spinofflive
Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing.  Zuckerberg, was called to testify after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images).
Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing. Zuckerberg, was called to testify after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images).

PartnersFebruary 4, 2019

Liar liar, platforms on fire: the rise of misinformation and what to do about it

Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing.  Zuckerberg, was called to testify after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images).
Facebook co-founder, Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies before a combined Senate Judiciary and Commerce committee hearing. Zuckerberg, was called to testify after it was reported that 87 million Facebook users had their personal information harvested by Cambridge Analytica, a British political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images).

Social media has provided access to more information than ever, but at the same time it’s harder than ever to tell what’s real and what’s fake. InternetNZ policy advisor Nicola Brown looks back at the year Fake News broke the internet. 

Bad news spreads fast. In 2018 we saw what might be the breaking point of social media platforms. Their business model makes money through advertising, and to know the ads are working requires engagement, clicking, liking, reacting. Each and every post requires attention from users. The best way they’ve discovered to garner that attention? Outrage. Content that users can’t help but engage with.

Then there are the algorithms that deliver content to our eyeballs, trained to demand our attention and to keep us online. And just as businesses have learnt how to utilise social media, so have hostile nations intent on undermining democracy. So that’s all fun.

Not many people would honestly tell you that social media sparks joy right now. Should we thank it and let it go? Or can we bring back the joy?

Dictionary.com’s word of the year was ‘misinformation’, and rightly so. At InternetNZ we have taken a look at the big stories of last year that have informed our understanding of social media in 2018, to see what we can do while the world sorts this out. The real-world repercussions of misinformation are fatal, and social media companies are failing to keep up.

Disinformation, information created maliciously with the aim of influencing others, has taken root on various social media platforms. Bad actors have been able to utilise social media to sow division and spread disinformation. The platform companies didn’t have the ability (or, on occasion, the will) to address what these bad actors were doing. That had real world consequences.  

Facebook was used by the Myanmar government to spread disinformation about tensions between its citizens to incite violence against the Rohingya people. Facebook has admitted that it failed to curb the spread of hatred on its platform. The case raises questions about what happens when a platform like Facebook enters a new country, whose political landscape Facebook does not understand. Its lack of local knowledge and investment in local content moderators allowed the proliferation of hate and disinformation to continue.

Myanmar youths browse their Facebook page at an internet shop in Yangon. Facebook has removed hundreds of pages and accounts in Myanmar with hidden links to the military as the company scrambles to respond to criticism over failures to control hate speech and misinformation. (Photo: SAI AUNG MAIN/AFP/Getty Images)

In India, WhatsApp was used to spread rumours which led to the deaths of five people. WhatsApp publicly stated that it was “horrified by these terrible acts of violence”. They didn’t have a solution. They called for help from the government.  

Everyone is grappling with the real-world implications of a digital menace. And some countries have started to address the issue – Malaysia introduced the Anti-Fake News Act 2018, while Singapore is looking to outlaw fake news.

New Zealand is not immune to the social media chaos

In the past year we’ve seen how hot button issues like the national debate on the use of 1080 have attracted foreign Twitter accounts posing as New Zealanders with a vested interest.  

We also experienced our own taste of online division when Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux hit our shores. David Hood (@thoughtfulnz) gave a talk at KiwiCon 2038 on what happened after Phil Goff sent his infamous Tweet defending the choice to not let Southern and Molyneux use a council venue. He found that most of the tweets in condemnation of Goff’s decision were from overseas accounts, and most in support were from New Zealanders.

And misinformation also made its way to the Beehive. Judith Collins mistakenly tweeted a fake news story about a child sex abuse law France was about to pass. She asked the prime minister to denounce the law, which barely resembled what was reported in the fake news story. This led to the the prime minister being forced to use her post-Cabinet press conference to discuss fake news. We’re half a world away, but misinformation connects us all to the latest internet craziness. New Zealand is not immune.

The future of social media is at stake

Even with all of the issues with social media, people still find it a valuable place in which to gather, to communicate, to share. But one person’s hate speech is another person’s free speech. And one person’s legitimate protest movement is another person’s Russian influence campaign.

