Social Media Contributing To Divorce Rates

Featured Post

Manchester based Family Law solicitors Carter Law have noted a correlation between the use of social media and the incline of divorce rates.

In 2014, a study revealed that marriage happiness and quality shared a negative trend with the use of social media and spouses in 1 out of 7 marriages admitted to contemplating separation as a result of social media creating issues in the relationship.

How Is Social Media Causing Issues In Marriages?

Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter make affairs easily attainable. Ex partners, new colleagues, someone you met in a bar last year are all available to contact at the click of a button. The affairs can be solely digital too rather than physical, meaning communicating with a person who you find attractive online or via text and not informing your spouse. Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram also allow people to maintain contact with potential back-up plans if their relationship was to end, making it a lot easier to move on from their spouse.

Social media is also making catching partners out a lot easier. Partners can log in to their spouses Facebook account and uncover affairs in different ways from exchanging of messages, tagged photographs or location check-ins. A separate study revealed a shocking 58% of people admitted secretly knowing their spouses password, and accessing their accounts without their knowledge.

Facebragging is also adding to the increased rate of divorces. This is when people use platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter to brag about how ‘perfect their life is’, resulting in other couples comparing their marital life to an ‘ideal’ illusion enforcing envy and thoughts questioning their marriage. Some couples even force each other to outdo their facebragging friends and can run up debts to fund luxurious holidays in competition of other married couples.

Partners’ spending too much time on social media is also a leading cause for social media destroying marriages. Spouses who use social media more than 1 hour a day are more likely to argue with their partner about their social media habits, according to a recent study. When a partner spends too much time on social media it can make their spouse feel undermined and can make them become jealous of the amount of time being spent on the accounts, time which should be spent with them, making them question “Why am I not interesting anymore?”. Some people may see social media as an escape from reality if they are facing relationship problems, which inevitably causes more problems.

In conclusion, the higher the use of social media, the further issues in a marriage. When was the last time you were with your spouse and you didn’t check your phone?

Alana Mustill – Carter Law Solicitors

Facebook now cited in a third of divorces

Guest Post
The power and influence of social media in relationships has been highlighted by recent research, which has claimed that Facebook is now cited in one-third of all divorce cases.

According to a report produced by Lake Legal, which involved the collation of figures from legal firms’ statistics, the popular social network is often relied upon by disgruntled partners looking to highlight their spouse’s unreasonable behaviour.

All too often, Facebook provides evidence of new relationships and infidelity, while also helping husbands and wives to track their estranged partner’s movements. What’s more, the social networking powerhouse also records expenditure on luxurious items such as holidays and cars.

A number of divorce cases revolve around social media users who have reconnected with old partners who they may not have spoken to in years, spelling bad news for existing relationships should temptation take hold.

Now, solicitors are warning that social media actually provides an ongoing storyline of users’ lives. Sharing statuses and written posts, along with pictures and tagging provides a record of activities that could be used against them in a court case. Not only that, if an individual discusses their employment opportunities, plans for a holiday or reveals a recent windfall on Facebook, it may provide proof that they are lying about their financial position.

Similarly, photographs uploaded to social media profiles, and the comments made on these, can be used as evidence of a new romance, which can then be used against a party in court by a partner who refuses to accept responsibility for the breakdown of the marriage.

Nicki Welch Family Law advisor of Percy Hughes and Roberts said: “While the internet does provide a large quantity of extremely useful information, users should have more of an awareness of how much they are telling people online. This data is easily accessible and may be used against them should anything untoward take place.”

This is without going into evidence culled from mobile telephones, particularly texts which are very frequently produced in court in family law cases. Many a person is now confronted in court by copies of abusive and sweary texts they have sent to an estranged partner. It somehow looks so much worse when presented in black and white.

Text in haste repent at leisure.

Percy Hughes and Roberts family and divorce solicitors have a wide range of experience dealing with family disputes.  If you feel you require legal assistance, speak to an expert today.

Lousy Legislation and Miller’s Malapropism

Maria Miller MP’s speech on the rights and responsibilities of the internet age was published online earlier today.

