An intriguing social media story played out in Australian politics over the last few weeks, one that highlights both the perceived power of anonymity on the web and the reaches of social data and data tracking.
Former federal politician Mark Latham was once a leading contender to become the nation's next Prime Minister. His no-nonsense, 'tough love' approach was supported by many, though his stances were often extremely divisive - for example, Latham criticized mothers who take anti-depressants, saying that they provide a bad example for their kids. In his time as a politician, Latham became known as a quote machine, someone who always had a strong opinion and was always willing to share it, no matter who he might hurt in the process.
Since his retirement from politics 2005, Latham has been a political commentator for various outlets, most notably for The Australian Financial Review, the nation's leading daily business publication. His behind the scenes insights and merciless criticism have made him a popular reference point and you can always bet that the media will seek out Latham's opinion on the latest political controversy. But Latham's new media persona had also been more carefully crafted, not as brash or abrasive as previous. At least, that's how it's gone till now.
An Awakening
In December last year a Twitter account opened up called @RealMarkLatham. The account, with no profile picture and no identifying details, tweeted out criticisms of politicians and commentary on events and personalities in the style of the former MP - for example, the first tweets sent from the account were critical of another politician, Chris Kenny:
Nothing major there, no doubt this was just another political parody account aiming to draw attention by using Latham's name. But over time the tweets from the account got a bit more cutting, with strong criticisms of politicians and media personalities - female identities in particular.
The views expressed were getting more extreme, and more targeted at specific people. While such bile is broadcast pretty regularly across the social-sphere, some in the media started to question whether this might actually be the real Mark Latham. BuzzFeed news reporter Mark di Stefano conducted an investigation and found several patterns that linked the Twitter account to the former MP.
First, he noticed that the account was interacting with other politicians and they were responding as if it were actually Mark Latham, which they obviously wouldn't do if it were a parody account. Below is an exchange with former state political leader Jeff Kennett.
(Note - the 'mental BS' referred to is that Kennett is now the head of a national anti-depression initiative called 'Beyond Blue')
Second, his colleagues at The Australian Financial Review, used the Twitter handle when sharing Latham's content.
(image via BuzzFeed)
BuzzFeed made inquiries about this, but the publication was unable to confirm whether the account was actually run by Latham.
But the third element produced the most compelling evidence - the account was actually tweeting out quotes that Latham was later, publishing in his columns. For example, in January the account tweeted this:
Then in a March column in The Australian Financial Review, Latham used the exact same quote in his piece.
(image via BuzzFeed)
So either it was Latham himself behind the tweets, or he was aware of the account and was quoting it in his work. The latter scenario seemed less likely, but none of this formed solid evidence that it was actually him on Twitter, it's just circumstantial correlation. At this point, BuzzFeed called upon Latham to come forward and declare that it was, in fact, him behind the account. This, evidently, sent the owner of @RealMarkLatham into overdrive, unleashing a stream of unrestrained abuse and vitriol.
Around the same time, seemingly emboldened by the failed attempts to unmask the actual author of the tweets, the account had been getting more extreme, attacking various public figures, including Australian of the Year Rosie Batty, whose son was murdered by her abusive ex-husband.
The Final Straw
And this is where the guys at BuzzFeed got a little more creative. Utilizing a Twitter/Gmail hack, the team worked out a way to identify, definitively, that it was, in fact, former MP Mark Latham in control of the @RealMarkLatham account. Here's how it works:
The BuzzFeed team first got Latham's actual e-mail address, which he'd posted publicly in several of his columns and publications.
(Image via BuzzFeed)
They added Latham's e-mail address as a new contact in Gmail. They then switched over to Twitter and used the 'Find Friends' feature, which accesses your e-mail contacts and looks for their related Twitter identities for you to follow. They focused their search on their Gmail contacts specifically:
(Image via BuzzFeed)
No doubt you can guess what came next:
(Image via BuzzFeed)
To further confirm this, you can click on the 'manage my contacts' option which lists, e-mail address by e-mail address, the contacts you've imported from your address book.
(Image via BuzzFeed)
This is the definitive link that proves Latham is, indeed, in charge of that Twitter account.
Take note - your data follows you everywhere.
The Wash-Up
Latham was subsequently sacked (or resigned, depending on who you listen to) from his job at The Australian Financial Review as a result of his tweets. The news was confirmed by Latham via his (now official) Twitter account:
The lesson in this case is that your social media persona and your public, real-life persona are the same thing - while you might think you can go online and troll people under another name, the increasing use of data and data-traceability significantly increases the likelihood of you being found out for such actions. This is particularly relevant in the case of politicians and those in positions of authority (and is one of the main reasons cited by CEOs as to why they avoid social media) - what's said on social is said in public and everyone can see it.
Does that mean those in such roles should just stay away from social and avoid the potential fallout completely? I'd say no. I'd say that social media is increasingly where today's audiences are interacting and getting their news and information from, so it's of very high value to have public figures and business leaders making themselves a part of that conversation and building connections in this form. But there is a need to remain aware of the audience to which you're speaking.
In Latham's case, he saw the anonymity of social media as a means to attack and criticize, free of sanction. And you've now seen how that went.
One core rule of social that I firmly believe in is that you should avoid broadcasting negativity on social channels. There's no need for it - if you don't like what someone says, unfollow and move on. There's often little to be gained from pulling them up or snapping back - constructive debate is one thing, but personal attacks and criticisms are something else entirely, and you can generally avoid such antagonisms without having to resort to online confrontation.
No negativity on social. Just don't do it. And maybe, collectively, we can create new societal acceptance via social platforms, where such behavior is simply not given the air to breathe.
Main image via Shutterstock