In July, Facebook removed an event page for ”No Unite the Right 2”, a counter protest to the Charlottesville Unite the Right march held in 2017. This was created by the Russian influence peddlers the Internet Research Agency, in order to further sow political discord. But while the event was initiated by bad actors, legitimate supporters had taken it over. Was Facebook right to delete content being used by real people, even if from a fake seed?

It’s not just the Russians lying to you. How do we know know that a celebrity’s favourite detox tea isn’t #sponcon? On Instagram, celebrities and influencers are paid massive amounts of money by brands to advertise their wares. We’re even seeing the rise of wannabe influencers pretending they have sponsorship deals in order to build their credibility.

And the people who pay for it are also facing false information. In October, advertisers sued Facebook for inflating the metrics about how well video performed on Facebook. For a few years now, Facebook has been pushing video as a great way for advertisers and news media to reach audiences. And they listened. Thousands of journalists were made redundant as media companies made apivot to video based on misleading data.

A participant in the Unite the Right rally blares a horn at protestors on Aug. 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia. (Calla Kessler/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

SO WHAT DO I DO?!?

Systemic problems can’t be solved by personal responsibility; using a metal straw instead of a plastic one won’t stop the glaciers melting. But you can improve your own social media diet. Firstly, play with those feed settings! If there’s a news organisation you trust, you can select the Facebook option see stories from them first.

Context check what you share. What is the source of the information, who is the author? Did the person who first retweeted/shared it do so in anger, in support, in parody? Is it a meme based on something you *assume* to be true? Context check!

And finally, think about the values you hold and the values you are feeding. Jess Berentson-Shaw articulated this best in 2018. Model the type of democracy you want to see.

2019 looks to be a watershed moment for social media, and it’s time for all of us to have a conversation about what we want the future of the Internet to look like. As part of this conversations, InternetNZ will be releasing a think piece in March 2019 on misinformation and what Aotearoa should be doing about it.

We’d love to hear from you. Feel free to email me at nicola@internetnz.net.nz with your thoughts.

This content was created in paid partnership with InternetNZ. Learn more about our partnerships here.

Keep going!
One of William Smyth’s Kaka (copyright Otago museum).
One of William Smyth’s Kaka (copyright Otago museum).

PartnersFebruary 3, 2019

The Irishman who stuffed New Zealand’s birds

One of William Smyth’s Kaka (copyright Otago museum).
One of William Smyth’s Kaka (copyright Otago museum).

Catherine Woulfe goes searching for the legacy of one of New Zealand’s first taxidermists. 

This story originally ran in Barker’s 1972 magazine under the title Legacies: He Never Quit the Hustle.

Birds! In the 1800s they were everywhere. Huia, kōkako, takahē, kākāriki – all clamouring to be shot and stuffed and stuck on a mantle.

Into this cornucopia sailed Irish taxidermist William Smyth. He was in his early 30s when he arrived in Dunedin, already a hustler, a hard case. He was a taxidermist – he’d probably taught himself, from books – and he had prepared nearly 300 British birds. He thought it was high time he took a job at a museum.

Except there were only four museums in New Zealand. And each usually employed only one taxidermist.

Smyth wrote to his local MP asking for a hook-up. He took a climb-the-ladder approach, and asked for work as a museum janitor. He was sober and well-educated, had been into natural history since childhood. Plus, all those birds. Yes? No.

It was the first of many knock-backs.

Smyth rallied. He was good at rallying.

With his new bride Agnes in tow, he set up as a commercial taxidermist in Caversham (later the home of Carisbrook).

The couple had five children. Agnes left him once, twice, and finally thrice, complaining that he failed to provide for her and the children – and that he left arsenic lying around on the verandah.

Arsenic was used to cure the bird skins, to stop them attracting mould and insects. It was also used by taxidermists who wanted to kill themselves. (At least two of Smyth’s contemporaries did just that. Frederick Fuller, who discovered the massive, moa-hunting New Zealand eagle, died in 1876 and James Morton, an Invercargill taxidermist, in 1882.)

William Smyth’s Kākāpō (copyright Otago museum)

Smyth, despite the foundering of his marriage and career, just kept on keeping on. Perhaps it was his extraordinary self-belief that hauled him through.

That, and the tantalising prospect of a job at the Auckland museum. The curator, Thomas Cheeseman, struggled to find a taxidermist for the position, and Smyth never quit asking for it.

