[BRIEF NOTE] Blogging, Post x+2
Jan. 17th, 2005 05:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldVia ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
zarq, I found quixotickitten's essay "Words on the Internets (Or Where Stupidity Reigns)". She begins her essay by noting that her early and entirely positive experiences with online communities haven't continued unbroken to the present. This perplexes her:
What is the purpose, she goes on to ask, of being irresponsibly cruel, or violent-sounding, or just plain idiotic on the Internet? Either, she suggests, they minimize the power of the written word in these instances (in which case, why write them in the first place?), or they claim to be protected by anonymity (which tends to be paper-thin). She concludes by asking, "If anonymity is the key to unleashing the ugliest parts of humanity, what does that say about humanity? Are accountability and responsibility the only things that drive people to be nice?"
Possibly. Then again, as I noted on the 6th, that argument's based on the assumption that standards of niceness are shared. See the case of Adam Yoshida, who, in a recent post regarding the outcry against the use of torture by Americans, asked two questions:
Anonymity, in whatever form, might be a sufficient condition for being an idiot online, but it's hardly sufficient. He's demonstrated that he doesn't care about his idiocies, indeed that he's proud of them, no matter that they might harm him, for instance, in this 2002 election. She has two possibilities, and I add a third: Online idiots might sincerely believe in the truth and correctness of what they say. Long experience on USENET has certainly gone a ways towards convincing me.
What does this mean for blogging? That the only bloggers who will convey completely truthful and accurate accounts of their lives and beliefs are likely to be those who are completely convinced of their moral rectitude. A consequence of this is that these bloggers, so strongly convinced, aren't likely to be open to critical discourse. The good bloggers will be those who lie, through actively communicating mistruths or through failing to communicate facts.
(zarq links to a collection of interesting articles on behaviour in online communities, incidentally.)
zarq, I found quixotickitten's essay "Words on the Internets (Or Where Stupidity Reigns)". She begins her essay by noting that her early and entirely positive experiences with online communities haven't continued unbroken to the present. This perplexes her:I pretty much behave on the internet as I do in my regular flesh-and-blood life. I wouldn't write something that I wouldn't say in person. In fact, I'm much less likely to write something I wouldn't dare speak. Words are powerful, and writing them gives them a permanence and meaning that a passing remark in person would not likely possess. I also understand that true anonymity is an illusion; the world is indeed a small place.
What is the purpose, she goes on to ask, of being irresponsibly cruel, or violent-sounding, or just plain idiotic on the Internet? Either, she suggests, they minimize the power of the written word in these instances (in which case, why write them in the first place?), or they claim to be protected by anonymity (which tends to be paper-thin). She concludes by asking, "If anonymity is the key to unleashing the ugliest parts of humanity, what does that say about humanity? Are accountability and responsibility the only things that drive people to be nice?"
Possibly. Then again, as I noted on the 6th, that argument's based on the assumption that standards of niceness are shared. See the case of Adam Yoshida, who, in a recent post regarding the outcry against the use of torture by Americans, asked two questions:
1) Why are we outsourcing our torture, thus depriving hard-working American pain technicians of much needed work?
2) Who gives a fuck about terrorists?
Anonymity, in whatever form, might be a sufficient condition for being an idiot online, but it's hardly sufficient. He's demonstrated that he doesn't care about his idiocies, indeed that he's proud of them, no matter that they might harm him, for instance, in this 2002 election. She has two possibilities, and I add a third: Online idiots might sincerely believe in the truth and correctness of what they say. Long experience on USENET has certainly gone a ways towards convincing me.
What does this mean for blogging? That the only bloggers who will convey completely truthful and accurate accounts of their lives and beliefs are likely to be those who are completely convinced of their moral rectitude. A consequence of this is that these bloggers, so strongly convinced, aren't likely to be open to critical discourse. The good bloggers will be those who lie, through actively communicating mistruths or through failing to communicate facts.
(
zarq links to a collection of interesting articles on behaviour in online communities, incidentally.)