Having a mooch through it, I spotted a bit of a howler.  Given that the context relates to child abuse online, the slip, if that’s the best term for it, was very unfortunate indeed.

In tackling child abuse online, the new National Crime Agency is bringing greater resources to bare [sic].

Really? Isn’t it, ‘to bear’?

And talking of howlers, I’m not sure I agree with her claim that English law, as it relates to the relatively recent phenomenon of social media, exists as a ‘strong and durable framework’. In fact, it’s anything but.

Quoting again from the speech:

The internet isn’t a ‘Second Life’, it isn’t something where different rules apply, where different behaviour is acceptable – it isn’t the wild west.

To put it simply the rules that apply offline are the same rules that apply online.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

The same already applies on social media

The legislation is already in place. And we have the guidelines by the Attorney General on contempt of court - and the Director of Public Prosecution’s on prosecutions involving social media communications – put together they present a strong and durable framework.

Outdated, ill-adapted and unclear would have been a more apt description of the law in my opinion.

Taking just one example from an inordinately long list, what about the bewildering duplication between section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communication Act 1988?

Does that sound like a strong and durable framework to you? Lousy legislating more like.

Let’s stop pretending that papering over the cracks with ‘guidance’ is an adequate substitute for proper public debate, consultation and legislative reform.

Because that’s what’s clearly needed.

No Facebook account? Then you’re a twisted weirdo (or worse!)

Or something like that.

From Forbes.com 06/08/12:

I used to say that “if you’re not on Facebook, it’s possible you don’t actually exist.” I think it’s time to update that, courtesy of Slashdot: Facebook abstainers will be labeled suspicious.

Slashdot flagged a German news story in which an expert noted that mass murderers Anders Breivik and James Holmes both lacked much of a social media presence, leading to the conclusion, in Slashdot’s phrasing, that “not having a Facebook account could be the first sign that you are a mass murderer.”

Oh you’re just pulling my plonker now.

That’s a tad extreme, but I’m seeing the suggestion more and more often that a missing Facebook account raises red flags.

Several years ago I was renowned for my Facebook bashing. Then, in January 2010, I gave in and signed up for a Facebook account – just as an experiment. After a lacklustre few log-ins, I quickly lost interest and winded up deleting my account without even a poke to my name. Does that mean I’m in the same league as a sleazy philander, a rapist, or God frickin’ help me, Anders bloody Breivik?

I do have a twitter account (and I guess this very blog amounts to social media) but I try and maintain a relative degree of distance and anonymity. Call me suspicious, but I’ve kind of always approached the internet in that way.

Anecdotally, I’ve heard both job seekers and employers wonder aloud about what it means if a job candidate doesn’t have a Facebook account. Does it mean they deactivated it because it was full of red flags? Are they hiding something?

Really?

Just because you’re not on Facebook, that doesn’t mean to say you’re a twisted/dangerous individual who should be kept well away from children. Those non-Facebook users might well be engaging in other forms of social media and be well-rounded, law abiding individuals who aren’t torturing young children with disposable lighters as a pastime.  Any half sane employer will realise that.

Facebook is the first port of call for employers to snoop on candidates because it’s the most prolific and the easiest to search. But I don’t see potential employers immediately drawing the conclusion that if a candidate’s not on there, he must be a fricked-up loser who you shouldn’t touch with a barge pole.

Give me strength!

Valentine’s Day cards for Geeks (and Geekesses)

All found here.

Tweet heart?  Oh my!  Feel like moaning in despair at this one?  Permission Granted.

Inbox Zero isn’t awesome.  It’s an unattainable myth with no basis in reality.  As a Valentine’s Day card this fails miserably.  Next?

Hmm.  Cute.  That antenna is very, um, erect.  Probably just a coincidence. 

Bit of a damp squib.  I can’t see many ladies’ hearts going all-a-flutter on receipt of this.  That’s not to say that HTML and CSS can’t be sexy.  It just isn’t here.*

^{*Ok, scratch that – it’s never sexy.}

Cracking.  That’s more like it.  Just tell me the message inside isn’t in Comic Sans though.

