It’s been an eventful week on Twitter with Mike Francesa threatening the people behind the parody account @mikefrancesaNY with exposure and a Mets fan arrested for making threats against the team, Citi Field and individual players.
Francesa’s threat was empty on several levels. To a degree, it’s easy to understand why he’d be annoyed that there was an account with his name on it and mocking him in a somewhat good natured way. In addition, he’s right in not wanting people who read the NY Daily News to see the tweets, not understand Twitter and think that the quotes are coming from him. But what good would following through the threat of exposure do anyone?
Let’s say he does reveal the names of the people behind the account and tells the public at large where they work. Unless they’re at Langley or Quantico working for the CIA or FBI, who cares? Is this going to be a revealing of an undercover operative like Valerie Plame with Francesa tearing a page out of the Karl Rove all’s fair in politics playbook?
I can see it now: “As I wahned ‘em, heah’s da names uh da guys behind dat twittuh account: One is named Jim from Rockville Centuh. He’s a managuh at Staples. Da othuh is Dave from Tom’s Rivuh. He’s a lawyuh. See? I toldja I’d do it.”
Um. Okay.
The entire purpose of a warning is that you’re telling the individual or individuals who are being warned that something will be done to affect their lives in a negative fashion unless they stop what they’re doing. Except in the cases of the aforementioned state secrets, I don’t see what good it will do for Francesa to expose people who the public at large will neither know nor care who they really are.
***
The other Twitter activity was more serious. The man behind the account @danxtanna – since removed from the site for the time being – was arrested and charged with harassing, threatening and stalking the Mets.
When it comes to Twitter, you have to differentiate between a troll and a genuinely dangerous person. A troll will just be looking to get a reaction. A genuinely dangerous person is self-explanatory.
Which was Leroux?
I had my own interactions with Leroux. Initially I just thought he was a relatively harmless – albeit nutty – fan. Occasionally he would say something funny and reasonably intelligent. He’s got a bizarre obsession with former Mets player Wally Backman, insisting that he’s the one manager to turn the team around. Unfortunately for Backman and Leroux, the Mets don’t have any interest in him managing the team and the skills that Leroux sees in him are being simultaneously ignored by the rest of baseball as well. He’s Leroux’s version of Tim Tebow. Everyone should want him, but no one in a position of power does.
There are lots of fans who are bordering on certifiable, but it’s Twitter. You never know. I’ve encountered some great people, some horrible people and some truly crazy people. In most cases, the users are on the social media site as a diversion or to self-promote. Sometimes the reality is far better or worse than the online image.
You can call it catfishing, playing a role, fooling around or outright lying. All can apply depending on the amount of damage the individual does. There are many people who seem dangerous, but when there’s an actual personal relationship, they don’t come across as capable of harming anyone.
With Leroux, it’s not likely that he would either have the brains or the nerve to follow through on any of his threats. But with him, there was always the underlying possibility that a Mark David Chapman/John Hinckley-style of derangement could manifest itself. The Mets were right to have it investigated and handled.
You cannot threaten to kill people on Twitter. Can…not. There’s no way of knowing what a person is willing to do. These types of threats are serious and have legitimate consequences as Leroux is finding out.
var addthis_config = {“data_track_addressbar”:true};
PAULLEBOWITZ.COM 