Hostility Clause
- This topic has 78 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Your posts are getting worse. I guess I am the property of the 'Party' By the way who is or what is 'the party'?'Committes'?What is a 'rogue tweet' ffs. I have heard 'rogue tweets' slip out of the mouths of EC members and party election candidates and committe members. How do we disown them?? And who will have the authority to 'disown a tweet' A party poll?How will 'control' of these twitter accounts work in practice? A single member of the Internet Committee takes control of all twitter accounts?Should a committee member follow all comrades around 'disowning' the odd comment? during converations with fellow workers?Sorry comrade but you are talking nonsense and you have no chance of gaining party (sic) supportFor the party to disown a tweet would requir a party poll
As noted above, rule 18 could operate, removing control of an account from the hands of the errant member and issuing an apology, expulsion of the offending meber, etc. Its why we have a party, so we can state authoritatively what is and isn't the party case. (that's why we'd need a register of passwords)A code of conduct would be the easiest way, since we could say that a tweet fell outside the code that was agreed by the membership at large.Oh, and being able to say what is and isn't an official party account is important, to avoid confusion.
Who would remove control of th account from the 'errant' member?As I have said above for the 'party' to do it would require a party pollUnless we have a two tier membership
Vin wrote:Who would remove control of th account from the 'errant' member?As I have said above for the 'party' to do it would require a party pollUnless we have a two tier membershipIt wouldn't require a party poll if the party agreed a mechanism in advance. For instance, in a rule 18 cmplaint it would be the EC, acting under rule and under the membership's instruction that would suspend a twitter account operative. Otehrtimes, it could be the branch directly.
Young Master Smeet wrote:(that's why we'd need a register of passwords)Who woulf hold the 'register of passwords' and what if the holder is an 'errant member'
That is not what we are discussing. If someone is tweeting a load of rubbish the member can be charged if he refuses to stop – the facility is in place -but you are talking about someone holding a register of passwords and the power to instruct a member to remove a tweet. I would not like to see such a situation. Branch twitter accounts are controlled by the branch, if the tweeter distorts our case, he or she is in the same position as a speaker in debate. He can be removed by democratic process of the branch. Branches don't need some autocrat overriding the branch and telling the tweeter what to tweet.Its twiterring rediculous
I think the priority is:1) Holding an authorised list of what are 'official' party accounts.2) Ensuring that no one person has exclusive access to those accounts.3) Ensuring that twitter account operators are clear in their obligations to the membership4) Having the capacity to remove an account operator by the responsible bodies (EC or branches).5) Having a clear process for appointing removing and complaining about social media account operators.Personally I would not want deliquient tweets deleted (although, now oyu mention it, if tehre is a risk of legal jeopardy, that could be a useful thing). Pursuant to rule 18, the EC nmeeds to be able to suspend a member's access, at least.
My opinion is that the whole issue of social media, the use of the forum, etc, etc. are actually a bit of a mess and that one sticking plaster amendment to rules is not going to sort these issues out, but will only store up more trouble in the future. The use of electronic media and messaging is now of such important and value to the party, whilst also potentially being the source of massive discontent within the party that we need a root and branch examination of the whole issue, with the emphasis on ensuring party democracy. We also need to consider the members of the party who are not comfortable with social media, electronic forums etc. Tinkering with the rule book is, in my opinion, only going to make matters worse. As to the issue of quoting material on the twitter feed, I would argue that it is for the whole party to decide what is in breach of the hostility clause, not individual members of the IC. Is the party in breach of its hostility clause by selling (unedited) the works of Martov and Kautsky. I may be wrong but I don't think either of those two were ever in the party.
With critical comment and apart from the manifesto, four out of the first five pamphlets were reprints of works of non members in opposing parties, mostly the program of the German social Democratic Party. The other was a pamphlet by William Morris a member of Socialist League, which Spgb speakers and members (young master smeet among them perhaps) were selling in Wakefield last Saturday. Not sure if that counts as a "rogue" breach of hostility requiring censure but I don't think so.
So what is ok in the real world is not ok in the virtual world (redistributing uncritically the work of non-members and members of other political parties such as Kautsky) and what goes on in the virtual world has to be regulated (by the IC) in ways that we do not in the real world. Funny old world, the virtual world, isn't it. You could be forgiven for thinking that someone somewhere is nit picking because they have a particular axe to grind. Although I'm sure the actions of the IC in pointing out Vin's supposed breach of the hostility clause were motivated by nothing of this kind.
"Although I'm sure the actions of the IC in pointing out Vin's supposed breach of the hostility clause were motivated by nothing of this kind."This was addressed to the branch by me. It was a comradely act with no malice whatsoever.I did not know or care, who had posted them and intially did not realise it was a retweet. but possibly a spammy one from the Labour Party. ======================== Twitter accountComrades, I wish to bring to your attention,that posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, is in breach of our hostility clause and they should be deleted.I am sure this an inadvertent breach on your part.https://twitter.com/World_SocialismYfS, Matt Culbert============================It was specifically about Labour Party Press handouts.Nothing to do with using quotes or stuff from others which are supportive of what we say. I regularly quote Tony Benn on the Labour Party never having been a socialist party.
I think the problem is that your message stated "posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, is in breach of our hostility clause and they should be deleted.", which implies that your decision on the matter is final and that you have the authority to decide how the hostility clause should be interpreted. Perhaps if you had written "posting Labour party press handouts in your Twitter feed, may be in breach of our hostility clause and perhaps you should consider deleting them." This might have been more appropriate, as I assume you do not have the exclusive right to decide what constitutes a breach of the hostility clause and what does not.
Matt is a member of the Internet Committee. The IC knows what's best and who should use what account. I believe this is what YMS means by 'party control' of accounts. Some small committee with the authority to instruct branches on twitter activity and in possession of all our passwordsI don't think there will be much support for that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.