Coarse online savages!

AerynSun

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/media/the-savagery-of-online-comment-is-coarsening-all-public-discussion-1.1692102

Is "online commentary ... beginning to coarsen all discussion"? Or is the dicussion being labelled 'coarse' because the dominant culture's view is no longer what defines the culture?

Discuss.

Turtwig

Many people are dickheads. On the internet you get more dickheads crammed into a smaller sphere. It's unfortunate and filter bubbles certainly don't help but that's ultimately it. The quality of discussion on the internet is decided by the lowest common denominator. If there's no moderation then there's no discussion just mud slinging.

Manach

That this is the nature of online commentary outside enclaves like boards. Here the nature of the community and the moderation temper the comments somewhat.
However in general elsewhere given how easy it ease to register once, flame and log-off, this is part on how the internet operates.
Historically the nature of debate ebbs and flows with various degrees of incivility (offhand 18th C English pamphlets could be utterly scurilous if not well written) with authorities attempting to clamp down in the name of the public good then, and based on from what I've read ("The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation") a similar type of attempt is being made to "clean up" the web.

Nodin

AerynSun wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/media/the-savagery-of-online-comment-is-coarsening-all-public-discussion-1.1692102

Is "online commentary ... beginning to coarsen all discussion"? Or is the dicussion being labelled 'coarse' because the dominant culture's view is no longer what defines the culture?

Discuss.

Given who is whining I'd be rather suspect of their views of what constitutes commentary that 'coarsens discussion'.

lazygal

Her definition of coarse discussion is those who call her out on her bigoted views and constant misrepresentation of research.

AerynSun

I must admit, I found it quite amusing that the author of the piece refers to the National Catholic Reporter's decision to close their online comments function. The NCR is considered to be a voice for liberal Catholics, and over the years I have read some well reasoned articles on that website. The comments were sometimes truly shocking, and at a point I decided to stop reading the NCR because the comments sections were so disheartening: I couldn't bear to think that some "decent, conservative Catholics" could post such vicious, condemnatory bile in response to questions raised by some of the articles and opinion pieces that were against the commenter's beliefs or interpretation of their faith. The NCR website was the first forum where I began to appreciate how deep the rifts in the Church ran. When you saw people at Mass of a Sunday, they were usually friendly enough. But read some of their comments posted online, and you suddenly realised "These people aren't my friends if I don't agree with their interpretation and application of the faith" and even "These people hate me and want me to be eternally damned because I don't conform to their erroneous understanding of who God is". It's interesting that someone whose views are considered quite conservative, is using the experience of a liberal news source as a case-in-point about the savagery of online commentary. It's almost like saying "you didn't like it when we attacked you, the likes of you shouldn't be attacking us now"?

All of that said... I must admit that during the last couple of weeks I have personally liked or laughed over comments that derided certain journalists' hairdos, suggesting that the writer could take style tips from the person at the centre of the furore. Because looking at both persons, it is quite obvious which of the two wears their hair and makeup with more flair. Still... as a feminist, does it make me a traitor to womankind when I laugh at men's online comments poking fun at a dowdy woman? Is the woman really being maligned for being a woman, or is it fair enough to make fun of someone's hair while they campaign for unequal rights for minority groups?

Nodin

.....tbh, by following and promulgating the conservative line, she's downplaying herself as a woman, if ye think about it.

Hotblack Desiato

She could start by getting the Irish Times to enforce its own 'community standards'. Their comment section is riddled with abusive comments and trolling. Mostly espousing the conservative / theist / Traditional Irish Catholic™ viewpoint, ironically enough.

Also, anyone who complains about 'anonymity' on the internet Just Doesn't Get It At All. No-one is 'anonymous' on the internet, not even those who describe themselves as such with a capital letter and all!

Pseudonymity is a good thing though, many people have good reason not to reveal their actual name, location, profession etc. on the internet. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever register with facebook and the likes.

Real name policies are no such thing, if I register as JohnSmith59607 on a website they've no idea whether that's my real name or not. And it really, really doesn't and shouldn't matter anyway. Some people's names are near-unique on google, it's very unfair on them. The John Smiths will always have the relative anonymity of the crowd.

Boards is proof that, if the required effort is made, no-one need use their real name to be accountable for what they post.

pauldla

This is one administration that is VERY keen on the idea of real name registration for internet services. To "prevent vulgar content, base art forms, exaggerated violence and sexual content in Internet video having a negative effect on society."

Guess which one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-china-internet-idUSBREA0K04T20140121

Nodin

pauldla wrote: »

This is one administration that is VERY keen on the idea of real name registration for internet services. To "prevent vulgar content, base art forms, exaggerated violence and sexual content in Internet video having a negative effect on society."

Guess which one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/us-china-internet-idUSBREA0K04T20140121

I think we were bad enough off when the state broadcaster had to apologise over paintings of Brian Cowan without going down that route.

Delirium

Nodin wrote: »

Given who is whining I'd be rather suspect of their views of what constitutes commentary that 'coarsens discussion'.

+1

lets not forget disagreement with Iona got you listed on the "river of bile".