Comments on: The Internet is a mirror of society, hatebloggers and all

By: kay

kay — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I agree with Bernard that the problem is not so much the peculiarities of the internet as a means of communicating but our our habits of social and political respect and our poorly practiced arts of civil social debate. I do wonder too if part of the problem with excessive aggression (and verbosity) on the internet is because we are still experiencing the flushes of pent up frustration and anger at people being effectively excluded from any formal channels of political and social influence. The internet is still acting as the main outlet for that frustration while we have yet to come up with better, regularized forms of political participation - where people are taken seriously and in which norms expect people to act accordingly. At the moment, we act more like teenagers still treated as deficient (by the left and the right) and still shouting to be heard.

On top of that, it has to be remembered that it was not so long ago that talking about politics and religion/ethics between strangers (let alone family) was very bad form and was to be avoided at all costs for fear of the destructive social conflict it could create. You only have to think of the race riots in the UK and the USA in the 1950s and 1960s and the hatred between the Protestants and Catholics to realise aggression towards others is not something confined to our time, nor does it have some intrinsic association with ‘crass individualism’ (in fact i would say group affiliation practices are often far worse). We should also be thankful that v internet aggression itself doesn’t draw blood. It might of course, like videos, help to foster ‘rool’ aggression elsewhere but unlike videos at least you can talk back and directly counter prejudice, demagogic lies, hateful speech etc.

By: Harry

Harry — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

You are spot on Jeff. The crass individualism of the 2nd half of the last century has driven us apart. We no longer make decisions for the common good, and our competiveness has has all too often focused on good outcomes for the individual.
Not only do political parties have a decline in membership, almost all organisations have suffered the same fate, Scouts, Churches, Sporting clubs etc.
Maybe the 'good life' that enables you to view all things from the comfort of the lounge room ; the ability to have independent transport; to go to footy and tell the players and the umpires what they should have done, rather than to get involved and getting our hands dirty, are but symptons of our malaise.
Let's hope that the economic downturn and the changing weather patterns will change our focus?
We desperately need a different mind set to the one that is already apparent in tackling these issues which I believe, are the outcomes of that crass individualism that has no concern for others or the environment.
It does seem that it takes catastrophes of enormous proportions to change direction.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I strongly agree with Clive Hamilton's point about anonymity, if that's how you spell it. True not everyone can have a law degree or know about risks of defamation but some basic do's and don't's should be in every free license to use the web in your weeties packet.

Take for instance Allende's Popular Unity Government overthrown by neo Nazi fascists 11 Sept 1973 - this was the culmination of some years of egregious defamations by the conservative press. That's not civil society, or free speech, that's hate and lies. A good reference is Joan Jara's: Victor: An unfinished song.

You need good transparency of identity in a civil society for real accountability. And yes you need effective defamation laws. Take the example of the Jewish Anti Defamation League. There are probably a range of minority groups who could do with a similar body.

So not for me the pseudonyms and handles. At one point the peanut gallery targeted my blog on their hero Tim Blair. So I invited them to keep at it because it provided a useful dossier evidencing The Rabid. It stopped cold as some wiser counsel prevailed. TB asked for a correction and I obliged with a clarification as such.

I noticed recently Bolt used the same tactic of alleging abusive tendencies against a traditional foe. A self serving situation by Bolter but the tactic is valid one for outing a genuinely abusive organised lobby.

It seems anon defamation on the web can damage the smearer if handled the right way too. But a thick skin to begin with always helps.

By: Bernard Keane

Bernard Keane — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I dunno Jeff. I agree with you but I’m also of the view that one of the strengths and weaknesses of the internet is that the snarkiest thrive. Those most capable of communicating with a combination of insulting effectiveness and command of facts and reason tend to do best. It means logical argument can be overwhelmed by wit and snideness and personal abuse, but I’m not sure that’s too different to the alleged, so-called “rool world”. Clive appeared to be of the view that snark predominated on the internet and not reasoned discussion, and that’s pretty much what you’d expect I guess. But I still feel strongly that if you can’t back up your arguments with wit, appropriate aggression and a capacity to identify your interlocutor’s weak point and zero in on it, then you might think about being careful of what sites you frequent. A bit like the rool world, I guess.