Ah, romance for the Facebook modern age.  I think we have a winner.

Parenting for the Facebook age

From Digg:

Oooh!  Meow! 

And who said parents should take the moral high ground when disciplining their children?

I hate to think what’s going to happen to that kid when he next crosses the school playground!!   
Still, every child has to learn their lesson, right? 

UCL fines student for demonstrating entrepreneurial flair

From The Times May 31/05/10: ­­­­­

The founder of a student flirting website has been fined £300 for bringing his university into disrepute.

The FitFinder, set up last month, combines Twitter and Facebook to allow students to exchange saucy messages on campus. The site received four million hits in its first month and has rapidly expanded to universities across the country.

Rich Martell, 21, a final-year computer sciences student at University College London, has taken the site down under pressure from university authorities, who were concerned that it was distracting students from their studies. Staff claim to have been contacted by a number of other universities unhappy about FitFinder.

Really? Why on earth would it concern staff at other universities?

The letter added that non-payment of the fine, which is the maximum that can be awarded by the Dean for misconduct, would result in Mr Martell’s degree results being withheld.

FitFinder has gained national attention since its launch in April for its risque content and its wildfire-like spread.

The same could be said for many Facebook groups and indeed other social networking sites.

The site allows students to “spot” attractive people in libraries, cafes and lecture theatres, and post a message about them on the publicly visible site in the hope of getting a response. The site has been criticised by women’s groups, who cite sexually explicit comments as evidence of its offensive tone, while supporters argue that it is nothing more than friendly banter and a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun.

I’m sure women have used FitFinder prolifically to post comments about men. Should men’s groups get their panties in a similar twist?

Mr Martell has vowed to resume the service as soon as the safety of his university degree is guaranteed and said that it was an unfair reaction to a social networking site that he sees as no different to Facebook or Twitter. “If a UCL student posted something offensive on Facebook would they hold Mark Zuckerberg [the site’s founder] responsible?” he asked.

This is utterly ludicrous in my opinion and smacks of an out-dated and overly prudish stance from a university which claims to move with the times. UCL should be encouraging Martell’s entrepreneurial flair and skill – not fining him for his creativity.

Social networking is here and is a reality – for all of the evil it has wrought on the world, it’s done a lot of good too.

Is FitFinder truly any different from a student setting up a facebook group for the same purpose? Plus, with being popular, Martell has only provided a service which people clearly want. Bad show, UCL. Bad show.

The Law Actually Facebook Experiment – Update

My sordid affair with Facebook is over.

Sadly, my experiment proved a bit of a damp squib, but after 5 months of hardly using my FB account, coupled with the latest privacy debacle, I thought now was as good a time as any to throw in the towel.

I can’t even say it was fun while it lasted.

On reflection, FB didn’t kill me, but I didn’t like it either. I didn’t like the way it had clearly rooted through previous acquaintance’s address books as there were friend suggestions by the dozen from people I used to be in touch (via an Hotmail account I’ve not used since 2004!!).

Facebook proved naggy, often irrelevant and was a UI disaster in my opinion, appearing far to cluttered and overly busy. It was only when I came to deactivate my account that I realised just how evil and tenacious the Facebook tendrils truly were.

At least three separate warnings popped up trying to guilt trip me into not quitting, saying repeatedly how I wouldn’t be able keep in touch with all of my contacts (what, all 6 of them?) if I de-activated my account. The final screen displaying the profile picture of 3 contacts (Andro, Travis and Oliver Smith) saying how each of them would ‘miss me’, had little effect of dissuading me, I’m afraid. But the manipulative effect wasn’t lost on me. BTW, it’s nothing personal, guys. Besides, I follow you all on Twitter anyway – where I am a least a touch more active.

So yeah, it’s all over. I can go back to being a regular Facebook hater from now on.

Thank God for that!

Facebook, Grooming and the Regulatory Mix

From the Guardian 09/03/10:

Senior police officers clashed with the UK's most-used social networking site today, accusing Facebook of ignoring worrying trends that it is providing a safe haven for predatory paedophiles by refusing to sign up to a "panic button" for children and young people.

Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit (Ceop), was joined by the country's lead officer on homicide to tackle the site about its repeated refusal to sign up to a key safety practice adopted by many other similar websites.

The American-owned site has 23 million active users in the UK but refuses to display an official "panic button" that links users directly to Ceop to report suspected activities by predatory paedophiles.

Chapman, a convicted double rapist, posed as a young man called Peter Cartwright on Facebook and spent time grooming Ashleigh before the pair exchanged mobile phone numbers and agreed to meet. Ashleigh was raped and suffocated by Chapman, who dumped her body in a field near Sedgefield in County Durham last October.

Facebook has refused repeated requests by Ceop to include a panic button on its site. Information from the button is used to build intelligence reports on suspects which can become part of police investigations into paedophiles, rapists and violent individuals.

User education is key here. I’ve propounded the idea for greater use of panic button functionality before but that’s only part of the story.

Young, naive users are doing exactly what Ashleigh Hall did all the time. Re-examining the dangers of social networking at a grass roots level is what is needed – and exactly why I’ve been calling for online safety to be made part of PSE (or whatever it’s called in schools now) for ages.

There are also greater societal and parental issues brought into stark focus by cases like this – and better education of the risks is crucial here, too.

A more pro-active, ex ante means of regulating these situations must start with user education. While other elements of the regulatory mix can be added into the pot – such as code and law, from a Lessigian standpoint - a strong foundation of user education remains vital.

While profiling stalkers and groomers is a very important cog in the overall regulatory machine, over-reliance on it can also result in the ‘Fisher-Price Fallacy’ – the false sense of security that users are lured into by cloaking technology from which potentially serious harm can flow with a benign and innocent user interface. ‘Bad’ or ‘false’ security is worse than no security at all.

If user education breeds good judgement in society, that has got to be made a number one priority. Otherwise tragic stories like this will continue unchecked.

My New Year’s Resolution…

I know, I know.  I can hardly believe it either.

The cat was let well and truly out of the bag after Pooni correctly guessed that the New Year’s resolution to which I not-so-mysteriously referred in a previous post was quite simply that I was joining Facebook.  What’s more, Andro found my account (which has actually been active for over a week) so I guess there’s no hiding now!  ;-)

As most ‘regular’ blawgwatchers in the ‘sphere are only too well aware, I’m no fan of Facebook and have made it my personal mission to berate the plague of Facebook, the inherent security/privacy risks blah, blah blah – see, even I’m close to not-caring any longer. In my defence, though, I’ve been a lot better of late and have reduced my (at times petulant) whining considerably.

My general attitude towards social networking services has mellowed markedly over the last 12 months or so and I’ve embraced Twitter – albeit rather fleetingly at times – if only for a means of highlighting new content on my blog. Either way, the idea of me joining up to Facebook is still taking a while to sink in.

Fun fact: I actually signed up for a twitter account back in January 2007 but didn’t start seriously using it until summer 2008 and particularly throughout 2009. Likewise with Facebook; I signed up very early on and then did absolutely nothing with my account – in this case, for obvious reasons.

I guess it’s ironic that I’m finally joining Facebook in the wake of the one of the most notorious and publicly-slated changes to the privacy settings in Facebook’s history. But, given the way I intend using the account, I don’t really care how ‘public’ my FB pages become.

If any of you were wondering why I’m joining and why now, the answer’s quite simple. I guess it’s most attributable to a growing feeling of ‘what the hell’. My experiences on Twitter (such as they are) haven’t induced the sky to come crashing down nor has it driven me out of my tiny mind. In any case, I sense my Facebook experience is going to be more of an experiment and quite what will happen is anyone’s guess.

I’ve joined up as ‘Law Actually’ (go figure) but I will try unreservedly embracing Facebook and all of the supposed delights that it brings. So if you’re feeling sociable – or perhaps that should be charitable ;-) – go ahead and send me a friend request. Quite how long the FB experiment lasts remains to be seen but I’m going in with an open mind limited expectations. And once you’ve ‘friended’ me feel free to scrawl obscenities on my wall, send me free virtual gifts, poke me – steady on solider – and whatever else you seasoned facebookians love doing.

