5 ms·

The analogy is a bit strained. It's not really the Internet that's harmful, but rather some subset of the humans attached to it. We could cure some of that pr

The analogy is a bit strained. It's not really the Internet that's harmful, but rather some subset of the humans attached to it. We could cure some of that problem by mandating the abandonment of all online anonymity, but that cure is probably worse than the disease.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
The author seems a bit focused on trolls and general obnoxiousness, but for me the real problem with such widespread, constant communication is something else. That lends itself to two of the most dominant features of current human culture: the suffocating smallness (or, more properly, sameness) with which it imbues our world, leaving the probably accurate sense that there's nowhere to run to or hide if you don't like what you see, and the vicious "outrage cycle" that reinforces a particular and very narrow ideology. If you don't happen to agree with that ideology, and there's nowhere you could go instead that's any different (and certainly not any that's better), what's left to you? It's not entirely fair to blame "the Internet" for this; as Tom Standage has described, earlier forms of communication started these trends. But it really hasn't been until the last 30 or 40 years that communication has been both universal and instantaneous, and those attributes are essential to the kind of feedback loop that creates what we have now. And the worst part of it is that checking out of it yourself doesn't help. The author of this article is absolutely correct on one thing at least: the abandonment will have to occur en masse to make much of a difference.
- crpatino 11y ago
  There has always been deviants, and there have always been two kind of deviants: the ones that figure out how to blend with the masses while retaining their identity, and the ones that meet sad ends at the wrong side of a pitchfork.
  - xixi77 11y ago
    There's always been the third kind, those that would take action to change their surroundings -- either directly, or by surrounding themselves with like-minded people. At least the second method seems to have become much easier with the advent of the internet (first probably too, but that's a whole other subject).
    - crpatino 11y ago
      Right, I'd considered those to be part of the first group, but the differences are too obvious to not grant a cathegory of their own. At the end of day, though, it all boils down to claiming a niche in society. If you fill a niche, your excentricities will be tolerated, otherwise you will be labeled as "other" and ostracized.
- xixi77 11y ago
  There are all kinds of ideologies on the internet; the outrage cycle is annoying but I'm not sure it's consequential -- after all, it only matters for those who care about the opinion of the currently outraged or are otherwise affected by it. Feeling of not fitting in your environment is nothing new; and the most effective solution to that -- changing your environment to one that suits you more -- is much easier online than offline. So if anything, internet has improved things in this regard.
falcolas 11y ago
> by mandating the abandonment of all online anonymity So instead of "Troll 001", you have "John Smith" or any number of a million other common names shared among millions of people. When you're talking to folks who don't live near you, there's no real accountability. Abandoning anonymity has another side effect - it makes the minorities with defining names easier to pick out and harass. Jessica, Abdul, Monique, Bo and Priyanka would love to have their identities immediately made available to the masses.
cbd1984 11y ago
If you abandon anonymity, you open up despised minorities to real-world harassment any time they reveal that they are in such a group online. Now, you may not care about this. You may think some despised minorities should be despised and harassed and so on. However, how do you know you're not in such a minority group?

fredkbloggs 11y ago

The author seems a bit focused on trolls and general obnoxiousness, but for me the real problem with such widespread, constant communication is something else. That lends itself to two of the most dominant features of current human culture: the suffocating smallness (or, more properly, sameness) with which it imbues our world, leaving the probably accurate sense that there's nowhere to run to or hide if you don't like what you see, and the vicious "outrage cycle" that reinforces a particular and very narrow ideology. If you don't happen to agree with that ideology, and there's nowhere you could go instead that's any different (and certainly not any that's better), what's left to you? It's not entirely fair to blame "the Internet" for this; as Tom Standage has described, earlier forms of communication started these trends. But it really hasn't been until the last 30 or 40 years that communication has been both universal and instantaneous, and those attributes are essential to the kind of feedback loop that creates what we have now. And the worst part of it is that checking out of it yourself doesn't help. The author of this article is absolutely correct on one thing at least: the abandonment will have to occur en masse to make much of a difference.

crpatino 11y ago
There has always been deviants, and there have always been two kind of deviants: the ones that figure out how to blend with the masses while retaining their identity, and the ones that meet sad ends at the wrong side of a pitchfork.
- xixi77 11y ago
  There's always been the third kind, those that would take action to change their surroundings -- either directly, or by surrounding themselves with like-minded people. At least the second method seems to have become much easier with the advent of the internet (first probably too, but that's a whole other subject).
  - crpatino 11y ago
    Right, I'd considered those to be part of the first group, but the differences are too obvious to not grant a cathegory of their own. At the end of day, though, it all boils down to claiming a niche in society. If you fill a niche, your excentricities will be tolerated, otherwise you will be labeled as "other" and ostracized.
xixi77 11y ago
There are all kinds of ideologies on the internet; the outrage cycle is annoying but I'm not sure it's consequential -- after all, it only matters for those who care about the opinion of the currently outraged or are otherwise affected by it. Feeling of not fitting in your environment is nothing new; and the most effective solution to that -- changing your environment to one that suits you more -- is much easier online than offline. So if anything, internet has improved things in this regard.

falcolas 11y ago

> by mandating the abandonment of all online anonymity So instead of "Troll 001", you have "John Smith" or any number of a million other common names shared among millions of people. When you're talking to folks who don't live near you, there's no real accountability. Abandoning anonymity has another side effect - it makes the minorities with defining names easier to pick out and harass. Jessica, Abdul, Monique, Bo and Priyanka would love to have their identities immediately made available to the masses.

cbd1984 11y ago

If you abandon anonymity, you open up despised minorities to real-world harassment any time they reveal that they are in such a group online. Now, you may not care about this. You may think some despised minorities should be despised and harassed and so on. However, how do you know you're not in such a minority group?