AFF twitter a/c tweeting political views

[thewinchester]

For the purpose of this post, I refer to the following screencap, taken this evening:



The above screencap is a retweet posted this evening on the Australian Frequent Flyer twitter account.

I have taken up the issue with admin this evening, as I personally am unimpressed that the AFF a/c is being used to share a political view. This is because AFF is not a political site (far from it), and I personally doubt, specially as the issue hasn't been discussed anywhere here.

I feel that the retweet is highly inappropriate in the above context. I put this to admin in a private message:

I'm hoping that you'll be promptly retracting your retweet of AnimalsAus on live exports.

Firstly, AFF is not a political site, nor has it and should it take position on such issues.

Secondly, I do not believe that the tweet would be an accurate representation of the collective views of members.

-thewinchester

Now while I know from experience that admin has demonstrated in prior communications that he doesn't believe private messages sent directly to a specific user are private, I will be refraining from posting his response to my PM. I do encourage him to post his unedited response here in due course for the purpose of full and frank discussion.

AFF is a board about frequent flying, and while discussion of social issues in the playground area take place in the Playground - these are not the boards primary purpose. I am of the view that it is therefore inappropriate for the twitter account to be used to express views in the manner which has occurred.

I make this post to go public and on the record that as a member here I distance myself entirely from the views expressed by the tweet in respect of live export.

I also use this post as a method to commence open discussion with other members to see how others view the use of AFF's resources being used to express political views in a way which could potentially misrepresent and may not be representative of the collective view, and purpose of the forum.

 

[Lawlass]

#firstworldproblems

Seriously, you thought a retweet was worth that much of a post?

#getalife

 

[admin]

Am happy to make public my response to your PM

Hi thewinchester

Regarding your first point. I respectfully disagree with your view. This is not a political issue at all. People on all sides of politics are appalled by this practice.

Secondly, the tweet might or might not be the collective view of our members. I don't believe anyone has the expectation that it should be the AFF collective view. It's the view of the tweeter.

Regards, Clifford

Like thousands of other Australians I was appalled by what I saw on 4 Corners tonight (Four Corners - 30/05/2011: A Bloody Business)

thewinchester if by starting this thread, you make more people aware of this issue, I thank you!

For the purpose of this post, I refer to the following screencap, taken this evening:

View attachment 2372

The above screencap is a retweet posted this evening on the Australian Frequent Flyer twitter account.

I have taken up the issue with admin this evening, as I personally am unimpressed that the AFF a/c is being used to share a political view. This is because AFF is not a political site (far from it), and I personally doubt, specially as the issue hasn't been discussed anywhere here.

I feel that the retweet is highly inappropriate in the above context. I put this to admin in a private message:



Now while I know from experience that admin has demonstrated in prior communications that he doesn't believe private messages sent directly to a specific user are private, I will be refraining from posting his response to my PM. I do encourage him to post his unedited response here in due course for the purpose of full and frank discussion.

AFF is a board about frequent flying, and while discussion of social issues in the playground area take place in the Playground - these are not the boards primary purpose. I am of the view that it is therefore inappropriate for the twitter account to be used to express views in the manner which has occurred.

I make this post to go public and on the record that as a member here I distance myself entirely from the views expressed by the tweet in respect of live export.

I also use this post as a method to commence open discussion with other members to see how others view the use of AFF's resources being used to express political views in a way which could potentially misrepresent and may not be representative of the collective view, and purpose of the forum.

 

[ColinP]

I'm with admin on this. Surely all views expressed on this site are those of the poster. There is rarely a unanimous "collective view", nor would you expect there to be.

IMO There's nothing political about this issue. I'm just wondering which particular branch of politics the OP thinks would condone this behaviour

I too was appalled. I'm no mung bean munching bleeding-heart. Far from it but the treatment I witnessed tonight was totally unnecessary and inhumane

Getup has a petition going if anyone is interested in signing.

Ban Live Export

 

[ejb]

I congratulate admin on his stance. I eat meat and until last night thought the only bad thing about live exports was the lost economic value of slaughtering the animals here. After watching the footage last night I will be actively seeking an end to this trade.

I can't comprehend how any person would not be shocked by what they saw and I hope that all members will sign the petition. I have not always agreed with getup and usually think they are way off the mark but on this issue I feel they deserve support.

ejb.

 

[medhead]

This is not a political issue at all. It is an issue of basic acceptable standards for animal handling and food preparation. The only political aspect is upsetting Indonesia and frankly they need to get their stuff sorted out

 

[Mal]

This is not a political issue at all. It is an issue of basic acceptable standards for animal handling and food preparation.

