 Recently, a generous and uncontroversial business blogger, Kathy Sierra,
whose blog has always been a must-read for me, was victimized by what
can only be described as savage and unprovoked hate-mongering on the
Web (some of it on sites that seem to me to have been specifically set
up for that purpose), and also on her blog, and in her e-mail. The
threats she received were severe enough that, had they occurred in
person, they would, from what I can determine, have resulted in police
arrests.
The blogosphere is full of commentary on this, and the best summary of the issues I've seen is Ross Mayfield's.
Ross makes the point about the delicate balance between free speech and
safety, and between the need for transparency (without which deep
relationships are next to impossible to build, and dangerous
echo-chambers can flourish) and the need to allow for anonymity
(without which, just as one example, whistle-blowers will self-censor).
The
issue of balancing the rights of free speech against the safety of
people who may be victimized by that free speech is much older than the
Internet. Does a lynch mob have the right to use words that incite a
crowd to violence against another person or group, even if those words
are substantially true? Ross (and others in this debate) lament that as
the Internet/blogosphere is largely a self-managed system, we should be
able to police ourselves, and not have to turn to authorities (real or
Web-based) to mediate the dispute. That's the same view that has
prevailed in all frontier communities, and it's admirable, but probably
a bit idealistic. I think there is a point at which communities may
reluctantly have to admit self-management failure and bring in a
mediator, one with or without enforcement tools. Mediation online is in
some ways more problematic than face-to-face. But the issue of who, and
how, to mediate when these conflicts arise is one that others can
comment on more ably than I can.
The issue that has been largely
ignored in this uproar is why people hate others to the point they are
driven to commit anti-social acts in the first place. We've seen this
recently in a flurry of online cyber-bullying, which is the cyber
version of the schoolyard bullying, name-calling and clique
hate-mongering that has been a part of the education system at least as
long as I've been alive.
In some cases hatred is
understandable – if you've been victimized by someone else's illegal,
unethical, irresponsible, ignorant or unfair behaviour towards you
personally, it takes a pretty extraordinary person to forgive and
forget. But so much hatred is of those we don't even know,
have never met, and who, while they may represent something we don't
agree with, have done us no harm and have harboured no animosity toward
us or those we love.
At first, I couldn't understand this
impersonal, abstract hatred. I am capable of losing my temper with
those who have committed acts or espoused actions (or inactions) that
threaten or afflict me or those I love. But I just can't hate anyone
who merely represents
something that I don't particularly like. If they have a belief that I
disagree strongly with, or an attribute or behaviour that I find
unattractive, then as long as it has no effect on me, nor on anyone I
love, I just can't get that worked up about it. Live and let live, and
all that.
For example, fashion slavery, of every variety, rubs
me the wrong way, but I would never judge anyone by his/her attire, nor
would I participate on a website that went out of its way to ridicule
fashion slaves, whether they be rap stars or anorexic models. I don't
know these people, and they've never done anything to hurt me or anyone
I love, so I just couldn't be bothered to waste my time and energy in a
personal attack on anyone just because of how they dress.
What I saw in the attack on Kathy, and what I have seen in cyber-bullying of students on some websites, was therefore just perplexing
to me in its virulence and animosity. One of the people on one of the
offending sites, the self-styled 'rageboy', admitted he wrote "I don't
like Kathy Sierra" and "Kathy Sierra is a hopeless dipshit". He
condemned the vicious pictures and threats on the site, a site he
apparently managed, but saw nothing wrong in his own behaviour. What I
couldn't understand is: What inspired this expression of hatred?
As far as I can see Kathy didn't say anything about him, or any group
he belongs to. So it appears to me that what he and others hate about
Kathy, to the point they devote time and energy on a website apparently
dedicated to this kind of "fun", is that she is a successful, gregarious businesswoman who is adored by her readers. Misogyny, jealousy and envy rolled into one ugly ball -- that's how it looked to me. What would one expect from a guy who defines himself by his rage?
There
is a propensity on the part of a lot (and I think, a growing number) of
people to put down people who are personally successful, or who
represent groups that are successful or influential, solely to bolster
their own weak egos. I see this in the general meanness and
stereotyping in current 'comedy' television shows and movies (and not
just in North America). I see it in the 'nyaah nyaah' and the more
nasty, vituperative behaviours of insecure juveniles in the schools,
the malls, and on social networking sites. I see it in political
rhetoric which is pure ad hominem.