And no, if you’re wondering, I didn’t think I’d see the day either. ;-)

Panic Button Added to Social Networking Sites

From Tech Watch 07/12/09:

Facebook and other social networking sites have agreed to adopt recommendations drawn up by the government to provide a panic button on their web pages.

Bebo has already introduced this measure, which basically consists of a highly visible button that kids can click on to report offensive or inappropriate material.

The idea, which is something that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has been recommending for some time, was put forward by the government’s adviser on online safety, Tanya Byron.

Other guidelines will stress the need for sites to provide parental control options to better supervise their offspring’s online activities, and will also apply to chat rooms, instant messaging services and the like.

I’ve been advocating something along these lines for years. However, in my opinion, a butt which simply provides a means of reporting abuse does not go far enough and it should constitute more of a ‘stop-this-and-get-me-out-of-here-now’ function first and foremost. Reporting of the alleged abuse is surely secondary to stopping it in its tracks.

So, in addition to reporting abuse, pressing the button should also have more immediate functionality. For instance, a single press on it could bring up a window which overrides any window activity below and freezes input of new communication to the user’s account (be that messages, a chat conversation, items posted on a ‘wall’ and so forth.) This window could give the victim a chance to select very easily and quickly those contacts they wanted to stop all communication with – based on who they been in contact with most recently.

This would be much more preferable to just hitting the close button in the appropriate window as, while that would stop the abuse, the victim would still be subjected to witnessing it the next time they logged back in.

The window could prevent the perpetrators from successfully contacting them again at that point or offer a cooling-off period of a pre-defined period of time – perhaps over 24-48 hours. Either way, if the block is made permanent and they wish to do so, abuse could be reported to the service provider at this stage.

In this way, a stop or ‘panic’ button on social networking services could operate in a similar way to what I advocated in my dissertation for virtual worlds which allow for sexual activity between avatars:

Through the modality of code, avatars capable of engaging in sexual activities could be required to have a ‘stop’ function – essentially allowing teleportation or some other means of escape from the unwanted attention of another avatar. This means of regulation represents an ex ante rather than ex post solution – the victim need never be subjected to the trauma in the first place.

Surely this is the right way of regulating the problem of online abuse (in whatever form)? After all, it makes sense to take advantage of the fact the environment is a artificial binary construct which allows a level of regulatory efficiency to be achieved which real-world regulators can only dream of.

Facebook, Privacy, Risks – you know what’s coming

From Outlaw.com 21/07/09:

Jennifer Stoddart's office has investigated the social networking website's use of personal information and has found that Facebook is not clear enough about how users can control their information or restrictive enough in restricting other companies' access to it.*

The Commissioner's office said that the company needed to be more transparent.

"Social networking sites can be a wonderful way to connect. They help us keep up with friends and share ideas and information with people around the globe," said assistant commissioner Elizabeth Denham. It is important for these sites to be in compliance with the law and to maintain users’ trust in how they collect, use and disclose our personal information*.”

The investigation found that users were told on Facebook how to deactivate accounts, but not how to delete them*. Only deleting accounts actually removes personal information from Facebook's servers.

* My emphasis

Seeing as I haven’t engaged in any Facebook-bashing for a while, I thought I’d throw this post up. This topic actually reminds me of a paper I wrote for a competition earlier this year concerning the future of social networking services and the privacy of their respective users. Alas, I didn’t win though still believe I made some excellent arguments throughout (it was probably a touch too forward-thinking and conceptual for them).

In it I argued that for social networking services and privacy to co-exist in any meaningful way together, the first and crucial step was to raise awareness and educate users about the risks they faced and the tools at their disposal to manage those risks.

