The Internet, Anonymity and Misanthropy

[SidneyCarton]

All things considered, the Internet is a fascinating and insidiously useful creation. Need a fact, google it. Looking for an association of like minded individuals? There are groups for every possible group imaginable, from liberals, to atheists, to people who enjoy fiction involving invisible women (I kid you not). Don’t want anyone to know who you really are? Create a persona, no one need really know. After all, the only reason you have to believe that my name is Sidney Carton (Though I will freely admit it’s not) and that I am a Mormon, and a male graduate student in early-adulthood with a wife and child, is because I say so. As there are few ways to check, it could be equally likely that I am a middle-aged female wiccan who works as a stripper in Omaha. (Naaah, probably not.) Anyway anonymity is a two-edged sword it protects the user, who need not fear that his comments will result in bags of flaming dog feces on his doorstep (Or other, far less pleasant experiences such as death threats) while at the same time giving him license to attack his fellow man without mercy.

For examples of this viciousness, one need look no further than recent headlines. There was the young woman who hung herself after the mother of one of her classmates, who pretended to be a boy she liked, hounded and mocked her mercilessly on myspace. Then there was the South Korean starlet, who fell prey to such serious and vicious Internet gossip, that she committed suicide. Whether it be the online tabloid sites, such as TMZ or PerezHilton, or message boards, or even some online sites that purport to report news, snark is king and the more cutting the commentary, the better.

There is nothing necessarily new about the phenomenon of snark in popular culture, as long as there has been printing, there have been pamphlets which have ridiculed the powerful and the public. For those who could not read there were bawdy songs and the ever present gossip. Yet prior to the Internet revolution, it would be rather unlikely that some guy living in his mother’s basement in Tallahassee would see fit to spend his time tormenting a housewife in Phoenix. The reason is simple, printing was expensive, and rarely were songs written about obscure individuals, if you were being slandered, chances were it was by someone you knew. Not anymore. Even I have done my fair share of attacks from behind my pseudonym, most recently to Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who I called an idiot. (A rather milquetoast attack, in comparison to some I admit, yet nonetheless I could do it without any fear of Mr. DeMint, or his staffers attacking me personally, the worst they could do is attack Sidney Carton a moniker, which I can choose to hide behind, or discard at my leisure.

So what’s my point? The anonymity of the Internet allows for a level of freedom of speech unlike any previously experienced. Like Carnival on every day of the year, it is a masquerade ball which allows each to come in whatever form they wish to portray themselves, and erases the boundaries between genders, classes, and races if so desired. Yet as the mask allows each to pursue their deepest fantasies without fear of reprisal, we begin to see that not all fantasies are harmless. Indeed, there seem to be quite a few closet misanthropes out there, who seeing a sphere in which they may act without the consequences which they would face in face-to-face contact, choose to indulge this trait to the extreme. Were people to communicate with each other in public the way they do on message boards, discourse would swiftly degenerate to physical violence as the invective, vitriol and hostility spread so thoughtlessly via keyboard would be answered with blows.

So people are mean on the Internet, so what? If I don’t like snark, I certainly don’t have to be here. This is indeed true, but I have a hard time believing that such an outpouring of misanthropy online does not reach beyond the keyboard. I find it unlikely that one can be an absolutely thuggish brutal monster online, and then be a perfectly calm, rational and respectful human being away from the net, eventually the temptation to attack with the same license which characterizes one’s online persona will take hold and we see the effects of such temptation in the coarsening of dialogue in society. I have no prescription to solve this problem. The anonymity of the web is not merely a liability, but an important protection as well, and one that I would not want revoked under any circumstances. Yet, as long as it exists the potential for bullying, cruelty and general despicable attacks by faceless assailants remains.

Perhaps the greatest argument against pursuing such behavior is the question of identity. Who are we really? Are we the facade we show to the world, or are we the person we choose to be when no one sees what we are doing. The way we act while hiding behind our online personas reveals much more about the “real us” than any portrait ever could.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. Interesting concept and intriquing question. KandR. n/t

[SidneyCarton]

3. Thx

[Uncle Joe]

2. I believe the humanitarians vastly outnumber the Misanthropes

and most people get called on out right unwarranted hatred.