I have a very neutral/negative view towards treatment of animals. I'm going to offend many when I state "They're food, we are higher in the food chain - get over it"

But hey... hate me if you want.

As for Admin using the AFF twitter account to post about it - why are people so precious? If he chooses to do it - why not. I don't agree, but unless I take over his company/website and set the standards, then I really can't complain. Others will view the post with appropriate response.

(In a real corporate environment, it would be seen as very unprofessional to use Twitter for personal views while posting on behalf of the company... but AFF isn't really a corporate. ).

 

[markis10]

I agree there is nothing political about animal cruelty, respect for all living things is a major facet of many religions and has also been a feature of AFF in it's various appeals over the years, including the most recent support for animals affected by January's disasters. I also believe travelers should be aware of these issues so they don't inadvertently encourage such practices by consuming the end product as part of their adventures.

 

[medhead]

I have a very neutral/negative view towards treatment of animals. I'm going to offend many when I state "They're food, we are higher in the food chain - get over it"

Umm, that is a completely separate issue. This is not about eating animals or not. This is about how you treat those animals as they become food. I'm sure you don't have a (negative) view towards treatment of animals such that they are killed as cruelly as possible before they become food.

 

[simongr]

AFF has a Twitter account?

On the presumption that it does the AFF twitter account could post whatever it likes and it would not be representing my views as I am not a paid affiliated supporter of the opinions of AFF.

Now I know it is probably semantics but IF Admin posted this on Twitter then I think there would be more of an issue:

"The members of AFF want live exports banned" or even worse "The members of AFF support the recent changes to the QFF as fair and just to WP".

And to be absolutely clear if Admin does want to represent my opinions then BAN LIVE EXPORTS.

 

[Homer]

I make this post to go public and on the record that as a member here I distance myself entirely from the views expressed by the tweet in respect of live export.

I also use this post as a method to commence open discussion with other members to see how others view the use of AFF's resources being used to express political views in a way which could potentially misrepresent and may not be representative of the collective view, and purpose of the forum.

You have a right to support live exports thewinchester but, with respect, I think it likely you have misjudged the views of the majority here along with the majority of the Australian population on this issue. Admin can use AFF resources as he sees fit. It’s his business.

 

[medhead]

Cool semantics.

I think it is wrong to only view this as being about live export of cattle. Sure, the animal activist are trying to use this as a means to ban live exports. But they fail to understand that is not the only answer to the problem they've highlighted. Yes, banning live exports is one way to address bad slaughter practices. But another way is to improve (fix) those slaughter practices. Hence I can be appalled about what was on TV last night but still not agree to a long term ban of live exports.

In fact, animal rights groups are being hypocritical, IMO, in saying that it's not ok for Australian cattle with the implication that it is ok for other cattle. Racism? Breedism?

 

[Homer]

Yes, banning live exports is one way to address bad slaughter practices. But another way is to improve (fix) those slaughter practices.

As was reported last night, the industry has been aware of those “bad slaughter practices” for 10 years and some of their attempts to improve those practices, such as “the box”, have actually made things worse.

 

[TonyHancock]

AFF has a Twitter account?

This was my shock take on the thread too. I didn't know it existed. :shock:

Is there an AFF IRC room somewhere? That could be great fun.

As for the tweet, I don't see it as political, Admin can do whatever he likes with the AFF account, and as it happens he is pretty much representing my views anyway.

 

[Sifor]

Doesn't bother me...Admin can post whatever he/she likes.

 

[anat0l]

Well this thread has quickly evolved from a Suggestions / Questions thread to a more Playground (or Open Discussion) thread.

In any case, I always thought the @AustFreqFlyer twitter account was only for the purposes of promoting @AustFreqFlyer and also providing the usual tweet-feed of new topics (mostly erroneously auto-hashtagged with #qantas and #virginblue). I've hardly ever seen another tweet come out of @AustFreqFlyer.

If I had known (and probably do now) that @AustFreqFlyer actually was admin's account on Twitter, then that changes perspectives, i.e. you would recognise that the tweets on the account are his views although being the owner of AFF necessarily also means he will tweet about AFF stuff. In saying that, admin's tweet as highlighted by the OP is the first (probably not, but for me I rarely see them, so it feels like the first) tweet which both:

• expresses a point of view, and
• isn't something about AFF directly

...albeit, of course, a mere retweet (but keep in mind that just as tweets are conscious actions, retweets are, too).

I don't find anything wrong per se about the (re)tweet, irrespective of my views on the topic at hand. However, I can see where something like this can lead to (in)sensitivities. Perhaps if it wasn't something so... "one-sided"... for example, if @AustFreqFlyer retweeted a petition to push for the implementation of a carbon tax.

