Privacy and Twitter, just my2p

This whole privacy row really should be seen in the context of an old media, the “press”, competing with a more democratic new media online. If “celebrity” tittle tattle can be passed around as easily and rapidly as the likes of Twitter facilitate, there is little use in waiting for a “Daily” or “Weekly” tabloid newspaper to read about it. The press are then no longer the sole distributors of content and as a result the influence of the press is diminished.

Newspapers, with their access to source material (they send reporters to courts) are losing the immediacy. So they wish to remove the barriers to publishing so that they can get the story out first in an exclusive, before all of the salacious (because they are only really interested in the salacious – the Sun said nothing about the Trafigura case) gossip spreads across the internet.

In the same way that the record companies, and increasingly the film companies are struggling to come to terms with a world that moves quicker and with more volume than they can, and the subsequent loss of control as they no longer control the distribution of their content. The press are trying to keep hold of their monopoly on distribution, in this case of gossip.

They are trying to do this by removing restrictions so that they can take advantage of being further upstream than anybody else. However, by doing so they are harming all of us by removing personal privacy measures. You may not agree with what the footballer and the model did, but that doesn't mean that they are not entitled to their privacy.

The footballer in question has not courted the press or publicity, he has kept out of the tabloids as best he can and doesn't seek to gain fame through the press. So IMHO it is an invasion of privacy, with no public interest angle. As someone recently pointed out there is a big
difference between the interest of the public and the public interest.

just.my2p

Posted via email from james downes' preposterous nonsense