Considering there must have already been tens if not hundreds of millions of messages posted on the relatively young Internet, I view the track record as vindication.

I also believe the one way corporate media will hype any negativity arising from the Internet as a means of neutralizing it's growing power and influence.

One thing I don't see reported by them is how many people have committed suicide or at least slid in to deep depression because of the one way mass corporate media's relentless haranguing.

Sometimes I do feel sorry for the targets of today's late night comedians, particularly when their barbs are aimed at the un-empowered usually using the lowest common denominator as their means of humor.

[SidneyCarton]

4. I don't disagree.

It is truly amazing that things aren't far worse then they might be.

[DonCoquixote]

5. True enough

And furthermore, perhaps it says something about society where very few people are really allowed to be themselves. However, there is a danger in this essay, one that I did not think you meant, but one that may be used to lay "a trap for fools." (to quote Kipling) Many people demonize the Internet, saying it has let loose things that need to be shoved back into the Genie bottle. The fact is, humans have always been able to use something to lose themselves in, to play a role they could not otherwise do. In the older days people used religion as a means to mask their hate and misanthropy, or to gain new identities where they could be saints, knights and heroes. When I hear people slam technology, they speak as if if we all went back to some Hunter-Gatherer style, all would be green in ecotopia, with everyone leading wonderful lives and egalitarian social orders. The fact is Humans have and will always make some form of Cyberspace, some construct of the mind which they use to define and undefine the self, if nothing else because the conscious self is only the tip of an iceberg. What cyberspace actually does is force this into the open, Let's face it, part of the reason we are talking about issues like race, gender and income is because people went on the itnernet and showed us the side of ourselves we did NOT want to see, the side no paper would have shown.

Let's be honest, would the democrats have mobilized as well as we have if the freepers did not do such an EXCELLENT job of showing how horrid the right wing still is? Note how after Obama left, right-wing talking heads like Mike Huckabee and Elizabeth Hasselbeck made a point to distance themselves from Ann Coulter. WHY did they do this? It's simple, because the part of the GOP that likes to appear "moderate" saw that when people like Ann Coulter and the Freepers made drooling messes of themselves on You Tube, people realized "oh my God, there is a lot of UGLINESS out there, is it in me?" If people's conscience was not so pricked, they night never have voted for Obama.

[SidneyCarton]

6. You raise excellent points.

You are right, the potential for a trap is there, but it was wholly unintentional. I have no illusions about putting a genie back in a bottle, the internet is here to stay, and its benefits are sufficient enough to make any goal of doing away with it quite foolish indeed. Thank you for your comments and analysis, I appriciate the different point of view.

[DonCoquixote]

7. Thanks, I only said that

Because people like Elton John (yes, that man) have said getting rid of the internet would bring back that artistic spirit of the 1960's and 1970's. Yes, it's funny, but also sad.

[SidneyCarton]

14. Elton would do well to avoid social theory...

He seems to do much better at his piano.

[The Doctor.]

8. Some choose to test the truth of what they are against the world of the masquerade...

Myself, for instance, is not terribly dissimilar from my online persona. This is for two good reasons;

1) I'm lazy and don't much cherish the notion of using a high-maintenance façade.

2) By submitting my honest opinions and anecdotes, I can identify strengths and faults in my thought process, and measure that of others from a distinct cognitive index.

I know for a fact that If I call someone something mean on the internet, I would say it to their face in RL. I've found, however, that most people are more willing to listen and participate in RL, so they tend not to exhibit the ignorance and disingenuity that gives me reason to resort to epithets.

Being as genuine as I can be, without necessarily revealing enough pertinent information about myself for others to find me, I have a great deal of confidence in the strength of my opinions and convictions.

But there are so many whose only purpose is to soil discussion and lie, who would curl up in a little ball after the berating they took from trying to get away with such bullshit face to face.

[SidneyCarton]

13. I'm not all that different myself.

In my case it's just the fact that I'm sufficiently eccentric that I really can't help being anyone else. Besides, the high maintenance facade takes a lot of effort.

