Blogosphere Uproar

On 3/29/2007 at 1:17 PM -0700, Mike Cohen macmegasite-at-gmail.com
|TidBITS/1.0-Allow| wrote:

>I see the same thing in the comments at Sun-Sentinel. I'm appalled by
>some of the posted comments. Almost every discussion degenerates into
>fights about politics and personal attacks.
>

Does anyone think this has been exacerbated by the advent of Karl Rove
politics, the politics of polarization, Us versus Them? In many forums
it's a virtual war waged along party lines.

There are several things going on:

* Writing comments is cheap. It cost you nothing. In the old days,
writing comments would cost you a stamp, so you wanted to make sure
you got your money's worth.

* Everything is published. In the old days, Newspapers couldn't print
every letter to the editor. If you didn't express an opinion, but
merely a personal attack, there was a good chance that a more
thoughtful letter would be published, and yours would end up in the
"circular file".

* Anonymity means no one can figure out who you are.

Combine these three things, and any sick puppy on the web can have
loads of fun. I had a friend who got some very disturbing email. By
looking at the headers, I was able to trace that message back to a
particular person. It ends up that all this person does is spend his
entire day posting the most sickening, misogynist comments to various
blogs and emails.

I'd love to say he was merely some harmless, lonely loser, but let's
just say that the comments he posted were a violation of his parole.
There are some really sick people out there.

The problem is the more popular you are, the more scum you attract. A
lot of bloggers' biggest fear is having something on their site
posted on Digg: <http://cre8pc.com/blog/archives/198>.

--
David Weintraub
davidweintraubworld.net
davidweintraub.name

I took care to leave all forums where this kind of war was being waged
-- and won; so I don't know what's going on much, today. But I don't
join new discussions where I see war out of the corner of an eye.

YES! it is to do with polarization. "I'm right -- you're wrong."

Also to do with living in a soup of 7 to 10,000 intoxicants. How do you
you expect anybody's brain: from emotions to IQ, to work at all under
those conditions. Would you expect a computer to last very long if
exposed to the cocktail of pollutants humans and other living things
fight for their lives against.

I believe that Karl Rove Politics, including polarization, have been
exacerbated by the environment described in The United Nations Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment: humanity only has a few generations left unless
they had already changed their course of thinking and action 100 years
ago. Karl Rove is primarily a product of the environment; I'm sure he
is involved in continuing the good work, too. (My conclusion =-O not
the UN's)

My own course of thinking is to stand to one side and let it cruise it's
own unruly way onwards... That improves my chances, with friends and
family; no guarantees though. :-)

George
7002 BC Canada

On Mar 31, 2007, lwg1xzachyula001sneakemail.com wrote:

> On 3/29/2007 Mike Cohen wrote:
>
>> I see the same thing in the comments at Sun-Sentinel. I'm appalled by
>> some of the posted comments. Almost every discussion degenerates into
>> fights about politics and personal attacks.
>>
>
> Does anyone think this has been exacerbated by the advent of Karl Rove
> politics, the politics of polarization, Us versus Them? In many forums
> it's a virtual war waged along party lines.

Karl Rove (and Michael Moore, for example) are amateurs. Look up
some of the things that were said and done in the early 1800's. And
they were our Founding Fathers!


[OK, let's not let this turn into a political discussion. -Adam]


Dan Hardt

Friebds:

        John W. suggests contact with editor or ombudsman at reception-end of
Letters now. Happens I have "been there" on wire service, dailies, and
magazines, coping for years with current type of malignities, although
not active at such post for decade.
    From that, and current contacts with those-covering such assignments
now, supported by four sons all "in the media" at one level or another
currently, and personal experience currently on website alternative
daily vs Gannetteer monopoly, I can assure you flow is greater and more
malignant than ever.
        John is right Internet makes "more efficient" --but that is sure to
increase quantity, and seems to build malignity too.

        On our website --one of few nationally NOT owned or controlld by
print/side daily or tv-news, we find it demanding of efforts to remedy
allatime, with emphasis on "stick to point" of story on which Comment
should be made, while still allowing freedom of expression generally.
Comment intended to build demo-dialog, using strengths of diverse
viewpoints, but damaged when mailignities allowed without reference to
usual social amenities controlling face-to-face contacts, as in
conversation.

Hankatlma
"Those who cannot remember the past
                are condemned to repeat it."
                                -- George Santayana

On 3/31/07 22:46, "lwg1xzachyula001sneakemail.com"
<lwg1xzachyula001sneakemail.com> wrote:

>> I see the same thing in the comments at Sun-Sentinel. I'm appalled by
>> some of the posted comments. Almost every discussion degenerates into
>> fights about politics and personal attacks.
>>
>
> Does anyone think this has been exacerbated by the advent of Karl Rove
> politics, the politics of polarization, Us versus Them? In many forums
> it's a virtual war waged along party lines.

