Is there something rotten in the state of the internet?

According to Richard Dawkins, there is. Following a series of fairly hateful posts on a forum on his site, he withdrew the discussion board and posted on his blog that he felt there was “something rotten in the internet culture”. Given that one commenter said he wanted to ram a fistful of nails down his throat, you can see where he’s coming from. So does Dawkins have a point? Is there something inherently rotten in our internet culture? There are a few interesting points from this discussion that are worth looking at further.

One of the clear things that Dawkins takes issue with, and I have to side with him here, is the reference to language. He questions why there is the need for such over the top language and in a tone that he describes as sometimes ‘hysterical’. Anyone who has read the comments for pretty much any youtube video, can’t help but agree with him here. But youtube aside, which seems to have spawned it’s own subculture of inane, irrational and spiteful comments, he does also have a point when it comes to the language that’s used online. I’ve been on the receiving end of some pretty hurtful stuff myself and I’ve seen others go through worse. Sure, you eventually learn to accept it, you become almost desensitised. The thing is that this can sometimes come from people you know ‘offline’ and the tone and language used for some of their online communication can often seem like it’s coming from a different person altogether.

Hiding behind the wall

The anonymity factor is clearly at play here, to an extent. Sure, when no-one can trace you, you can voice your inner most thoughts and angers, no matter how hateful they may be. But anonymity in itself is not sufficient enough an explanation. You can often see people who are in no way trying to hide who they are, acting in a completely different way and sometimes in a more unpleasant way than how they normally would. Or how you could conceive anyone acting towards someone else, especially people they don’t know. I want it to be clear that I’m not talking trolls here, but rather the more general way in which we conduct ourselves and communicate online.

Whether you’re being transparent or not, there is a clear comfort in the ‘wall’ between you and the internet. No matter how much you try to be yourself online, there is always that level of knowledge that you have time to write out what you want to say, that you can self-correct, self-censor. That you can say what you want without the risk of an immediate response or a need to make eye contact. You can turn the screen off and ignore it, if you so wish. Or you can compose yourself for the next comment. Lately I have found myself thinking more than I usually would before sending a tweet or writing something on Facebook. I’ve found myself going to say things that I would normally never say to someone, and I have always tried to be the same person offline as I am online. I’m finding myself getting increasingly drawn into this habit of mouthing off about individuals or companies and using language I never normally would. And I check myself before I do it, because being that way just isn’t me. So what is this strange thing that happens online, that allows you to become almost a different person, at times unrecognisable to the people that know you?

Is it really as bad as Dawkins suggests? Is it something rotten with the internet that encourages us to be like this? I wouldn’t go so far as to describe it in the way that he has, but you can’t ignore the fact that online, people can become quite nasty. This isn’t to say that it’s the internet that’s making people act this way, that it is in some way responsible as a medium (you won’t find me burning copies of Child’s Play here) but it is a fascinating insight into human behaviour, in that it’s allowing us to access a whole new level of communication and act in a different way. We’ve always had written communication, but never with the immediacy of the internet or social media. The fact that it can bring out such different sides of people , both good and bad is affecting not only how we communicate, but is spreading out into entire industries.

To come back to Dawkins’ post, there is something else interesting in what he says. Not the fact that the internet can bring out this ‘hysterical’ behaviour that he discusses, but the act that brought this about. The issue in question was that Dawkins was making changes to the existing forum on his website. Something that, I think, he unfortunately plays down too much. The difference was in changing it from being an open forum, to one that would be moderated. To the extent that starting a new discussion would require approval. Even though I don’t agree with the treatment Dawkins received online, it is understandable why some would have reacted badly to this. Even though he claims it is his right as the owner and editor of the site to extend this editorial control. This is not, however, the function of a forum. It is a discussion. One that should be open and free from control (libel etc.. notwithstanding).

But further still the problem is not so much the editorial control Dawkins was inflicting, but the fact that he was making changes to an already thriving community forum. I feel it is expertly summed up in this post, in a thread unfortunately titled ‘Richard Dawkins is a dick‘

“It may sound ridiculous to those not involved with online communities, but I feel hurt and displaced. It was like coming home to find the locks have been changed.”

Even for those not involved in online communities, it is a pretty compelling and understandable argument. This guardian article also provides further interesting insight into how the old forum moderators were treated. Not all that nicely.

So here we have two incredibly interesting insights into the way we function both as individuals online and how we act within our wider communities. It is evident that Richard Dawkins was in the wrong. Not for wanting to exert editorial control on his own site, but for thinking he could do that and in any way still call it a forum. Our online communities and behaviours are something that we hold quite close to us. Just wait for Facebook to make a change to their site and see the ensuing ‘petition’ to change it back. This is not wholly unreasonable and is a reflection of how we function online. In many cases we conduct a large portion of our lives through an environment that someone else ‘owns’. We have no control over it, it is physically intangible so changes like the one that Dawkins made shouldn’t be overlooked. Bearing this in mind also provides an insight into the language and general tone with which we carry out our online communication. Online our words are all we have. There’s no subtle body language, no hints and no real tone of voice. But inn lieu of these subtleties do we resort to nasty, intimidating language to get our point across?

When all you have is words, every one counts.