After not checking my Twitter account in over a month, I logged on to find that Twitter's spam filter is useless. I had one "follower" with links to extremely pornographic photos. The account went undetected by Twitter and had not been suspended. It was as if I had been flashed by the proverbial pervert on the park bench in the tan trench coat--only several perverts, and unfortunately nothing as modest as a raincoat was involved. Instead: full exposure and multiple participants. Beyond raunchy. Another "follower" was an ad for a bogus investment scam. I blocked both of them, but needless to say, beware: Twitter's monitoring abilities are seriously lacking.
I tried Twitter as an anthropological experiment. Depending on how things went, I considered asking friends/family to join. Based on these negative experiences and others in the past, I wouldn't subject friends and family to the evils lurking behind Twitter. I can't imagine having a friend "bump" into these explicitly pornographic photos if they were following my twitter account. I wouldn't point my worst enemy in the direction of the photos that were a mere click away from me.
On one level, Twitter is filled with the inane minutia of people's daily lives; on another level it is a dangerous place--a petri dish breeding the sleaziest con artists and perverts in cyberspace.
By nature, the site inherently puts everyone under a microscope. Is that really what we want? People following our every move? People regurgitating every thought they have? People abusing the site and promoting illegal and illicit behavior and unscrupulous scams?
What may have innocently began as another means of communicating--a way to text message to the masses--has become a tool of self promotion for good and bad. While some use the site for great charities and benefits, all too many abuse the site and put Twitter's members at risk.
How does a business that self-regulates itself so poorly supposedly become such a valuable commodity? What defines its value? Is it the ability to market to the masses? It is purely its monetary value? If that's the standard then shouldn't it be labeled a marketing network site, or a sometimes pornography outlet, but is that really what defines a social networking site? What is its real value to society? What is Twitter's responsibility legally and morally to protect its members?
I have adjusted my account so that unsolicited members no longer are able to follow me. For me, the novelty of the experiment of tweeting has worn off as its seedy underbelly has literally exposed itself to me in the most vile and pornographic way possible. From an anthropological standpoint, Twitter ultimately could prove to be more damaging than valuable to its members and to society.
Carole Flynn is the author of Literary Itinerary and Literary Unleashed.
Comments