With informed users, I reckoned, not only would there be less online stupidity with people failing to appreciate the dangers and the full effects of their actions but it would allow for the harnessing of market forces to successfully regulate social networking providers. In short, where users were well-informed enough to choose a service which offered safe connectivity, prized security and respected users’ privacy, the respective social networking services would compete with one another on this front; security would become less of a trade-off with functionality and more of a function in its own right. For the average, less technically au fait user, well, they would be influenced by those in the know and the herd theory would operate to result in an exodus of users from services which didn’t pass muster on the security/privacy front.

There was a lot more to the paper than that, obviously, and it was heavily weighted on the side of regulatory theory rather than black letter law – perhaps that’s why I didn’t win – but I think many of the ideas I advanced are still good. I may publish it myself via Law Actually given time.

25 Random Things (About Facebook Users)

Watch 25 Random Things (Miley Cyrus Parody) and more funny videos on CollegeHumor

Continuing with my Facebook theme of yesterday, I thought I’d post this amusing parody of Miley Cyrus’ ‘7 things’ which bemoans users’ tendency to post ‘random’ facts about themselves on FB (and for that matter, other social networking services). 

My latest social networking related hate, though, is the content of so many users’ profiles on Twitter.  Quite why anybody feels the need to laden down a blurb about themselves with corny and meaningless attributes like ‘friend’, ‘father’, ‘loving husband’ etc. etc. I really don’t get.  Virtually every single person on earth is a friend to somebody, and do you know how many parents and spouses there are in the world?  To those people, I would simply say: seriously – you need to get over yourselves!  Oh, don’t tell me, you’re a ‘PR guru’ and ‘entrepreneur’ too.  Of course you are – as well as being a ‘social butterfly’ for good measure.  While I’m at it, I’m guessing you’re a blogger’ an ‘optimist’ and an ‘internet enthusiast’ too. 

Really?  Well, good for you.  You and all the other tens of millions out there!

Techno Llama: “Why I’m Quitting Facebook”

Long time readers of Law Actually will be well aware of my general dislike for social networking and Facebook in particular. While I have mellowed slightly in my feelings towards certain forms of social media in the last few months, I’ve still kept Facebook at arms’ length.

Naturally, then, when I stumbled across Techno Llama’s post entitled ‘Why I’m quitting Facebook’ I just couldn’t resist a peek. Author of the blog, Andres Guadamuz, makes a number of excellent points:

[Through using Facebook I’ve] ended up with “friends” that I would probably not recognise in the street if they crossed my path. Unsurprisingly, by the time close friends and family had joined, my list was a bloated and unwieldy collection of former friends, former acquaintances, former work colleagues, former students, and former girlfriends.

Facebook is changing the way in which we interact with one another, and not always in a good way.

Maybe there are good reasons why we lose touch with old acquaintances, yet Facebook offers a space where the past and the present blur in ways that we are just starting to navigate.

I’ve long voiced similar ideas, reasoning that, in the main, personal relationships are self-regulating. The nature of the dynamic between people regulates the longevity of the relationship: you remain in contact with those you like and relate to and lose touch with those you don’t. Facebook is frustrating this process whereby the wheat and the chaff are no longer sorted. Instead, people are left with an ever-increasing list of people ‘hanging on’ which blurs the concept of friend, acquaintance, relative stranger and complete stranger. In the longer term, this could mean that the ingrained social and personal skills people rely on in recognising ‘real’ friends are dulled and made ineffective. The damage could be particularly far reaching for children as they develop social skills. That surely can’t be a good thing for society going forward.

Another point from Andres:

Face it, large part of people’s profile pages are nothing more than an exercise in gloating, showing-off the best version of themselves they can find.... to flaunt and to compare profiles... [and use Facebook] to gleefully go through someone’s profile to laugh and ridicule them in private.

If I’m honest, I’ve long suspected that the real reason I’ve stayed clear of Facebook is because I’m so contrary and didn’t want to be seen to ‘follow the masses’. I’ve maintained this stance for so long now that I’ve made a rod for my own back and feel unable to capitulate. Facebook for me always represented everything that was bad, corny and stereotypically insulting about social networking. While the current user base has now transcended the original Facebook demographic, my feelings are neatly summed up by a fantastic quote I found as part of my IT law course on the LLM entitled ‘Say Everything’ from New York magazine:

Kids today. They have no sense of shame. They have no sense of privacy. They are show-offs, fame whores, pornographic little loons who post their diaries, their phone numbers, their stupid poetry—for God’s sake, their dirty photos!—online. They have virtual friends instead of real ones. They talk in illiterate instant messages. They are interested only in attention—and yet they have zero attention span, flitting like hummingbirds from one virtual stage to another.