Yeah. It's not like the various pundits on all sides of the game who ARE
using their names are being any more polite because of it.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:46 PM, lwg1xzachyula001sneakemail.com wrote:

> On 3/29/2007 at 1:17 PM -0700, Mike Cohen macmegasite-at-gmail.com
> |TidBITS/1.0-Allow| wrote:
>
>> I see the same thing in the comments at Sun-Sentinel. I'm appalled by
>> some of the posted comments. Almost every discussion degenerates into
>> fights about politics and personal attacks.
>>
>
> Does anyone think this has been exacerbated by the advent of Karl Rove
> politics, the politics of polarization, Us versus Them? In many forums
> it's a virtual war waged along party lines.

This is an excellent point, and I'd add the likes of Ann Coulter,
Bill O'Reilly to the list.

I also think that shows like American Idol, where public humiliation
of participants is encouraged, is a contributing factor.

Marilyn

Friends:

        Several days back, Adam wrote:

> Do we
> as a society wish to say, "It's the way things are, and if you can't
> take the heat..." or do we wish to make it absolutely clear that such
> behavior is societally unacceptable?
>
> Certainly I vote for the latter.

        Meant to thank him for that very reasonable and rational statement,
since that's precisely why we try not only to surveil our ongoing
Comments-dialog, but do not hesitate to intervene when we feel a short
statement or remediation is demanded. (At Salem-News:
www.salem-news.com)
        
        That is, after all, the paramount role of the teacher, and that is
what every editor is, willy-nilly, purposefully or pushed-into-role...
        which adds a certain level of unavoidable responsibility, motivating
careful action to preserve every iota of First Amendment while carrying
out considerable impacting-role of any communications channel under
professional control.

yrfriendhankatlma

Hank
        "Then what is freedom? It is the will to be responsible to ourselves."
  -- Friedrich Nietzsche - "Twilight of the Idols", 1888

--On March 31, 2007 8:46:55 PM -0700 lwg1xzachyula001sneakemail.com wrote:
> Does anyone think this has been exacerbated by the advent of Karl Rove
> politics, the politics of polarization, Us versus Them? In many forums
> it's a virtual war waged along party lines.

Not really, that's just the topic that draws the worst at the moment.
After all Godwin's law was put forth in 1990, well before the current
political scene.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one"

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_rule>

On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:51 AM, George Wade wrote:

>
> I believe that Karl Rove Politics, including polarization, have been
> exacerbated by the environment described in The United Nations
> Millenium
> Ecosystem Assessment: humanity only has a few generations left unless
> they had already changed their course of thinking and action 100 years
> ago. Karl Rove is primarily a product of the environment; I'm
> sure he
> is involved in continuing the good work, too. (My conclusion =-O not
> the UN's)

To be fair, this type of politics existed since at least the times of
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. In fact it could be argued
that Jefferson was the American father of party politics since Adams
(for all intents and purposes) offered him almost a Co-President
position and he turned it down since it wouldn't benefit the goals of
not having a Republican as president.


Aaron Benedict
Co-host of "The Second Time Around" podcast
www.benedictfamily.org/podcast
aaronbenedictfamily.org

Marilyn Matty wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:46 PM, lwg1xzachyula001sneakemail.com wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/2007 at 1:17 PM -0700, Mike Cohen macmegasite-at-gmail.com
>> |TidBITS/1.0-Allow| wrote:
>>
>>> I see the same thing in the comments at Sun-Sentinel. I'm appalled by
>>> some of the posted comments. Almost every discussion degenerates into
>>> fights about politics and personal attacks.
>>>
>>
>> Does anyone think this has been exacerbated by the advent of Karl Rove
>> politics, the politics of polarization, Us versus Them? In many forums
>> it's a virtual war waged along party lines.
>
> This is an excellent point, and I'd add the likes of Ann Coulter,
> Bill O'Reilly to the list.
>
> I also think that shows like American Idol, where public humiliation
> of participants is encouraged, is a contributing factor.
>
I just have to ask if anyone here has listened to the vitriol coming
from Air America Radio? Both sides have many irons in this fire. And I
wish they would both shut up at times. But if paid popular commentators
on all sides of an issue can say ugly dumb things, why should posters
and commentators on blogs not think they have the right to speak their
mind, little as it may be?

