Stephen Fry's storm in a Tweacup

Stephen Fry threatened to leave micro-blogging site Twitter at the weekend, but why did it receive so much media coverage?

I go on holiday for a week and what happens? One of the biggest technology stories of the year, that's what. But while Stephen Fry's threats to leave Twitter and subsequent change of heart may have dominated the front pages of this weekends' newspapers, it was actually a bit of a non-event.

A Twitter member had dared to say that he found some of Fry's tweets boring. Fry, seemingly having a bad day, took it badly and threatened to leave the site. Fry then boarded a 'plane to Los Angeles, unaware that some of his 900,000 followers were kicking up a fuss, defending Fry's honour and attacking the member who insulted Fry.

Virtually every major news outlet picked up the story. I find this staggering, and quite frankly it's the kind of publicity that Twitter could do without.

One of the main criticisms I hear about Twitter, largely from people who've never used it, is that it simply panders to the ego of its members - all of a sudden, information about meals and bowel movements becomes important enough to broadcast to everyone in the Twitter community. "I don't want to know how many sugars Peter Andre takes in his tea," the critics say.

And by making such a fuss about Stephen Fry's reaction to a negative comment, the newspapers and other news outlets such as the BBC and Sky News have simply reinforced this negative stereotype in the minds of all Twitter 'h8ters', as I believe they are called.

But the real story here - if there even is one - is the abuse dished out to the Twitter member who dared to say that some of Fry's tweets were "boring". He's entitled to his opinion, and if Fry hadn't reacted to it in such a way (and he did subsequently apologise and make peace with his critic) then no one would have even registered. But as Fry made his vast legions of followers aware of the slight, a hate (or h8, rather) campaign began.

Some of Fry's followers, outraged that he had been subjected to such mild abuse, responded with such anger and vitriol to the perpetrator that it makes you wonder whether they really have any respect for the feelings of others - as they purported to be defending - at all.

The web in general, and social media in particular, can make timid people very brave, it seems. Using the web can be a depersonalised experience - words on a screen seem simply to be words on a screen - not the thoughts of a real human being, with feelings and sensitivities of their own.

So when people make comments on sites such as Twitter, they ought to remember that what they say can have a very real effect on the person that they are aimed at. The man who criticised Fry should be aware of this, as should those who then attacked him. Personally, I think if you aren't brave enough to say something to someone's face, then hiding behind your computer screen and keyboard makes you the worst kind of coward.

The thing about Twitter is that even if you select the people you follow very carefully, you won't find every post interesting, enlightening or useful. If you don't like reading what a particular individual has to say, you can simply choose not to follow them. There is no need to announce it to the world, and it is totally unnecessary to make your reasons clear on the site. But when someone breaks this code of etiquette, you immediately surrender the moral high ground by pouring scorn on them and making threats.