Perhaps I’m just old before my time but I know that a lot of people in my age bracket flock to social networking sites for precisely these reasons.

While I’m sure that Andres made the right call to leave based on his personal reasons, I think it’s pretty clear that social networking isn’t going to be disappearing any time soon; arguably, all the indications point to the contrary. I’m not sure that a mass exodus is the right way to go about this as users will simply flock to the next ‘big thing’ in social media. Social networking users need to understand and appreciate the complex relationships going on through Facebook and other social media services and the way they are different from conventional relationships. It’s common practice to accept the majority of friend invitations, leave the hangers-on in place and ‘defriending’ contacts is regarded as a personal affront. As I highlighted earlier, this is blurring the concept of ‘friend’ and potentially frustrating the ability of people to identity suitable subjects with whom to forge strong and dependable relationships.  Put another way, I believe we’re at a stage where dangerous social norms are at risk of entrenching themselves which could have implications that spread far wider than just social networking sites.

Adjudicating in 140 characters or less

From the Solicitors’ Journal 27/04/09:

A magistrate accused by a colleague of inappropriate “tweeting” – posting texts on networking website Twitter – has resigned.

Professor Steve Molyneaux, aged 54, posted updates from Telford magistrates court under the user name “ProfOntheProwl”.

According to the Mail on Sunday one of the posts read: “Just about to hear application from three robbers from Manchester as to whether to remand or not.”

Another read: “Called into court today to deal with those arrested last night and held in custody. I guess they will be mostly drunks but you never know.”

Mr Molyneaux, who had been a magistrate for 16 years, said everything he reported on Twitter had been said in open court, and denied posting while a hearing was in session.

He told the BBC that the judicial system needed to embrace technology to improve transparency and let the people see that justice had been done.

He announced his resignation on Twitter.

I’m all for the judicial system embracing technology and improving transparency but I’m not sure this is the right way to go about it. After all, I’m not sure that having a magistrate tweeting: “I guess they will be mostly drunks...” etc. is particularly conducive to letting citizens know justice will be done.

Magistrates have a tough time conveying a reputation of robust and unbiased cogs in the judicial machine as it is without one of their more tech-savvy members tweeting his every thought on a case. Whether Professor Molyneaux was tweeting ‘in session’ or not isn’t really the point: it was still inappropriate. Given the reciprocal nature of tweets, it’s interesting to wonder just how his followers’ responses shaped his thinking. Either way, the simple fact remains that a key figure – and I use that term loosely – in our judicial system to be tweeting doesn’t really convey the right message: that the magistrate is open-minded, unbiased and will adjudicate solely based on the evidence put before him.

Still, maybe the idea has potential for a 21^st century judicial system. While a magistrate should not be seen to tweet, perhaps it would be acceptable for a court clerk to - as an extension of his administrative duties? Maybe, in jury trials the idea could be expanded even further and a Facebook group set up for the jury to engage in. Let’s not leave the public out though: maybe a live video-stream of the proceedings, a YouTube video of the ‘trial’s highlights’ and associated chat room for the public to put their own thoughts to the judge in real time. Such changes would no doubt be referred to as the ‘Justice 2.0’ wave, or would ‘social adjudicating’ be more fitting?  No?

But seriously, all things considered, I think the justice system is arguably better off without the Prof’s tech-savvy contributions. And as for tweeting confirmation of his resignation? Well, nice touch, Professor Molyneaux.

Think Before You Post… Will the message ever be heeded?