David Ross

Adam C. Engst wrote:

> Precisely - there is nothing new under the sun, and I'm sure there
> were death threats that were hand-written with quill pens. But we
> moved from handwriting to the printing press to email, and at each
> step of the way, things changed. It's not the technology's fault, but
> society has had to adapt, and events like this, while certainly not
> unique, serve as touchpoints from which decisions can be made. Do we
> as a society wish to say, "It's the way things are, and if you can't
> take the heat..." or do we wish to make it absolutely clear that such
> behavior is societally unacceptable?
>
> Certainly I vote for the latter.

There was a period when social groups enforced civility on their
"members". (Of course between such groups there was much less
cooperation, Jim Crow, Irish in New England, Catholic vs. Protestant,
etc...) But starting in the 60s this started to unravel. It has more and
more become OK to disrupt other groups and even your own group if you
want to shout louder than anyone else.

As to why this has happened? Parenting changed, media and news changed,
many things have changed. Technology has played a big role in enabling
the reporting of the "emperor has no clothes" kind of thing. (JFK comes
to mind here. Do you really think he or Nixon could be elected today?)
Discipline in schools has changed. Respect for authority has changed.
And I can argue both sides of the issues but rarely support the absolute
position in either direction. The norms of society have changed over the
last 30 years and society has not yet figured out where to land yet.
This has happened multiple times in our past. We just aren't taught much
about it in school.

An example of this entire issue is a 2nd grader came to our neighborhood
school wearing a tee shirt with something on it like "S*** Happens".
When his parents were called in the dad showed up wearing the same
thing. Neither would have been acceptable at most points in the past.

David Ross

================================================================
Adam
This is part of why I've not talked about your survey and kids. You
started a long thought train in my head and I'm just now getting to
where I want to discuss it without inciting a riot.
========================================================================

> It is appalling that mainstream media enable "comments" without any
> screening moderation. They could just delete the worst garbage, and provide
> a couple of standard responses to marginal comments subject to being
> 'fixed.'
>
> This requires only junior staff, with a little editorial guidance and
> oversight (although no one should be asked to do this more than a few hours
> a day).

This brings up an issue I have with schools today. They don't teach
people the costs of things. A junior staffer (not an intern at minimum
wages) at a news organization costs $50,000 to $100,000 per year fully
funded. So picking the bottom number you wind up with a cost of $200 per
day to do this. Not counting management oversight, time lost in
scheduling who does it when on what day for what time. And if you are a
small organization, where do you get this group of people unless you
pick from higher paid folks and thus increase the costs even more.
TANSTAAFL.

Now maybe you understand the costs and if so great but most people think
of what other people do as free.

> The work load would not be enormous when such material no longer got into
> the comments.
> Jim

Ask anyone who runs a moderated mail list or forum. :) It's hard
grueling work. The world seems to have an almost endless supply of folks
who want to cuss, argue, and in general interrupt the group intent.

> Kids can be mean, for sure, and we've had to deal with a few
> instances where Tristan has been bullied for being the smallest kid
> in a group, but at least in the modern day education system in
> Ithaca, anything even bordering on bullying is shut down hard and
> instantly by the principal. It's considered totally unacceptable for
> all sorts of reasons.
>
> It sounds like these people never suffered any consequences for their
> bullying actions in the past, so they just kept raising the bar.
> Perhaps questioning by the police of the group and some
> fines/community services/jail time for the actual perpetrator will
> teach some of those missed lessons.

 > It sounds like these people never suffered any consequences for their
 > bullying actions in the past, so they just kept raising the bar.

What happens these days is a perverse result of zero tolerance. Since
the punishment is so severe (suspension or expulsion) many behavior
issues these days or dealt with by trying to avoid the real issues. Talk
it out. Calm folks down. Etc... So many disruptive behaviors never
really get real consequences until they are "over the top". So self
control isn't learned.

I just checked the Ithaca city school district web site. Oh, the joys of
being in a small district. We have more high schools than you have
schools. Our district is growing by 8,500 net seats next year which is
about 5%. And has been growing at this rate for 20 years and is expected
to as far out as anyone can predict. Which just makes it even harder to
come up with what is acceptable since the social groups involved keep
shifting and changing.

 From the TidBITS article:

<http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html>

I'd just like to point out the comments on this page from Gail Anne
Williams, manager at The Well. Her comments say very much what I thought
when I read some of Chris Locke's comments.

Chris cites the YOYOW (you own your own words) ethos from the early days of
The Well, but for Chris it seems to be a one-way ethos: IDOYW (I don't own
your words) or NOOYW (no one owns your words). (See
http://www.rageboy.com/2007/03/re-kathy-sierras-allegations.html and search
for YOYOW.)

