, my analogy of the harpoon gun or rocket launch might be the sort of visual image he'd paint on a page too.

But here's the point: in today's environment, there's now so many people spewing those kinds of sentiments (and far baser ones) with genuine malice and intention of harm, it's often difficult to tell. And for the first time really, it occurred to me that some might even have read things I've said, and thought me malicious or somehow spiteful. I find that excruciating. The truth is I'm honestly the furthest thing from it. On the whole, I'm Snowflake Central (in fact, my very being troubled by the notion of thought unpleasant, almost certainly confirms it).

It's infuriating. Not only have moral values and decency been a casualty of this 'right-wing backlash' of recent times, but even the somewhat sacred medium of comedy is now under threat too. From do-gooders on the right, as well as just about the entire left. Somehow, I find the idea that we shouldn't laugh at jokes almost as offensive as anything else, and certainly a very dangerous progression.

'Crying Wolf'

Most people can tell the difference between a joke, gentle-ribbing or observational comedy, and bullying. Some of the funniest things in this world are ways that human beings differ, according to interests/background/geography/sex/race/ethnicity/religion etc. I don't want to live in a world where we can't acknowledge them in a lighthearted manner, for fear we'll be condemned 'oppressive'. That's going way too far. I've experienced actual bullying in my life; it's fair to say it's made me who I am. Both back at school, and more recently, in my musical career. I know how truly destructive it is, and I would never bully anyone.

However, I'd also argue that to push back verbally against those who'd bully you and/or others, is not bullying. It's the former of a 'fight or flight' mentality, and for me personally, it's the very reason I write at all.

There's a very different intention behind 'bullying' to simple observational humour; and most can usually tell them apart. Bullies just like to pretend it's 'joking'. However, considering the hatred and venom unleashed in our society in recent years, I do understand the hyper-sensitivity. The level of insentient malice now lurking out there like a turd in the bath water, needs to be addressed. The abuse of Flo and Joan might very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. They are young girls, singing songs. They're not politicians actively hampering the lives of people around them, who deserve to be scrutinised and/or held accountable. Nor are they 'celebrities' who'd vaunt their lifestyle/opinions/wealth etc in our faces. Love 'em or loathe 'em, the kind of criticism and misogynistic abuse they've received just for singing songs with a plinky-plonk keyboard, is beyond abhorrent.

I don't know quite how we restore that balance, but by the gods, we have to try.

Right now the cries of 'abuse' for absolutely positively anything and everything - the 'crying wolf' - has had a disastrous double-edged effect. Not only did such hyper-sensitivity arguably precipitate the right-wing backlash we're experiencing, but now, a good many are so utterly fed up with all the political polarisation and bickering, they've switched off. They've had enough.

Which in turn has allowed prejudice and bigotry to run rampant unchecked, certainly on social media. It's now their turf.

People fighting for decency who've hung on, are likewise demonised as 'boring', 'too political', 'Corbynistas', 'conspiracy theorists' etc. Those who shout loudly from the left tend to end up ostracised by the very friends and people whose rights they're shouting for. Worse still, daring to speak out also has major repercussions for employment prospects nowadays (as I myself found out once, the hard way). Socialist and left-wing views are now seen as opposition to enterprise: a potential headache for employers - as if someone who simply believes in fairness might well prove a fly in the ointment later down the line.

Double-edged Sword

But speaking out really does have a purpose. The whole point is that social media HAS made politicians and businesses accountable in ways they weren't before. It's just that at the same time, the whole sphere has also become very unpleasant and noisy; often taken over by polarised morons. Swings and roundabouts.

Though Twitter (and social media generally) can be a pain, it's worth reflecting that before the Internet, #Mueller could have been sacked and the whole thing buried. That said, without Twitter & Facebook, Trump would still be a game show host ranking corporate psychopaths

— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) 5 March 2018

Yes... social media! The bane of so soooo many lives, in so many ways. An invention that has quite literally laid waste to many aspects of our social structures; even our very existence as human beings. Some scientists argue it's irreversibly changed us as a species (I've heard the term 'Homo-Interneticus' coined to describe this change). It's made the world cold, distant, and unaccountable - hiding from behind a computer screen. Combined with massive geopolitical events like Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, eg: the normalisation of oppressive and nationalist attitudes, it's opened a Pandora's Box I think we'll struggle to get shut again now.

What am I suggesting?? For us to ditch mobile phones? Scrap the internet? Outlaw interactive social media? I don't know. But the latter idea, however draconian it might at first seem, might force human beings to be respectful to one another once again. And/or actually interact like human beings again. For the first time, I'm genuinely wondering whether perhaps social commentary should again be reserved for vocational writers, those who actually have a sense of responsibility, and/or know what they're talking about.

I don't know how the hell we'd police that without allowing huge propensity for abuse - it's quite literally how we've ended up in this mess (eg: only a handful of billionaires controlling what half the population think), but all the hatred out there is becoming intolerable.

For the sake of my daughter, and the world her generation shall inherit, I think we perhaps need to rein back in social media now. Somehow.