[SoCalDem]

23. Dr E..are you my long-lost twin??

I too am far too lazy to concoct farfetched scenarios.. and I even go so far as to not bother to "list" "people I don't like", so I can be sure to avoid them:).. I'm sure I have ended up consoling someone over a death in the family, who called me an idiot last week. I'm also sure I have agreed with some people who never agree with me..no biggie.. life's too short to hold grudges or keep score:)

:hi:

[travelingtypist]

9. K&R

Not that I agree, but this is interesting and valuable
and should be noticed.

[SidneyCarton]

12. Well thank you for your willingness to discuss.

I freely admit that the above is merely my opinion (as most of what is posted on this board is) and certainly it has no claim on absolute truth.

[travelingtypist]

20. Anytime.

Like I said, I think there's a lot of value here.

It's taken a couple of days for what you wrote to percolate. What
was nagging at me is a chicken-and-egg sort of a thing, what came
first, or causation maybe.

Maybe it's because I don't use my real name, but I'm who I am, gender,
age, marital status, all of it. I don't call people names. I'm not
an Internet fuckwad even with the anonymity I'm provided.

So maybe it's an enabler, but it's not a direct cause. There's seems
to be something underdeath, inside, the person, that's driving the
fuckwaditude.

[anigbrowl]

10. Or, in six words (credit to John Gabriel):

[SidneyCarton]

11. I was looking for that formula!

Sadly sums it up pretty well, doesn't it.

[.... callchet ....]

15. Laws and communication

Radio frequencies are regulated. Actually even talking on a CB radio has strict laws. For instance all conversations are legally considered confidential. You can be guilty of a crime if you act on information that you heard being discussed between two other individuals on the CB radio.
I believe they are going nuts trying to figure out a way to regulate the internet.

[SidneyCarton]

16. You're right.

The question is whether or not internet regulation is truly possible. I would suppose that in some limited fashion it is, but being that the net is global, and uniform regulation across the globe is unlikely it would always have loopholes.

To some degree our speech is regulated on DU (not to bash the mods or admins, every society requires rules) the goal is to limit abuse without seriously sacrificing freedom of speech. How well do you think this system works?

[.... callchet ....]

17. Tax and charges

My guess : They will be looking at taxes and charges. >Then once it is taxed ( regulated ) the door will be open to regulations.

[BuelahWitch]

18. I don't think there's that much more snark on the internet

than there is in real life. If I'm online, I can avoid someone who is giving me a bad time either by putting them on ignore, deleting them from "friends" and blocking them or just remove my own account from a forum. This can't be done with snarky and hateful coworkers, customers or neighbors. The internet gets a bad wrap when people behave badly in all walks of life. Maybe I've just been lucky, but my internet interactions with people are much more enjoyable than those I have to deal with locally.

[NashVegas]

19. Didn't Everyone Use Their Real Names in Old, Old Usenet?

Or come close to it. I know when U2 came online there was great pressure *against* nicks, but I don't know how that worked out. The purpose was, obviously, to remove the anonymous aspect and force people to account for their words as if they were actions.

So people are mean on the Internet, so what? If I don’t like snark, I certainly don’t have to be here. This is indeed true, but I have a hard time believing that such an outpouring of misanthropy online does not reach beyond the keyboard. I find it unlikely that one can be an absolutely thuggish brutal monster online, and then be a perfectly calm, rational and respectful human being away from the net, eventually the temptation to attack with the same license which characterizes one’s online persona will take hold and we see the effects of such temptation in the coarsening of dialogue in society.

Listen to what your gut says. I once made friends online with a woman who reminded me of someone me & my co-workers used to refer to as "psycho-editor," but on her good days. Eventually, she matched her on the bad days, too.

[ColbertWatcher]

21. The worse criminals are the ones who don't care that you know their identity ...

[lonestarnot]

22. What brought all this on, not Sara I hope. :)

[SidneyCarton]

24. Sara?

No, just general observations from various encounters on the Internet which I have experienced personally, or observed happening to others.