I hear it in the misogynist and racist lyrics of popular songs. I sense
it in the massive antipathy of a large majority of us, in every
country, towards immigrants (often styled and tacitly equated,
tellingly, with the derogatory 'illegals') and towards just about any other group that fails to conform to social norms.
But then I thought: perhaps the perpetrators of hate do
feel threatened by Kathy, by immigrants, by liberals (or
conservatives), by those who act, look or think differently from
themselves. I consider Bush and Cheney fair game for personal attacks.
I have written that I'd like to see mega-polluters jailed and socially
ostracized for their behaviour, because our ecosystem and its suffering
creatures are victims of their actions, and they are all part of 'those
I love'. Is that really all that different from those who loathe
immigrants because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that their jobs and
their family's safety are threatened by them? Or those who hate and
fear homosexuals (and successful, independent women) because they feel
(rightly or wrongly) that they espouse beliefs and lifestyles that
threaten the fragile social fabric of our whole society?
The
slippery slope of Why We Hate becomes even more treacherous when it is
viewed through personal frames that see the world in completely
different ways. We can't draw a line between justifiable and
unjustifiable hatred based on real or perceived threats, because no two
people will draw that line in the same place. And if we can't draw that
line, how can we legislate against actions that cross it, that act on
that hatred? Is it OK to attack (in print or speech) public figures but
not private ones? When is it OK (free speech) and not OK (endangering
safety) to fear-monger or hate-monger against individuals, or against
groups?
It is our unwillingness to trust lawyers, politicians
and enforcers to decide where free speech ends and endangering safety
begins that leads us to try so hard to self-manage, to look after each
other and draw the line in a way that is informed by knowledge of the
details of the conflict, in context.
When Kathy met 'rageboy' the other day, the two of them apparently got
along quite well. There have been other circumstances, however, where
physical meetings of those with profound disagreements have just
produced more animosity and even violence.
Tim O'Reilly has proposed a seven-part code of conduct for bloggers:
- Take responsibility not only for your own words but for the comments you allow.
- Label your tolerance for abusive comments.
- Consider eliminating anonymous comments.
- Ignore the trolls.
- Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.
- If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.
- Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.
Does
anyone think these well-intentioned rules could work? Rule 2 would seem
to be an invitation for hate-mongers, where they could go off by
themselves and whip themselves up into a fury without any moderate
voices present, and seems to contradict rule 1. Rules 3 and 7 would
seem to mitigate against whistle-blowing online, and other valid
purposes for anonymity.
What it comes down to, I think, is that
we are emotional creatures under enormous modern stress and prone to
groupthink. We can thank that volatile combination of nature and
circumstance for genocides, the holocaust, and probably most of the
wars and violence, physical and psychological, that plague our world.
It only takes a few people unable to cope with this stress to lash out,
scapegoat, direct and give voice to their hatred, and pretty soon it
sets off a chain reaction, and we all get caught up in it. Extremism of
all kinds preys on this vulnerability. So we get flame wars,
bench-clearing brawls, lynch mobs, gang wars, street riots,
eye-for-an-eye retribution and escalation, and it's all downhill from
there.
The Internet (and notably the blogosphere and discussion
forums) merely provides another, highly visible, forum for fanning the
flames of stress-based hatred. But it is also, for many, a vehicle for
learning, for seeing other points of view, and hence for discharging
that hatred. In that sense it is no different from talk radio, or any
other form of political, social or religious association. Every
technology we have ever invented has presented opportunities to make
things better, and others to make things worse, and the Internet is no
exception.
So what's my prescription? What should we do to make
the Internet a force for learning, moderation and sympathy, and prevent
it being used as a lightning rod and amplifier for hatred, an
echo-chamber for misinformation, and a school for extremism?
I
don't think there's anything we can do, other than what we're already
doing. Kathy is, unfairly, the victim of the cyberspace equivalent of
road rage. A small, angry stressed-out group, provoked by some 'last
straw' lost it, and looked for someone to take their rage out on, and
Kathy, alas, happened to be there. No question the fact that she is
female, successful, and beloved, increased the likelihood of her being
picked on, and that is despicable, but that is the way we are --
scapegoaters pick on the visibly different (because they're
identifiable targets) and the successful (because demeaning them makes
the enraged feel better about themselves).
It's human nature,
and except perhaps for Gandhi, none of us is immune to it. Most of us
manage to keep it under control. And just as self-management dictates
most of our behaviour on the physical highways, I think
self-management, most of the time, works on the Internet as well. And
just as on the physical highways, sometimes it doesn't, and we have to
let authorities step in and arrest those who abuse the privileges of
the road, sometimes on the Internet we will have to do the same.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
