Twitter - saviour or sinner?

Twitter was launched with very little idea what it was, what it hoped to become, or indeed how to use it. The concept of sending 140 character updates to friends, relatives, stalkers etc., was generally derided as 'something for the young'. In the same way text speak is derided by people who don't text.

This didn't stop Twitter. And one of the selling points was that anyone could sign up to receive your tweets, absolute strangers could hear what you had for breakfast, and why the dog decided to rub mud into your best jersey. Or, if you believe the nay-sayers, why XXX was like a total bitch on Saturday and you'll like never talk to her again.

Twitter began to get more interesting during the Iranian elections, and subsequent protests over the legitimacy of them. The mass protests and information from the left-wing bodies was co-ordinated and disseminated using twitter, proving mass information could be delivered quickly and cheaply. The other advantage was the ability of Twitter to 'tag' similar information, so that even if some users were shut down, others could continue the message.
All well and good, and indeed a good example of grass roots democracy.
Not so good was watching US senators tweeting during debates. I think, if I were American, I'd like my elected representatives to be paying a little more attention to what I'd elected them to do.

But the point of this blog are two recent incidents of twittersphere. One, the breaking down of the injunction from Trafigura on reporting their rather dodgy behaviour when 'disposing' of dangerous chemicals. The Guardian was blocked from reporting who put the injunction in, what the gag was about, who asked the question - everything relevant to the topic. Tweeters found out the info by looking through reports, and disseminated all the info - and Private Eye published it. This proves to be an excellent demonstration of how democracy should work, as the injunction was not in the public interest.
The other example is the Daily Mail's column about Stephen Gately by Jan Moir (summary here), where she managed to piss off a large number of people. This number was increased by tweets and indeed a focus to 'trend' her as one of the days most tweeted topics. Which was successful, leading to many more complaints including threats and publishing her home address.
Not such a great example of democracy.

I find both these examples concerning. Although on the surface the first one is a good example of democracy in action, both of them are, in essence, rapid mobs. People do not stop to consider things, and will generally follow like sheep if (A) says 'this is bad, tell everyone' then most people if they have some form of interest/relationship with (A) will do what they say. This rapidly leads to mob action and the more people, the more inclusive, the more they feel 'righteous'. That's not democracy, that's gang thinking. Or to keep it local, football hooligan mentality.
I have no idea what can be done to solve this, and it's not simply a case of asking people to think before they tweet, or getting those with hundreds of followers to consider implications. As that just won't work. People when annoyed won't think - but that sets off chain reactions.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm very concerned at the uncontrolled power of twitter.

B