Ship of Fools: Netiquette and the foulness of people

Thread: Netiquette and the foulness of people Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025241

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

This is partially in my thoughts because of the Adria Richards affair,* but things I have heard and read about Reddit also come to mind. Many of us do not read the comments section on news articles online because of the likelihood that some troll will post something foul and offensive. I know that in my local paper whenever I read the comments on a story that involves an African-American, racist comments appear if the section stays open much.
Thing is I ended up once getting a real life acquaintanceship with an offensive hateful troll and he was a well-respected fellow with a happy family life etc. What on earth inspired him to be an asocial jerk online I am not sure.

So why do so many anonymous human interactions turn into nasty nasty scenarios that bring out the worst in people?

And perhaps more relevantly, what on earth can we do about it?

*What's relevant here is that a women rightly or wrongly, said something that offended some people and got many insults, disgusting comments, and rape threats

[ 02. April 2013, 14:01: Message edited by: Gwai ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

It's anonymity: the shadow side is free to come into the open.

I don't look at much news online for exactly the same reasons.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

venbede sums it up exactly.

The best behaved board I know is one for Rugby Union fans and most of the users live in South Wales. Despite pseudonyms, I doubt if more than a few are unknown to all the other users, and as many members of the site are current or former Rugby players, they mostly behave themselves.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Another voice to agree with that. Other places I participate are havens of civility when a real names policy is enforced (or I guess where they are largely otherwise known to each other IRL). I'm sure there will be exceptions but in areas that interest me I'm not seeing them.

Another similar thing that is noticeable is the drift towards the stereotype that can often be seen.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here's an interesting blog post about someone meeting a fairly vile troll. It's worth a read.

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

Many people are basically hateful but kept in check by law or fear of getting a broken nose. I found this out when I was still teaching and had the misfortune to be badly injured in a hit and run. The comments on the local news site were about 10% sympathetic, 10% making a political point about policing or driving standards and 80% hate, aimed at me for being a pedestrian walking on a pavement where a motorist should not legally drive but in this instance did. It was obvious that they didn't know me as the article got my name completely wrong and the error was not corrected once by the haters. So people who didn't know me or the circumstances of my accident felt compelled to tell me that I was either drunk, drugged or walking in the middle of the road and that the poor motorist was blameless. When it turned out that the motorist was drugged AND hungover I didn't get a single apology. Funny that.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It's anonymity: the shadow side is free to come into the open.

That coupled with the fact that things swimming in the swamp tend to acquire swampy characteristics via osmosis. The "rape culture" is self-reinforcing.

Anonymity is a two-edged sword. It allows people to behave in a despicable manner without the consequences attaching to their real-life persona, which is clearly a negative. On the other hand, it allows people with non-standard political beliefs, sexual preferences, medical conditions etc. to obtain support and advice from others without having to make their issue public in their local community.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I agree it's anonymity, but I'd hate to drop the problem there and give up. Is this a problem that will be solved as the internet gets less anonymous, if indeed it does? Or perhaps it's not even a problem and sensitive people should get over it?
What really gets me is what should be done. Newspapers could close their comments sections, but they probably can't moderate them all unless they all go p2p.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I agree it's anonymity, but I'd hate to drop the problem there and give up. Is this a problem that will be solved as the internet gets less anonymous, if indeed it does? Or perhaps it's not even a problem and sensitive people should get over it?
What really gets me is what should be done. Newspapers could close their comments sections, but they probably can't moderate them all unless they all go p2p.

With free speech comes great repsonsibility but that clearly means nothing to some people. Personally I have no comprehension as to why anyone would choose to troll and I find the practice downright silly. I certainly think it's a problem rather than something for oversensitive people to "get over". We wouldn't tolerate it anywhere else so why on the internet.

Maybe start soft by cutting off a finger per unpleasant post then move to more sensitive areas... [Biased]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I have been extremely grateful for anonymity at times: it has allowed me to express and recognise aspects of myself that I would not have done otherwise. I've said things about myself and personal experience that I wouldn't otherwise.

I've been a bit wary of posting here since a vicar of a church which I attend occasionally and on which I have commented here (not dismissively) on shaking my hand at the end of the service chuckled and murmured "Ship of Fools". "How did you know?" I said. "Obvious" he replied.

