When this community is facing the challenge of unprecedented growth, online forums have given more residents an opportunity to influence decision-makers and shape public policy from the comfort of their computer keyboards.
What’s not to like about a communication innovation that keeps participants tuned into the pace of civic change while offering a unique opportunity for networking, self-expression, and personal growth?
As it turns out, online community webs have become a double-edged sword.
Coun. Doug Race says since he’s been in office, there have been numerous social media campaigns filled with misinformation and anonymous agents attempting to promote their agendas.
“Free speech, debate and discourse are certainly desirable, but they work best if there is transparency where we know who is accountable and what they are promoting,” he adds. Coun. Armand Hurford has similar misgivings about the direction social media has taken. He says many online groups are either poorly moderated or are designed to persistently undermine the credibility of council.
“It’s hard to have productive discussions of nuanced topics with these sorts of forces at play and may also affect who is willing to step forward to participate in politics moving forward,” he notes Counc. Chris Pettingill is equally skeptical about certain aspects of the social web arena. “We can all see how overwhelming misinformation and anger are in today’s social media posts. All it takes is one or two people purposely spreading misinformation and/or bullying others to sour the potential value of social media for everyone,” Pettingill says. His preferable communication channels are a phone call, video chat, or a face-to-face discussion over coffee, all of which he believes are more conducive to respectful dialogue.
According to Coun. John French social media is susceptible to a significant level of confirmation bias coupled with limited critical analysis. He warns that at its worst, it has been transformed into an angry space where participants can be uncharacteristically bold and even hostile.
“For many people, it is a place to post thoughtless words with no relation to reality…a far more valuable source of resident feedback for me is one-on-one conversations and direct correspondence,” he adds.
Evidence from the social media trenches lends credence to the above-cited concerns.
Several council members have faced online ridicule, name-calling, over-the-top allegations and threats.
Last December, rumour-fueled accusations surfaced on several local social media platforms related to the 麻豆社国产municipal hall replacement decision.
In the process of weighing the options to build or rent a new facility, council was accused of lining an undisclosed developer’s pockets with a $20 million taxpayer-funded rent payment derisively referred to as a “Christmas gift.” Similar wholly unverified claims have surfaced that members of council are receiving kickbacks from developers.
Ultimately, malicious assertions reach well beyond the parameters of fair comment and unless they are true, they could be considered defamatory and legally actionable.
A 2016 B.C. Supreme Court case underscores that claim. In Pritchard v Van Nes the presiding judge, Justice Saunders, ruled in favour of Pritchard, an Abbotsford Middle School music teacher, who was defamed online by his neighbour.
The defendant, Van Nes, allegedly published some disturbing posts on Facebook which, according to the court, “in their natural meaning and by innuendo, bore the meaning that the plaintiff was a pedophile,” and those suggestions “were completely false and unjustified.” Subsequently, the defendant was ordered to pay $65,000 in damages. The takeaway from that precedent-setting cyber libel judgment is clear: freewheeling keyboard warriors who embark on defamatory excursions in the court of social media may be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.
Political columnist Helmut Manzl writes about muni hall for The 麻豆社国产 twice per month.
