Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Since the advent of the internet, there's been all sorts of methods of communication. Usenet, IRC, forums of every type and subject. Comment sections in news articles are a newer one we've not had for a long time, social media is another one of those. The methods and types of communication are always there, even if some become outdated. The internet thrives on communication, the sharing of ideas and prose.

One thing I've always noticed, though, is the near-constant level of vitriol, anger, and simply trolling by denziens of the internet. Best surmized by a picture I'm sure almost everyone's seen at one point:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

'Online disinhibition effect' is a much more scientific title for this effect. Yet, the existence of such types is not quite the topic of this. I've been asking myself lately how exactly the rampant Disinhibition comes to a head in real life. We live in days of a very wide partisan divide, on any issue. Go ahead, find a news article about anything. Read the commentary.

If you only saw the US through a lens of internet activity, you'd think we were in a state of civil war already. It wasn't quite so.. let's say, personal, before. Of course; there was always the times where people would get ad-hominem, but I rarely find a political disagreement where it doesn't end up boiling down to such attacks. I feel like, over time, this does have a noticeable effect on how people do regard those whom are politically different. Those who disagree aren't simply coming up with an opposing thought, but an enemy of the thinker itself. Makes it easier to dismiss otherwise reasoned arguements. Human nature I suppose.

But, is there a point where this will blow up in our faces? Many writers on the subject claim it is lowering the value of public discourse by dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator [Those screaming and shouting in comment boxes], which affects how they discuss and react to disagreements in the real world. While others claim anonymity on the internet fosters a culture of free-thought, unfettered speech and unique ideas [not to mention revolutionary activities].

I'm a bit on the fence myself, the internet's been around long enough that if either theory were solidly true, we'd have already succumbed to the predictions therein.

I think, honestly, it's more the fact of our social/internet lives becoming interchangeable with 'real life'. People take Facebook comments seriously because they consider that their domain. Political disagreements are personal since they don't agree with you [worsened by a soundboard-type environment aka the 'Living in your own bubble' type] in your place of relaxation. This of course only covers those who do this unconsciously. Trolls will always be trolls.

Are we at the peak of how infused internet vitriol and public discourse fuse, or are the times just a beginning of what we're about to see? We rarely see issues crop up from internet disagreements, but there are reports of Facebook causing violent gang activities. Disagreements, vitriol, trolling all come into play here.

This OP may be a bit rambling but the topic is a likely one to come up anyways in the future, so I figured I'd bring to question to Bay12, one of the least vitriolic forums I've been on myself. Is this the a time where the the internet actually creates a negative influence on others in the forum of public speech? Or is the hyper-partisanship/violence of the times a separate issue entirely, only exacerbated by the availability of [no-accountability] free speech? I'd like any take on this subject. And please, let's keep it civil.

[Neonivek]

Which I can often comminicate my points much more easily in real life because of my tone of voice, which tends to be overly expressive, and facial gestures, which tends to be overly expressive... On the internet it doesn't quite work out.

Though I try to write in a similar way to how I am thinking.

Anyhow as for the internet it just depends on how you filter the internet. Remember that in real life people filter a lot about what they say and will even outright lie if asked. So you are going to get a lot more turbulent answers as people give you their unfiltered thoughts not produced with the hopes that someone likes them.

[Frumple]

As to the latter question, I'd almost entirely say it's a matter of exacerbation. If you step off the internet and look at other media formats, the hyper-partisanship is often just as bad and sometimes even worse (at least with the net you've got the possibility of finding relatively sane or unbiased accounts on issues, which is often flat out g'damn impossible if you're sticking to TV or radio.).

I blame it on entertainment news, personally. There's bastards out there that are making money hand over fist causing, exaggerating, and maintaining the sort of hyper-contentious discourse that seems to be the default state nowadays.

[Cthulhu]

On the news, I suppose, but honestly I don't see it much.  In real life though, no.  In real life I get along with people I disagree with just fine, and when it comes up we talk calmly and rationally about it.  On the internet though, things get heated.  I'm a little bit at fault there, I have a tendency to browbeat and patronize which gets people mad.  Oh well.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'd argue the news is a part of all this, maybe even a major contributing factor. I mean, go watch MSNBC and Fox, it's as if they're covering different countries. Though the topics of conversation are generally the exact same. But is this the chicken, or the egg?

Argument could be made that people simply gravitate towards the stations they tangentially agree with and the stations tailor their vitriol to fit. See: Hannity/Ed Show. Once again, though, I'm not sure if this is simply a product of the times or a contributing factor to said times.

[minozake]

Which I can often comminicate my points much more easily in real life because of my tone of voice, which tends to be overly expressive, and facial gestures, which tends to be overly expressive... On the internet it doesn't quite work out.

I'm quite the opposite.  In face-to-face discussions, I can't stop and think, so I make a lot of mistakes.  Online, I can stop, think, take in what I'm reading and feeling, and then deliver a message with better clarity and meaningful intent than a face-to-face.  A lot of non-verbal communication isn't something I take in, and even if I actually recognize it, there's always the possibility of my getting it incorrect, so I disregard it.

[Zrk2]

"Give a man a mask and he will show his true face." -Oscar Wilde

[Loud Whispers]

Is this the a time where the the internet actually creates a negative influence on others in the forum of public speech? Or is the hyper-partisanship/violence of the times a separate issue entirely, only exacerbated by the availability of [no-accountability] free speech? I'd like any take on this subject. And please, let's keep it civil.