I found that a kind and salutary comment.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

It is, in fact, possible to win one once in a while. I never thought something would come out of the seeping necrotic abscess that is Reddit that would actually make my day better, but wow.

This was an instance where the desirable side of public commentary actually appeared.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It is perfectly possible to moderate large scale communities on the Internet to fairly strict standards. I spend a lot of time on one such site, and they do it with a combination of some very general rules (no attacks on individuals or groups which might contain individuals who are members of the forum) and some very specific ones (don't talk about Fred Phelps & company. Ever). You do have to be willing to ban people and restrict discussion of some topics. I think with the Internet it comes down to:
Free Speech
Anonymity
Civility
You can pick any two. The more you ramp up any of those, the less you can have of the others. The forum I mention cranked up the civility, at the expense of some elements of free speech and anonymity (IP address bans are sometimes used).

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Reddit. I have a love hate relationship with it. There are some subs I find great comfort and enjoy greatly. And then I make the misteak of following a link to a different sub and all the yuck falls out.

Back in 2004 John Gabriel of Penny Arcade introduced the Greater Internet F*kwad Theory. If you couldn't tell, the link contains swearie words. The formula has something I think a lot of people ignore-- it's Normal Person PLUS Anonymity PLUS Audience.

Someone's reading it, so they're flingin' it.

Which is why the general rule of the Internet is DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Although it involves anonymity, posting comments and videos also involves publicity. IMO, it feeds into grandiosity. I've noted how people don't mind making fools of themselves or even taping themselves committing illegal acts, as long as they can post on the Big Stage. These days you can most definitely find your fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) and the more outrageous the event the better.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an interesting blog post about someone meeting a fairly vile troll. It's worth a read.

Vast difference between that encounter and this one. This bastard appears as if he would like to strike the reporter. I think the only thing stopping him was the camera.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The anonymity is at the heart of it as a number of shipmates have stated. It does indeed let the dark side out, as it were.

In a pre-internet era I was taught by both my parents that anonymous letters were the most despicable that could possible be sent, and had no value or worth whatsoever. Indeed, my mother always advised me to put them straight in the bin as invalid. If one couldn't sign one's name to something, or hadn't the guts to do so, then it shouldn't be sent at all.

This was re-inforced by my headmaster at school. He didn't mind what was written in the school magazine, but you had to have the guts to sign it.

Perhaps this should be borne in mind when (myself included) post on the web?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The anonymity is at the heart of it as a number of shipmates have stated. It does indeed let the dark side out, as it were.

There are situations where anonymity is warranted (e.g. a whistleblower or dissident fearing retaliation) but most anonymous internet posting (at least in the industrialized West) falls outside those situations.

For instance, it could be argued that this racist weasel* was in legitimate fear for his job if his neo-nazism were to be exposed. Of course, the FDNY argues that it has a legitimate, job-related reason for not employing outright racists.

And, of course, the expected reaction follows.

--------------------
*Sorry, that comparison is unfair to weasels.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

Actually even a whistleblower should be prepared to put his/her name to it. Anyone has the right to know the name of their accuser, informer ot whatever.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
Actually even a whistleblower should be prepared to put his/her name to it. Anyone has the right to know the name of their accuser, informer ot whatever.

I'm not so sure about that. G. Gordon Liddy once made the offer to kill Woodward and Bernstein on Nixon's behalf. Given that, it's fairly understandable Mark Felt didn't feel comfortable coming forward and saying "I am Deep Throat." (Actually there's a couple possible reasons he might have felt uncomfortable saying that.) And that's in a country that has reasonably enforced restraints on government action. Now imagine a Chinese citizen with access to information that is both of grave importance to the general Chinese public and highly embarrassing to the Chinese government. I'm not sure who is served, other than the powers-that-be, by insisting that all whistleblowers be publicly identified.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

That is an exceptional case, but exceptional cases don't make good general rules.

At a more mundane, yet hurtful local level, I do believe the guts test should apply. If you have the bollocks, or female equivalent then write and sign. If not... anonymous delations and unsigned letters lack validity.

A good lesson taught by a good headmaster.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
That is an exceptional case, but exceptional cases don't make good general rules.

At a more mundane, yet hurtful local level, I do believe the guts test should apply. If you have the bollocks, or female equivalent then write and sign. If not... anonymous delations and unsigned letters lack validity.