Gail describes the other shoe, which I would call YOUTYW (you own up to
your words): you may disclaim responsibility for my words, but I darned
well better TAKE that responsibility myself.

Edward
--
Art works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org

At 2:09 AM -0700 4/9/07, <tidbits-talktidbits.com> wrote:
>There was a period when social groups enforced civility on their
>"members". (Of course between such groups there was much less
>cooperation, Jim Crow, Irish in New England, Catholic vs. Protestant,
>etc...) But starting in the 60s this started to unravel. It has more and
>more become OK to disrupt other groups and even your own group if you
>want to shout louder than anyone else.

Uh, let's not fall prey to "Golden Age" thinking again. There really
hasn't been a period in American history when the discourse of
politics and society has been particularly polite.

We might remember an election when the Vice-Presidential candidate of
the Republican party travelled the country accusing Democrats of
aiding and abetting the enemy, of being soft on America's enemies,
and generally "waving the bloody flag."

2004? No, 1900: Theodore Roosevelt was the VP candidate and William
McKinley the President searching for re-election.

On a societal level, remember that until the 1920s and 30s, members
of undesirable groups were kept in line with lynchings and the threat
of lynchings. This tactic was used primarily against
African-Americans, but it was also deployed against a range of groups
perceived as outsiders (Italian-Americans, etc).

I know the 1960s are often seen as the moment when American society
started to decay, but that's mostly a myth.
--
David J Silbey History Alvernia College

More notes on the start of this thread.

Especially interesting is the part about the public presentation done by
Mena Trott.

http://news.com.com/A+call+for+manners+in+the+world+of+nasty+blogs/2100-1025_3-6174337.html?tag=st.prev

What blows my mind is that there are large numbers of folks who do not
understand that there is censorship everywhere. Always has been. Always
will be. These folks seem to feel that property rights don't mater. I
mean really, if I put up a family web page and allow comments, is it
really wrong for me to censor those comments?

On Apr 8, 2007, at 12:29 PM, David Ross wrote:
> I just have to ask if anyone here has listened to the vitriol coming
> from Air America Radio?

As a Volvo driving, vegetable eating, socialist medicine advocating,
pot smoking, tax loving, government program supporting liberal, I've
never listened to Air America. Actually, when it first came on, I
listened to it for a few days, then turned it off. It wasn't that I
was upset by their viewpoints, nor was its not that I don't like the
hosts. It wasn't my type of radio. And, I think my fellow Volvo
drivers agree which is why Air America isn't doing so well financially.

I prefer to listen to such liberal fairs as "This American Life",
"Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "The Leonard Lopate Show". Ditto
Head theater isn't for me.

--
David Weintraub
davidweintraubworld.net
davidweintraub.name

David Weintraub wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2007, at 12:29 PM, David Ross wrote:
>> I just have to ask if anyone here has listened to the vitriol coming
>> from Air America Radio?
>
> As a Volvo driving, vegetable eating, socialist medicine advocating,
> pot smoking, tax loving, government program supporting liberal, I've
> never listened to Air America. Actually, when it first came on, I
> listened to it for a few days, then turned it off. It wasn't that I
> was upset by their viewpoints, nor was its not that I don't like the
> hosts. It wasn't my type of radio. And, I think my fellow Volvo
> drivers agree which is why Air America isn't doing so well financially.
>
> I prefer to listen to such liberal fairs as "This American Life",
> "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me", and "The Leonard Lopate Show". Ditto
> Head theater isn't for me.

While I am almost the opposite of your first statement of personality,
we seem to listen to the same radio. :)

I can't stand most "political" talk radio from either end.

Which is some of the point. Civil discourse is being overwhelmed by
extremes at both ends. Both ends.

And yes I know there was no "golden age" but the bronze one seemed
better (at least to me) than the current "throwing rocks" one we seem to
live in.

>> It is appalling that mainstream media enable "comments" without any
>> screening moderation. They could just delete the worst garbage...
>>
>> This requires only junior staff, with a little editorial guidance
>> .....to avoid degenerating into shouting
>> matches and name calling - and food fights.
>
> I used to help moderate a Yahoo Group, and whenever Yahoos came to
> visit, a simple warning was usually good for a while. When they later
> decided to test the rules out of mischievous intent: a sharp drop into
> 'Read Only' status brought immediate confession of sins and begging for
> forgiveness. Democracy is really only for those who have earned it;
> for everybodies good.

Just to amplify the comments I and others made about how hard this is,
NPR did a segment on this particular issue this morning. And as an
example of how hard this can be there is a blog about food that uses 3
full time paid staffers and 12 volunteers to keep the blog civil.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9642178