 

[nlagalle]

For the purpose of this post, I refer to the following screencap, taken this evening:


The above screencap is a retweet posted this evening on the Australian Frequent Flyer twitter account.

I have taken up the issue with admin this evening, as I personally am unimpressed that the AFF a/c is being used to share a political view. This is because AFF is not a political site (far from it), and I personally doubt, specially as the issue hasn't been discussed anywhere here.

I feel that the retweet is highly inappropriate in the above context. I put this to admin in a private message:



Now while I know from experience that admin has demonstrated in prior communications that he doesn't believe private messages sent directly to a specific user are private, I will be refraining from posting his response to my PM. I do encourage him to post his unedited response here in due course for the purpose of full and frank discussion.

AFF is a board about frequent flying, and while discussion of social issues in the playground area take place in the Playground - these are not the boards primary purpose. I am of the view that it is therefore inappropriate for the twitter account to be used to express views in the manner which has occurred.

I make this post to go public and on the record that as a member here I distance myself entirely from the views expressed by the tweet in respect of live export.

I also use this post as a method to commence open discussion with other members to see how others view the use of AFF's resources being used to express political views in a way which could potentially misrepresent and may not be representative of the collective view, and purpose of the forum.

Sorry thewinchester, I don't agree with you here. IMO Admin can post his own personal views on twitter (like others i never knew it existed) as long as it doesn't use the members (which was pointed out and also wasn't done).

And it certainly isn't political, would be a different story if he was tweeting to support the carbon tax as an example.

I also think most members here would know of the stance towards animals after the floods and membership donations were given to animal welfare charities. There was also another donation some months earlier IIRC

 

[awilcockson]

I'm an avid eater of meat, both red and white. I understand that cattle are bred to be consumed. I've watched with interest the videos on the super butcher website showing how beef cattle are slaughtered and processed. But seeing the video on the getup website made me feel physically sick. Add me to the list of people who want to see those who perpertrated such barbaric treatment against those defenseless animals suffer a similar fate.

edit: thewinchester, being overseas at the moment I hadn't heard anything about the tv report on this, and like most others I didn't even know that AFF had a twitter account, so thanks for bringing this to my attention. As far as I'm concerned, it's admin's site and his twitter account, he can do whatever he wants with it.

 

[tuppaware]

For my understanding AFF is a privately run forum, in which we all had to agree to T&C's.

Private twitter account attached to the forum is up to admin to decide what gets tweeted.

If you had problems with it, un-follow it .

 

[dk4]

Firstly, I would say that anyone watching that program (as it went to air live last night) would have been affected by what they saw. That individuals use their social networks to discuss and disseminate information about the program is a natural part of human nature. And twitter is about sharing the immediacy of this reaction.

So is re-tweeting relevant?

Many on this board travel internationally, and so international relations (particularly when involving one of our most proximate neighbours) are of interest, thus the topic is relevant to a periphery of AFF members. (Although I can see how re-tweeting a call for an outright ban on live exports, may be seen as an extreme reaction.)

However, more than politics, I think the main factors surrounding this issue are religious and economic.

Religious, in terms of what does Halal mean in the 21st century? (Today in our society, modern ethics usurps many old-fashion moralistic codes, which were designed for human lifestyles millennia ago.) The program really skirted this issue, by not interviewing any local Indonesian religious leaders (both progressive and orthodox) about the current slaughter process, and the possibility of using electric shock.

Economic, in terms of access to refrigeration (across the whole distribution process, including end consumer) as well as the costs of implementing an electric shock process in abattoirs, ones which are so small, that they may only slaughter half a dozen head a night. (The program only briefly touched on these elements.)

In terms of politics, I think that all Australians interviewed could see the need for change. (In fact, the cages introduced by the Australian industry, for use in Indonesia, would seem to be indicative of this. I would imagine that their introduction alone, reduced the amount of time (per animal) taken in the slaughter process. But reduction is not negation; it is merely a step in the right direction, to reduce an animal’s distress/suffering. Noting though; that roping cattle [ala US rodeo style] is done "merely for pleasure" in some countries!) The key issue is how quickly can change occur, and that comes down to religious and economic “growth” in Indonesia. And I believe that growth can only be fostered by continued engagement.

Finally, there are two distressing images from that program, which may never leave my head – 1) The animal lying on the ground, with its throat (eventually) cut, getting up and moving around, still conscious, with its head half hanging off. 2) The last animal in line to be slaughtered, which watched those before it killed, skinned & butchered, visibly shacking as it waited its turn to die, obviously cognisant of what was going on.

I would agree though, that if the voice of AFF was to become over politicised, it would certainly lose much of its relevance.