Well, where do you draw the line? How about a coal miner who knows he'll be fired for reporting his employer's workplace safety violations? Should he have the "guts" to let his family starve? Or the "guts" to go on working in a deathtrap?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

So why do so many anonymous human interactions turn into nasty nasty scenarios that bring out the worst in people?

Because it was fun.

When I was a kid it was prank phone calls and ring and run.

When I was a teenager it was mooning people out a car window or yelling bad words and everyone laying down in the seats so that when people look all they saw was the girl driving. Or it was rolling someone's yard. Of course, there were still prank phone calls.

An internet post is one of the remaining places where you can stay anonymous.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
At a more mundane, yet hurtful local level, I do believe the guts test should apply. If you have the bollocks, or female equivalent then write and sign. If not... anonymous delations and unsigned letters lack validity.

Surely the more sensible line is whether one can evaluate the truth or otherwise of the claim without knowing the identity of the whistleblower.

e.g. If I allege that Dr Fillgrave puts arsenic in his patients' tea, one can test the accusation by analysing his tea without reference to the identity of the whistleblower. If I say that Dr Fillgrave once used a racist term to me, it's harder to investigate that specific accusation without knowing who I am (although of course one can still watch Dr Fillgrave more generally to see if he displays a pattern of racist behaviour).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I think that one of the contributing factors also is a desire to 'stand out'.

The easiest way to stand out in the comments section on a newspaper's website, is to have an extreme opinion. Better still if this opinion has some consistent inner logic, with which you can rapidly counter any attack on it, thus making you look smart and clever.

It's people trying to overbid eachother in this way that leads to opinions becoming more and more extreme.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
That is an exceptional case, but exceptional cases don't make good general rules.

At a more mundane, yet hurtful local level, I do believe the guts test should apply. If you have the bollocks, or female equivalent then write and sign. If not... anonymous delations and unsigned letters lack validity.
Well, where do you draw the line? How about a coal miner who knows he'll be fired for reporting his employer's workplace safety violations? Should he have the "guts" to let his family starve? Or the "guts" to go on working in a deathtrap?

'Starve' is an exaggeration even in these current un-enlightened welfare times. But yes. If he wishes to comment then sign his name.

Similarly I would favour the response ' Who exactly?' if someone said that tiresome and cowardly phrase 'Someone says that..?'. If they are not prepared to say who, then they should be shown the door.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are situations where anonymity is warranted (e.g. a whistleblower or dissident fearing retaliation) but most anonymous internet posting (at least in the industrialized West) falls outside those situations.

We live in the age of Google, where anything you put online associated with your name is attached to you forever.

People seeking online support for alcoholism or drug abuse have reason not to have their real name out there. Victims of domestic abuse who are still living with their abuser need to be anonymous. Rape victims might not want a Google search to identify them as a rape survivor. Closeted LGBTs - particularly teens - we can come up with a long list of people who might not want their name easily associated with their online activity.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

Thing is I ended up once getting a real life acquaintanceship with an offensive hateful troll and he was a well-respected fellow with a happy family life etc.

Didn't an in-depth study into 70s-80s football hooliganism reveal similar scenarios .

The dark side isn't created by the medium . It seeks the medium by which it can express itself.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Not forgetting that there are a lot of mad, bigoted, puerile, nasty, spiteful, obsessive, stupid, hateful people in the world.

The 'net just multiples our chances of encountering them.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

It's not that there are a lot of nasty people out there and a lot of nice people in here.

It's more that there are drives and impulses in all of us that are pretty anti-social. As we grow up we learn to suppress lots of them lots of the time, first out of fear of punishment and then so that people will like us. And then , from the experience of liking/loving others and being loved/liked in return we develop empathy, learning to see others as "people" who we want to please and don't want to hurt.

And some people get stuck at those pre-empathic stages, either because they were born with difficulties (thinking autistic spectrum here) or because they haven't had the right experiences (or too many of the wrong ones). There but for the grace of God...

So yes, there are, but most of us have no reason to feel that we're better than they are.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

This has been a very suggestive and illuminating thread.. Gwai asked "why?" While I was reading through the posts, I found that, although I had a few of my own answers to Gwai's question, none of them was based on any serious reflection. I certainly have never tried to research this issue in any systematic, empirical manner.

