Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
My New Year's Resolution - be kinder and less judgmental online
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Antoinette on
-
Not one comment so far. How fascinating.
-
-
I was kind of hoping to flush out some of the haters not the likers! But hey ho...that's the way it goes
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
In an interview with Clay Shirky on July 5, 2010 by Decca Aitkenhead, they observe how social media can bring out both generosity and nastiness.
Aitkenhead:
"Had I never been online before . . . But if I started out on, say, The Guardian's Comment free site, the sheer nastiness of many of the commenters would floor me like a train. If the web has unlocked all this human potential for generosity and sharing, how come the people using it are so horrible to each other?"
Shirky:
"So, there's two things to this paradox. One is that those conversations were always happening. People were saying those nasty things to one another in the pub or whatever. You just couldn't hear them before. So it's a change in our awareness of truth, not a change in the truth."
"Then there's this second effect, that anonymity makes people behave more meanly. What I think is going to happen there is we are slowly going to set up islands of civil discourse."(Thanks once again to Hugh Flouch for his introduction to Shirky's work, several years go.)
-
-
No views of your own to express?
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I think you're right to point to Shirky on this as he has been looking at this issue of online behaviour for many years from the time when a few special interest groups gathered in webchat rooms to the stage we are at today with many, many people in the world accessing at least one social media forum. I know he has modified his opinions about how social media and technology affects human behaviour to the point where he has now banned laptops and mobiles from his courses.
I agree with the idea that these opinions/behaviours have always existed and all the internet has done is amplified extreme opinions that have always been expressed and exposed them to people who previously might have been able to avoid them. Indeed those opinions now viewed as extreme/unacceptable were often quite mainstream in the past and it is perhaps a measure of how much "better" we've got that these views are now challenged and sidelined.
Personally I think echo chambers/islands of discourse have always existed particularly in politics where expressing opinions contrary to the majority ideology can leave you isolated. Again all social media does is amplify this tendency and increasingly lead to polarisation - something I think that we should always be aware of, when on social media, is that blocking an opinion you don't like doesn't make it go away, nor does it make the person expressing it change their mind (more likely to have the opposite effect). Of course, life may be too short to argue with someone on the internet ad nauseam but I also don't believe that people hold opposing opinions to my own just to annoy me and trying to understand where they are coming from may cause me to shake up my views a bit for the better.
One thought I have long had is that very few people view themselves as *writers* when they participate in social media forums with an awareness of audience and the potential effects of their words on people who don't know them. I don't think people believe themselves to be indulging in judgemental writing but they sometimes forget to temper their criticism with a little kindness. Also the rise of mobile devices mean that people write quickly and with less care simply because it is difficult to write longer, more thoughtful pieces on a phone.
Think about it, technology definitely affects your behaviour much more than you think, e.g writing nasty things and pressing send feels 'safer" than turning to someone and saying it in the pub, for obvious reasons. The ability to screenshot, share more widely via RTs or reposts mean that people often suffer from online shaming and mob pile-ons for comments that in all honesty would be better ignored, sometimes to the point of losing their livelihoods, see the wonderful Jon Ronson for how this works and how he got targeted for pointing it out!
For the record, these *are* my own opinions but based on the sterling work of people like Shirky, Ronson and others who study human behaviour in the modern world and write excellent books and essays which come highly recommended.
-
-
I'm currently reading Jon Ronson's "So you've been publicly named and shamed" and it is fascinating stuff and insightful writing. But I wanted to focus on the issues directly affecting HoL which is way more subtle than the "eat **** and die" school of trolling. This site is pre-moderated and individuals know that if they are too extreme in their posts, they will be removed. What is way more prevalent is the snide put down. This is much cleverer but is still bullying.
-
-
Just a small point. The site isn't pre-moderated and posts are only removed that are against our conditions of use after a complaint. We, in fact, remove very few posts and HOL is considered by those who make studies of these things as pretty well behaved. Most people are in fact polite and thoughtful. Tone is something that isn't so easy to 'police' but complaints are reviewed and action taken if there is cause to think that it is against the spirit of the site. One person's 'joke' is another person's offence. We don't want to stamp all over debate and so we rely on people being adult about these things and considerate of others. The majority are. Also, for some people the things that they take exception to may matter a great deal based on personal experience or knowledge, we can never know. Sometimes, walking away from a conversation is the best option. As in offline life.
-
-
Yes sorry, I appreciate that I used the term "pre-moderated" erroneously. I suppose when I have personally felt unduly attacked I should have complained but it smacks of snitching to the teacher
-
Permalink Reply by Judith Box on
-
I think the echo chamber aspect is a particularly interesting one with recourse to our teens.
Whilst I think social media can be a wonderful tool for our teens to express themselves - you only have to spend a little bit of time on Tumbr to see how those 'communities' can be come introvert and so self-referential - and is driving a lot of the issues around gender dysphoria, mental illness, pro-anorexia, self-harm etc. What starts as a tool for self expression - can in a minority of cases (mostly vulnerable young girls) become a monster in the form of 'self-help' communities that don't offer help at all - but only echo back on themselves - with parents/teachers/theoutsideworld feeling mostly helpless to try and intervene.
I guess what I'm thinking about is how you need to have dissenting opinions be heard, so that they can break into those 'echo chambers'.
I think your point about 'writers' is really important. Whilst face to face you can have full on discussions and debates about stuff - we treat online in the same way sometimes - as a reflection of real time conversation - whilst forgetting that it is in fact creating a (possibly) permanent representation of our thoughts and feelings at a given moment.
-
-
At the risk of nibbling on your line, it's unfortunate that your responses to John D, Alan and Liz entirely undermine your original post.
-
-
That's not a nibble that's taking the bait hook, line and sinker .. though I'm genuinely non-plussed about the honesty comment
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