In a paper I wrote recently concerning the future of social networking, I argued that the single most effective solution for its safe use going forwards was the need for education to be heightened. This educative solution focussed on many things, from privacy related issues to piercing the virtual veil – a concept that I coined late last year. My recommendations were quite far-reaching and centred on a broad, multi-pronged approach to raising education and knowledge of the full-blown implications of social networking. On this basis, I guess, sending out reminders to job-seekers that their online actions can have real world implications – particularly for their job prospects – can only be a good thing.

From an email that dropped into my Inbox overnight from Lawladder.co.uk:

Social networking is a relative newcomer in the world of online recruitment and research is still being carried out into its effects.

However, it has already had a massive impact on millions of people and it would be naive to believe that you are immune from its effects.

When companies are researching a potential candidate for a job, running the person's name through Facebook or MySpace is increasingly becoming a routine part of the process.

Think about it. Would you really want your potential employer to see photos of you from a night out, your last holiday or another personal event? Would they present you as the most suitable person for an executive job?

Repeating the same message countless times, though, is of little use. Ultimately, those users who document some of the wackier things they get up to in their spare time on social networking sites really have to stop and take that message on board.

Social Networking User? Yes?...Then you're a bad person!

Just as my feelings towards social networking are beginning to mellow slightly, I'm told that it's making me a 'bad person'.  Great.

From the Metro 14.04.09:

Using Facebook or Twitter may make you a bad person because it ruins your moral compass, it has been claimed.

Fast-paced modern media, such as Facebook updates and news feeds on Twitter, do not give us time to reflect and could make us indifferent to human suffering, according to a group of researchers.

Children could be particularly vulnerable because their brains are still developing, it was claimed.

'If things are happening too fast, you may not ever fully experience emotions about other people's psychological states and that would have implications for your morality,' said researcher Mary Helen Immordino-Yang, from the University of Southern California.

Friendface

Friendface - you'll feel so social! from Rimvydas V. on Vimeo.

 

No doubt many of you will recognise this from the latest series of the IT crowd, but it’s such a good parody of social networks -and particularly Facebook – that I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to share it on Law Actually.

In the explanatory video of what Friendface is all about, an analogy with contagious illnesses is drawn.  And I think that’s about right for a lot of social networks out there.

Some of my favourite quotes:

“Each Friendface page is like a petridish filled with Friendface germs.”

“It’s basically a diseased face of friendship.”

“Just sign up to Friendface by giving us all of your personal information.”

“We own everything you put on friendface – it says so in the terms and agreements. But don’t worry about that, we won’t use it to do anything bad – we promise!”

Later in the actual episode, Moss bemoans that his mother has signed up to Friendface, meaning he must endure yet another channel of communication with her. When colleague Jen suggests that that can only be a good thing, Moss’ reservations quickly become understandable when he reveals she’s set her online mood to ‘sensual’.

Love it.

You just can’t beat this stuff.

Facebook Friend Saves Teenager’s Life

I know I rag on Facebook quite a bit, but this story is truly amazing.

“A British teenager’s suicide note on Facebook sparked a transatlantic rescue mission which saved his life.

The 16-year-old boy’s threat to kill himself, sent to a girl 3,600 miles away, in Maryland, America, was the starting point for an extraordinary race against time.

When she read his private post at 11.30pm on Wednesday night his American friend told her parents, who called the local state police.

The only details they were given were his name and the fact he went to school in Oxforshire [sic].

Within one hour the girl’s distress call was passed all the way across the across the Atlantic to Thames Valley Police via a White House Special Agent, the British Embassy in Washington DC and The Metropolitan Police in London.

Armed with scant facts from his Facebook profile, Thames Valley Police Officers turned to other internet sites, including Google and online electoral roll search services to trace him.

They managed to narrow down the boy’s home to eight possible addresses, dispatching officers to each one.

At 2.30am, three hours after his message was sent the boy was found at the fourth address, alive but suffering from an overdose of prescription pills.

The boy, who has not been named, was rushed by ambulance to the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, where he made a full recovery.”

You can read the full story here at The Times.

25 things I hate about Facebook

Compared to last year, I’ve been Facebook-bashing considerably less of late so when I came across this gem earlier, it was an obvious ‘must post’.  Enjoy.