Venbede suggests:

quote:
It's anonymity ...

Mere Nick:

quote:
Because it was fun. ...

Firenze:

quote:
Not forgetting there are a log of mad, bigoted, puerile, nasty, spiteful, obsessive, stupid, hateful people in the world. The 'net" just multiplies our chances of encountering them.

Most puzzling to me is this statement made by the 17-year-old boy whocarried out sustained, obsessive, and terrifying attack on the writer of the blog post linked above by Croesus.:

quote:
"Why?"

I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry. It s a game thing.

On one level, this might be a variant of Mere Nick's "it's fun." Gaming -- often practiced obsessively and in isolation from the "real" people in a young person's life -- appears to be pervasive and powerful all over the world.

I have a couple of questions of those who know the young generation better than I do

-- What mental state and world view is encompassed in that phrase, "a game thing"?

-- Is the "game thing" a plausible explanation for the kind of behavior Gwai addresse in her OP?

[ 02. April 2013, 23:32: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:

-- What mental state and world view is encompassed in that phrase, "a game thing"?

-- Is the "game thing" a plausible explanation for the kind of behavior Gwai addresse in her OP?

You mean folks making the kind of comments one can easily find in a Hell thread?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an interesting blog post about someone meeting a fairly vile troll. It's worth a read.

It is indeed. Powerful story. Thanks for passing it along.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Most puzzling to me is this statement made by the 17-year-old boy whocarried out sustained, obsessive, and terrifying attack on the writer of the blog post linked above by Croesus.:

quote:
"Why?"

I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry. It s a game thing.
On one level, this might be a variant of Mere Nick's "it's fun." Gaming -- often practiced obsessively and in isolation from the "real" people in a young person's life -- appears to be pervasive and powerful all over the world.

I have a couple of questions of those who know the young generation better than I do

-- What mental state and world view is encompassed in that phrase, "a game thing"?

-- Is the "game thing" a plausible explanation for the kind of behavior Gwai addresse in her OP?

I've made the assumption that "it's a game thing" is equating his behavior to the kind of trash talking and intimidation that goes on between players in online multiplayer games. Some of it can be pretty brutal/racist/sexist/etc.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Most puzzling to me is this statement made by the 17-year-old boy whocarried out sustained, obsessive, and terrifying attack on the writer of the blog post linked above by Croesus.:

quote:
"Why?"

I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry. It s a game thing.
On one level, this might be a variant of Mere Nick's "it's fun." Gaming -- often practiced obsessively and in isolation from the "real" people in a young person's life -- appears to be pervasive and powerful all over the world.

I have a couple of questions of those who know the young generation better than I do

-- What mental state and world view is encompassed in that phrase, "a game thing"?

-- Is the "game thing" a plausible explanation for the kind of behavior Gwai addresse in her OP?
I've made the assumption that "it's a game thing" is equating his behavior to the kind of trash talking and intimidation that goes on between players in online multiplayer games. Some of it can be pretty brutal/racist/sexist/etc.

The way the story ended-- with the boy being so distraught at being confronted by a real life, flesh-and-blood person, made me think it was more about the power of the internet to dehumanize the person on the other end of the ethernet cable. The way we can think of the other as just an avatar, an illusion, a cyborg. It was, after all, seeing him, with all his limitations ("middle-aged with a limp") that brought the radical transformation.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

I think there are different levels. author, recipient and means of message.

There is a lot of word play and tongue in cheek comments that don't translate well. English does not mean similar culture. A lot of my posts are very tongue in cheek and early on here, I did not make that sufficiently clear. My response to dislike is to ignore the source- not to tease it. But I appreciate, through making mistakes, this is not true for all. To be honest I still push that line at times.

There are simple misunderstandings. Different usage of words and concepts, particularly in an international environment.

There is the online 'kicking of the dog'. It is the expression of pain and rage at someone or something when the person feels powerless to direct it to the appropriate cause or channel it more successfully.

And I think there are few people who rejoice in causing pain and suffering. But I think they are a very small minority.

Never attribute nastiness when stupidity can explain.

On the receiver side, there are similar factors. There are the issues we are more sensitive about. Our hot topic or button issues where we simply escalate in emotion beyond what is reasonable.