Over two decades the pair exchanged dozens of letters, beginning in 1882, when Cheeseman wrote inquiring after King Penguin skins. Poor old Smyth, always on the back foot: no, he didn’t have any King Penguins, but would Cheeseman like… he listed more than a thousand bird specimens, as well as small mammals. Cheeseman bought about 20.

Things continued in a similar vein. Smyth, eager, Cheeseman, busy and business-like. All up, Cheeseman bought at least 220 of Smyth’s study skins (preserved, but unmounted specimens).

But he never bought into Smyth. Over and over again, Smyth hit him up. In 1882: “I should be glad to treat with you regarding taxidermist to the Museum”. In 1883, on hearing Cheeseman was trying to recruit overseas: “Please keep me in mind I am willing to take an under place if necessary.” Two years later: could Cheeseman help him get “any opening for me in any museum even at dusting out the place”?

Portrait of William Smyth about 1885 (Photographer unknown, Te Papa)

Thwarted, Smyth doubled down on his commercial taxidermy.

He enlisted locals to bring him birds and skins, and travelled to Fiordland and Napier to shoot kārearea, kōkako and weka. There were interesting sidelines.

When Victorians came down with “fern fever” Smyth made books of pressed ferns – these were purely to look good (and sell), with no pretensions of scientific significance. He sold large shells, intending them to be used in gardens, and he mounted trophy heads for deer hunters. He made a few muffs and lampshades from native birds – imagine! He wanted to set up his own little museum, and asked Cheeseman for help getting hold of “any monstrosity or freak”. He was, at one point, after a working model of Niagara Falls.

He did not make much money. Things got so dire that he advertised his copy of Buller’s Birds of New Zealand, a tool of the trade and then the closest thing to a bible of our natural history.

Yet his chutzpah stayed very much intact. Smyth’s will, drawn up two years before his death in 1913, instructs that his entire collection was to be shipped to Coleraine, a town in Northern Ireland. The town was to foot the bill for all packing, freight and upkeep of the specimens. If Coleraine wasn’t keen they were to offer it to Ballymoney, and as a last resort, the City of Londonderry.

“He fell among thieves” – likely a reference to the story of the Good Samaritan – was to be inscribed on his headstone.

None of it happened. The collection went to auction in Dunedin and Smyth’s headstone has a mocking, blank space where the inscription should be.

It’s his work, then, that serves as epitaph. Smyth’s specimens have landed in museums all around the world – the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. Here, each of the major museums holds dozens of his birds, and his grand display cases – weird groups of birds, clustered on branches and rocks – are still floating around in private collections.

Smyth became bitter and resentful toward Otago Museum, so he’d perhaps gain a certain satisfaction from the fact the museum now holds 159 of his specimens – and that an honorary curator there named Rosi Crane finds him absolutely fascinating. Recently she and co-author Brian Gill published a paper in the journal Archives of Natural History, cataloguing Smyth’s life and times. It’s a rare piece of academia: wry, warm, funny. Sincere.

“His contribution to public bird collections has gone unrecognised,” Crane and Gill write. “It is timely to give some due acknowledgement to his legacy.”

A black shag by William Smyth (copyright Otago museum).

Alongside Smyth’s slow-burning success, what comes through in their paper is that he was a difficult bugger, a man who made life harder than it needed to be. Who, nonetheless, never stopped hustling.

Crane’s left with the same impression.

“Intense, that’s the word,” she says. “I think he was very difficult… very upright and very firm and Protestant in his views.

“I think once you started him talking you’d find him hard to stop. One of those, you know.”

I visit Auckland Museum, looking for traces of Smyth. I’d been assured many of their 70 Smyth specimens are on public display.

I wander into a huge room, packed with dinosaur fossils and moa bones and dozens of stuffed birds. Some are at eye-level, behind glass.

But look up. There, against the high white ceiling, a flash of kākā in flight. The stark chest of a kererū. Ruru the colour of a forest floor, a wingspan that can only be kārearea. And here’s the best bit: on most of the birds, there are no labels – or where there are labels, no mention of the taxidermist. At last, Smyth is on a level with his celebrated contemporaries. And all of them have been subsumed by their craft. By the birds.