The morality of technology is one of the oldest debates around - see Socrates moaning about how paper would ruin young people's memories. Most recently optimists and pessimists have argued over whether Twitter is turning us into attention-deficient narcissists, or networked freedom fighters. Faced with dueling anecdotes, it has become a common conceit to simply conclude that technology is neither good nor bad: it depends on how we use it. Nothing new under sun et cetera.
But technology can and frequently does change our relationship with the each other and society. It can disrupt and unsettle quite finely balanced moral decisions that we make, and not always for the better. It is neither good nor bad, but it is not exactly neutral, either.
Let us take a topical example. There is growing evidence that 'hate speech' online is growing quickly: including sustained, targeted attacks on individuals and groups. A number of UK charities have started recording speech online - most recently the 'Tell MAMA' initiative. I've experienced some myself, particularly when I debated the US shock jock conspiracy theorist Alex Jones about 9/11. This is my favourite:
"This guy, Jamie Bartlett, is a DICK! I'm ashamed to say he is British. His kind are not popular in this country - he is what we call a twat. The fact that his twat-ism is funded makes it even worse. I'm the calmest, most chilled out person ever, but I feel an overwhelming urge to KICK THE SHIT OUT OF HIM IF HE EVER SHOWS HIS FACE AROUND MY ENDS. C*NT." (Asterix added by me)
That has 16 'thumbs up', by the way.
Of course, hate speech has always existed: but there is a growing branch of psychologists who specialize in 'cyber psychology', and believe that the technology itself might be partly causing this sort of thing: not because it gives a platform for views people already have, but because the anonymity, physical distance and speed of communication of social media encourages us to behave in ways we would not do offline. They call this 'online disinhibition effect', and would say that the chap above - the 'most chilled out person ever' remember - is displaying it. This disinhibition effect was first put forward in 1995, when the psychologist John Suler studied the behaviour of participants in chat rooms and found they tended to be aggressive and angry, ignoring social rules and norms at play offline.
Pretty simple stuff, and no doubt confirms a thousand hunches. But many think online disinibition is important is understanding trolling, cyberbullying, and online racism. I have no doubt there will be a lot of bunk and bluster in this new discipline, and plenty of groundless claims based on anecdotes gleaned from Comment is Free threads. But this phenomenon is obviously important. The comment from my new friend above is fairly harmless: for some other people, such as the 15 year old Canadian girl who committed suicide following a sustained campaign of online harassment it is tragically serious, and deserves serious academic attention.
Follow Jamie Bartlett on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JamieJBartlett
Jamie Bartlett: When I Debated Alex Jones
Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Art of Trolling - Memebase - Cheezburger
Troll - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Police grapple with internet troll epidemic as convictions for posting online ...
Habeas corpus, trolling and secret court conspiracy theories – The Human ...
Top prosecutor warns troll-hunting cops not to choke courts
www.globalsupport365.com
Lots o' fruit baskets out here, with the attention span of gnat...
Regrettably though, as officialdom and the PC brigade are trying to restrict both the use and content of common language, a minority of sad, small minded inarticulate individuals seem to get a perverse thrill out of venting their fury anonymously at any vulnerable individual. Twitter and other social networking sites merely increase the opportunity to broadcast their poison. But then again, no one is forced to use these sites!
Asterix is a French cartoon character, this: * is in fact, an asterisk.
Once, a famous enabler had to endure persecution at the hands of the establishment as a consequence of his sexual orientation.
Now, thanks to him, people need never leave the comfort of their own homes to experience such things.
“Socrates moaning about how paper would ruin young people's memories,”
failed to mention the accompanying quantum leap in bathroom hygiene. Some say he was an inveterate sponger.
“dueling anecdotes”
Can be appreciated for what they are when disassembled, and laid out for comparison. That’s when we discover ammunition provided by one second, doesn’t fit the breech of the weapon provided by the other.
“technology can and frequently does change our relationship “
Time to revisit Turin again then? What about a computer entity, that can fulfil the function of an ancient philosopher? Unbeknownst to the protagonist it could simply continue asking questions until the caller ran out of answers. Plus, of course, pointing out that earlier responses didn’t correspond to subsequent responses. Indicative of reinvention negating repeatability.
“when I debated the US shock jock conspiracy theorist, “
perhaps inviting him to explain it all in precise detail would have exposed any contradictions. Without need for external input. If valid all the ends should tie up neatly. Otherwise its just another hypothesis, like any number of those so beloved of humans.
“I feel an overwhelming urge to KICK THE SH*T OUT OF HIM”
as my reasoning faculties don’t seem up to doing that job.
However, the Penny Arcade "Greater Internet F-Wad Theory" does still hold. Normal person plus anonymity plus audience equals total f-wad.
I agree that people tend to hide behind their computers and use anonimity (or sometimes just remoteness) as an excuse to spew verbal bile on the objects of their aggression, but to my mind, that's not always a bad thing; it reveals their true characters - and while I do feel bad for people who are vulnerable to that kind of attack, I think it can be a great reminder that people who behave that way aren't worth the time it takes to reply.
Hence mob violence in demonstrations and football matches. The extraordinary killing of the Dutch linesman can be seen in this light.
But the cyber-thug cannot resort to physical violence and so must settle for verbal assault. In addition, web-sites can bring together people with contrary views so polarization easily and quickly occurs, feelings are heightened and the desire to defeat the enemy comes to the fore. Again, physical violence is not available so recourse is to the verbal.
When we come to the issue of internet bullying, we should keep in mind that other forms of verbal, non-verbal and physical bullying are taking place in schools. We do need to focus upon different kinds of bullying but ALSO bullying should be considered as a whole.
When considered as a single phenomenon we can link it, in general terms, with increasing rudeness, vulgarity, the rise of pranks, japes, practical jokes and the admiration of mischief which now pervades popular culture.
Many people behave as though the internet is somewhere that this kind of behaviour is acceptable and that other social rules don't apply. I worry that as young people in particular are exposed to hate speech and trolling more frequently it begins to be seen as the norm.
There's a real need for programmes to encourage the development of digital literacy and critical thinking as it applies to the internet. Our education system hasn't yet caught up with the internet age and we aren't giving young people the skills they need to get the most out of the internet, safely.
Sure, it makes for a quiet life for the majority of us.