Again our culture, our life experiences and simply 'where our heads are at' contribute.

And finally the medium. We forget about the loss of non verbal and intonal communication. Writing simply cannot convey our intent unless we are very deliberate in what we write.

TLDR. We all suck relationally in our own special ways. [Biased]

(emoticon to show I am joking)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's the anonymity, but not for it's own sake. It's the fact that anonymity enables you to avoid accountability.

There are plenty of studies that show large numbers of people will break 'rules' so long as they are confident of not getting caught. I think it's something like half of people will look at the answers to a test/quiz if they are left alone in the room with the answers and they are unaware that they're being filmed.

And in this city at least, it doesn't take long to observe that the vast majority of people will break the speed limit until they see a speed camera. In fact, I had a very illuminating discussion with a traffic expert a few weeks ago, who told me that people only get upset about speed cameras as 'revenue raising' if they are hidden speed cameras. Because they get caught when they didn't know they could get caught.

For many people, lots of rules only apply if they are externally enforced. There isn't an internal accountability mechanism.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by roybart:

-- What mental state and world view is encompassed in that phrase, "a game thing"?

-- Is the "game thing" a plausible explanation for the kind of behavior Gwai addresse in her OP?
You mean folks making the kind of comments one can easily find in a Hell thread?

People mailing you a lot of ashes, are they?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I don't agree with the premise. Rather, as with any other sample of people, a minority are foul and awful. I started with the internet when in Canada on NetNorth, it was part of the Arpanet. An history dating to about 1983 I think.

What I've noted is that usually there are a few terrible people in any online grouping, whether Usenet or a forum like this one. There really aren't fully anonymous users, less so all the time. I think that when anonymity is apparent that the proportion of awful people rise. The general rule of thumb I've discussed with others over the years is that probably 1 in 20 is a baddie when identity is not obscured, and this increases to maximally 1 in 5 when anonymous. There's no actual data to back this up, and some instances of internet interaction are less, such as SOF. I've only had 1 user here on SOF be foul enough to me to consider them as approaching the situation as considered in the OP, i.e. deserving of extreme wrath -- I believe that most people are positive or at least okay.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's a very illuminating blog, Croesos. A lot of food for thought in that. Thanks for posting it.

I'm still processing what to make of it. Anonymity and the fact that the verbal bombs are dropped from a distance (even if you know the person) may tend to separate us from the potential consequences of our words and actions.

There's a power in that too, which may act as a compensation for some folks who don't have much RL power, who may even be over-controlled.

I guess these newish communication processes free us from what we might regard as normal RL social controls and put us in a different "world" - cyberspace is qualitatively different from other "meeting places".

What that meeting between Troll and victim showed is that when cyberspace "realities" come up against RL realities, there's a recognition of what we might actually be doing to real life living breathing people. I think in cyberspace it's wise to keep that in your mind. But I guess the "gamey" dimension of it may distract people from that underlying reality.

Maybe the moderator/policer need is underestimated, perhaps purely for cost reasons, but maybe because it hasn't yet been fully recognised? Cyberspace requires cybercops, cybershrinks, cyberdocs, cybercounsellors etc as a means to both maximising its good value while also doing something about its current excesses. It needs some improved social infrastructure?

Pretty jumbled, all that. Still processing, as I say. Not an easy issue.

[ 03. April 2013, 07:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
That is an exceptional case, but exceptional cases don't make good general rules.

At a more mundane, yet hurtful local level, I do believe the guts test should apply. If you have the bollocks, or female equivalent then write and sign. If not... anonymous delations and unsigned letters lack validity.

A good lesson taught by a good headmaster.

I disagree. It might serve some abstract sense of 'honour' to insist on full identifiability at all times. But it hampers the full and frank exchange of ideas and opinions.

In such a culture it is easy for shy, and 'outsider' individuals to be silenced by the threat or fear (even if unwarrented) of community backlash to the airing of their views. That is why anonymous voting is essential to a working democracy.

And on the internet, where you don't know who might read your comments, it is even dangerous to be fully identifiable. The victims of trolling are attacked online, but when the attacker finds out their RL identities, the attacks and harrassment moves into RL as well. Maybe the internet attacks would slow or cease if the troll was identifiable, but more likely, they would find other ways of hiding, or the more serious ones would just work their viciousness in RL, rather than the web.