The internet cuts down the distances between people of the world. How people use it is up to them. I don't think it has anything to do with the internet medium of public speech: People in general just base their conversational values too highly on imagery and egotism. Hence audience + person = Arsehat.

The free speech the internet provides is such a valuable right, and not just for fringe outcast members of society. It produces a platform whereupon people can say whatever they mean, trolling of course being the opposite (and no, trolling is not flaming).

People being moronic Arsehats are just now more public and recorded. Every idiot's words now, instead of drifting through air particles to distort into oblivion are sent in binary for the world to see indefinitely.

This has been humanity's problem for a while.

[Flying Dice]

In a sense, I can almost see communications over the internet having an effect opposite to that of GIFT, at least in the context of individuals who enjoy being a part of a given community. This is because, as LW mentioned, when you say something incredibly cruel or bigoted in real life, it only exists in the memory of anyone who heard it, barring certain circumstances where you're being recorded. In the context of a forum, a comment section, or even (in a much more temporary degree) an IRC channel, when you say something, it stays out there, as if you were continually repeating it. Granted, this won't matter if your persona isn't connected to your meatspace life, but in a community like this it makes it much easier to tar yourself.

That aside, the internet (like any other method of communication) doesn't actually change how people think, it merely gives them the freedom to say what they mean. Though I do agree to a certain extent that the vitriolic tone of public discourse in recent years is to a certain extent an intentional phenomenon, insofar as that there are organizations and individuals actively attempting to portray events in a much more divisive light.

[Leafsnail]

"Give a man a mask and he will show his true face." -Oscar Wilde

I think this is it.  People can say what they actually think on the internet, so they do.

[LordSlowpoke]

I've actually seen places where people are more civil than you'd expect them to be in real life.
i don't even know what kind of disclaimer i should be making here to not turn this into either a circlejerk or a shitstorm so here's hoping you guys can handle a bit of praise/insults while i keep this undetermined
But then, when you think of it, I pretty much got used to the hate. Nothing new et al, as long as it's not disrupting the discussion itself in any meaningful manner it's pretty par for the course. Woe upon the one who dares try have a constructive talk within the strange and foreign land that are the YouTube video comments, however...

[misko27]

You know what they say, you are what you do in the dark... It's the same thing with, say, wanting to be invisible. If you think about it, there are absolutely no uses for that that does not involve trickery, or, in almost all cases, doing something terrble, or just mean.
 
It just ties into my theory that everyone is terrible, but in real life there are consequences that out weigh the enjoyment of letting all civilization collapse. On the internet there are no social expectations, unless rigorously enforced and come to be expected as with this forum. The example being preventing a new-comer from doing what he might so elsewhere because of a percieved social fabricm and responsibility. the purpose of a identity is to allow one to hold people accountable. Your name, address, credit card info, social security, marriage license, whatever, all keep you from just up and going "nope". Because, as the internet proves, peopel will do that. Of course, the point is, it's not important enough for people to extend a identity system to, so people can just continue, and that's okay, because it IS just the internet.
 
Now the only problem is that the internet is becoming intwined with reality.

[Pnx]

The way I see it douchebaggery is basically just a part of human nature, don't ask me why but the vast majority of people seem to be prone to performing douchebaggery of one form or another, heck I'm not even really an exception. I try not to make other people's days worse than they have to be, but I'm not always a very pleasant person to deal with.

You know what they say, you are what you do in the dark... It's the same thing with, say, wanting to be invisible. If you think about it, there are absolutely no uses for that that does not involve trickery, or, in almost all cases, doing something terrble, or just mean.

Well... there is one thing, I always sort of wanted invisibility growing up because I thought it would help me with social anxiety when I'm in public places. There were a lot of times I wished I could just fade into the tapestry... But yeah, I kinda doubt that's why most people would want it.

[Flying Dice]

The way I see it douchebaggery is basically just a part of human nature, don't ask me why but the vast majority of people seem to be prone to performing douchebaggery of one form or another, heck I'm not even really an exception. I try not to make other people's days worse than they have to be, but I'm not always a very pleasant person to deal with.

You know what they say, you are what you do in the dark... It's the same thing with, say, wanting to be invisible. If you think about it, there are absolutely no uses for that that does not involve trickery, or, in almost all cases, doing something terrble, or just mean.

Well... there is one thing, I always sort of wanted invisibility growing up because I thought it would help me with social anxiety when I'm in public places. There were a lot of times I wished I could just fade into the tapestry... But yeah, I kinda doubt that's why most people would want it.

I'd rather see invisibility in the hands of a voyeur than in those of a deranged assassin.

[Bauglir]

I'm not sure the Internet has really had that big an effect on exterior vitriol. Sure, you see all kinds of insane hatred on the internet, but we've always had bigots, bullies, and extremists. As nasty as people are in reality these days, I don't think that's increased as time has gone on - I think it's stayed constant, and nostalgia makes the past seem like a nicer, more civil time. Vocal douchebags have always been vocal douchebags. If there's a difference, it's in journalism becoming an entertainment industry (a function of a consumer economy dominating the cultural landscape), not in the underlying society it's reporting on.