In another sense, a valid opinion is valid, no matter the identity of the person who voices it. The separation of identity from opinion is an important and very interesting result of internet culture, and has, IMO led to much more tolerance of differing opinion in our culture.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

The lesson was taught in a pre-internet era, of course. The illustration given of the revelation of identity of a victim of trolling is a sound one and I agree.

However, it is the troll whose identity should be revealed in that instance one feels.

I do think that the general 'guts' rule still applies in other contexts. I have known colleagues (plural) who have suffered due to the cowardice of an anonymous delation, and have never known the identity of their 'accuser'. This is not only unjust, but grossly unfair and cowardly on the part of the poison pen writer.

I have also heard of RC clergy who have been 'delated' to Rome under the last two pontificates for assumed breach of liturgical rubrics by (often, but not always) traditionalist members of the congregation. The priest(s) concerned had to suffer an investigation by their diocesan and were never told the name(s) of their accusor(s). That I would hold, is a breach of natural justice.

In some less internet complicated cases I would agree with the landlord of the Dog and Bottle: 'if you have something to say, say it to my face'.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

The separation of identity from opinion is an important and very interesting result of internet culture, and has, IMO led to much more tolerance of differing opinion in our culture.

I would agree that there is more tolerance in some circles - but not everywhere. However I would challenge your assumption of its cause.

The separation of identity from opinion is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Such split personality behaviour is precisely that which contributes to 'troll' activity, and is what is objected to in the original OPs.

One cannot separate identity from opinion or behaviour. Where this is believed subconsciously, it usually leads to considerable psychological ill-health.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I don't find the blog incident all that heartening: after all the boy did know the person he was threatening, which is why he could do it so effectively.

A reminder that, if any cyber attacks seem particularly well-informed, you should look narrowly at your friends and acquaintance. Part of the power of anonymity is that it can help create the impression of preternatural power and malice.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
being confronted by a real life, flesh-and-blood person, made me think it was more about the power of the internet to dehumanize the person on the other end of the ethernet cable. The way we can think of the other as just an avatar, an illusion, a cyborg. It was, after all, seeing him, with all his limitations ("middle-aged with a limp") that brought the radical transformation.

He already knew him. It was being confronted which broke him. And how much is attributable to being caught vs realising the damage to a real person? What sparked "the game" in the first place? How long, if he remained undiscovered, before his "game" internalised and became his worldview? Yes, I agree the anonymity of the Internet is an issue. It brings water to a seed that might otherwise lie dormant.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

In another sense, a valid opinion is valid, no matter the identity of the person who voices it. The separation of identity from opinion is an important and very interesting result of internet culture, and has, IMO led to much more tolerance of differing opinion in our culture.

IMO, it also feeds intolerance. No longer isolated are the haters.

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
You mean folks making the kind of comments one can easily find in a Hell thread?

You mean the place with a label on the tin which tells you things will get nasty? Yeah, exactly the same. Innit.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
The separation of identity from opinion is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Such split personality behaviour is precisely that which contributes to 'troll' activity, and is what is objected to in the original OPs.

When I first used the Internet it was to join an on-line church . We created cartoon avatars of ourselves and exchanged views and blogs much like here .
It wasn't long before there was that ventriloquist and dummy type feeling , (some will remember the thing where the dummy is allowed to insult people). Not that I ever deliberately insulted people, it was however an insight into how easily split personality behaviour can develope.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
You mean folks making the kind of comments one can easily find in a Hell thread?
You mean the place with a label on the tin which tells you things will get nasty? Yeah, exactly the same. Innit. [/QB]

Yes, anyone with more than just a few minutes experience on the internet knows comments get pretty nasty, pretty quick.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

ISTM the reason 'things get nasty' quickly is the instant means of response Internet debate allows . If you're hitting keys while your heart tapping on your Adam's Apple then chances are it'll come out as aggressive.
I'm not knocking it . Sometimes anger has to come out , and sometimes it needs to be instant .

Trolling , as it's called, is different . This is premeditated taking of the piss . The best advice is *don't feed* once you've realised troll is what it is . That's unless you've got some time to spare and you fancy a battle of attrition.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0