Updated 604 Days ago

Are blogs, emails, and texts making us too mean?

by George Sells in Technology/Gadgets
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replying the story in its archived form does not constitute a re-publiccation of the story.

When commenting on a blog, or "tweeting" about a live event, do you find yourself saying things you wouldn't say to a person's face?

This came up when a loyal ToastedRav.com user passed along this article about an on stage interview at South x Southwest in Austin with the founder of Facebook.

Apparently the interviewer wasn't doing a very good job in the eyes of some audience members. A flood of texts and Twitters soon turned into a feeding frenzy of heckling. A sort of mob mentality appears to have ensued as described in the article:

""Never, ever have I seen such a train wreck of an interview," read one "tweet," as a post on Twitter is called.

The heckling soon migrated from the online space to the real world. Audience members started yelling out comments that reflected the online chatter. When the CEO suggested the interviewer might want to ask some questions, the audience erupted into cheers vigorous enough to surprise those not following the tweets."

In the same setting without the technology, I wonder how many in the audience would have been willing to walk up to the interviewer after the talk, look her in the eye, and say her work was "a train wreck." (Maybe it was, but that's not the point.)

This is something that's popping up more and more. When WIL radio conducted a "social experiment" trying to get two strangers to marry one another, the comment boards exploded vicious attacks on the contestants and other posters. Some of it was so obscene it had to be removed from the site.

The nastiness has extended to all sorts of posts by all sort of people on this site. It seems some folks can't intelligently disagree with a person. They have to resort to name-calling.

Blogs can go that route as well. This is not to say bloggers shouldn't voice their opinions loudly, or be critical when they think it's legitimate. But there is a way to do it in a respectful manner, like you would if you were having an "in person" conversation.

Hiding behind a nom de plume has become another habit in all these areas, further emboldening people to attack mercilessly without fear of repercussion.

All I'm saying here is we should have a little bit of a filter on what we say and how we say it in the cyber world. When talking to someone face to face, you're going to be a little more diplomatic, if for no other reason than the fear of being punched in the mouth. I wonder how many people in cyber-space might get a little nervous if their name and address were attached to everything they posted online.

  • Offensive comment? SandyShores (not my real name) 606 Days ago
    I agree that people often hide behind cyberspace (she types as listening to Brad Paisley's "Online").
    Blogs are like alcohol- they just magnify the true personality of the user. Odds are- if you don't like someone in a blog post, you wouldn't like them in person either. A jerk is still a jerk.
  • For the record, I know nom de plumes are sometimes for privacy and not some more devious motive.
  • If I have to be nice on the internet, does that mean I have to go back to being less attractive, less intelligent, less fit, and generally less desirable too? Honesty of self only goes so far before the internet becomes the same social disaster that drove us to hunker down in our homes and away from each other in the first place.

    In all seriousness though, the mob mentality works both ways and anyone with any experience raising children knows that ignoring medium-temperature attention-seeking behavior when coupled with an environment of filled with exemplars of good behavior is the right answer for defining acceptable norms within a community. Norms are our real police.

    The question, then, is how do we prevent norm-breaking behavior online from traversing into the physical space? Furthermore, at what point does all the norm-deconstruction that mass communication has helped along, stop being funny to those who understand the humor in deviance, and start being defining for a generation who is growing up with a vastly different frame of reference. Will we be able to explain the joke at that point?

    I don't have any answers, but I sure enjoy asking the questions.
  • Hmmm. I don't think blogs, emails, and texts are MAKING people mean... Some people are just mean-spirited by nature. However, the "cloak of anonymity" that the web often provides really makes it possible for those with venom running through their veins tell it like they think it is.

    I think it's a similar phenomenon to the way people drive. Think about it: Do most people walk the way they drive? (Cutting people off, flipping people off, cursing at them, walking on someone's heels, etc.) Nope. Their car provides a comfortable bubble for them to drive around and be just as nasty as they want to others without much threat of retribution.

    I know one thing for sure: Flaming on blogs and other posts is really ugly and unnecessary.
  • I’ll have you know, I complained about you on twitter. You totally beat me to the car analogy punch! :D
  • BAH! I had a really, really long rant planned but JP and Kristin just made all my points already. I’m really mad now. You guys want to start a flame war? I’m, of course, just joking.

    Out of respect for decorum, however, I won’t delve into my own nom de plume (for those that know the full one). However, rest assured my alias is solely for entertainment purposes and in good fun.
  • Although my nom de plume is for privacy, those that know the story behind it also find the entertainment value in it. ;-)
  • I'm anonymous enough to be comfortable using my real name on the intarwebz.

    Sometimes brutal honesty and laziness net the same results.

    Also, you can't change your screenname. (Booo)
  • Being in this business, in my opinion, means willfully opening oneself up to criticism of all types...negative, positive, and even mean-spirited. It's part of the game, and feedback (even less-than eloquent feedback) can be very valuable.
  • blep..../'p[]., what ';.....,'';blep ../
    ';.... blep>>,<< !!!!!
  • Just to shift gears a bit, social networking like Twitter can potentially represent an evolution of sorts in free speech. Think about how much media we consume on a daily basis and then reflect on the different “filters” that media has been put through. The amount of agendas that can influence what we see and hear is staggering. I’m talking politics, commercialism, religious groups, liberalism, conservatism, etc., etc. We all curse one at some point or another about the “liberal media” or the “moral majority.” How refreshing is it to hear the voice “of the people” without edit, without spin, without labels. With that in mind, I can handle a little mean with my blog.

    In a way, blogging is pure free speech. We are given the opportunity to say whatever is on our minds uninterrupted. As a result, that can be a Pandora’s box that just spews out. Everyone loves free speech but few enjoy actually listening to unlike minded people. Welcome to the new not so kinder, not so gentler world wide web.

    Sure, I think from the comments above, it’s more about using your right to free speech respectfully and constructively. However, I pretty excited about what this mean down the road. Off the tip of my head, can you imagine a political debate tied in with a twitter global chat? Sure, I’ll listen to what Wulf Blitzer has to say, but also want to hear about what Americans like myself think. Not someone’s take on what we should think.
  • I totally agree, so long as meaningful discourse (like what we are having) is the result. Too often though, [blogging, cross-posting, and micro-blogging] ends up being akin to that occasional pool of vomit that you come across in a parking garage. You are sure there is a story behind it, and that the actors involved may have had interesting perspectives leading up to, during, and after the event. But they are no longer accessible on interested in returning to those feelings, so you simply note how gross it is, and keep on walking.

    What we are left with is no different than a picture on Flickr or whatever. A snapshot of a moment (relatively speaking) that only exists for consumption, not participation. It's a huge shame because it really is a platform that could drive discourse on so many important and relevant topics.

    Hopefully we are beginning to see the sun set on the stream-of-consiousness blogs and a re-emergence of accessible single topic specialty blogs, and micro-blogging, if it survives, can begin to fill the void left by the lack of body language on the internet, and help with the steering rather than the jeering.
  • Love the “pool” analogy, lol. I would love to see something meaningful result from it too, definitely. Can you imagine a presidential debate where candidates are asked questions from a micro blogging site in real time? Obviously that couldn’t work as simply as it sounds, but the thought of real American’s asking real questions that the candidates don’t get to prepare for, brings a big smile to my face.
  • Anyone who uses a nom de plume is a Bozo.,
  • I think I'm the opposite, I think I'm a LOT easier on the internet than I am in person... and I swear a lot more too lol!

    Jay

What do you think?

We want to hear from you! Take five seconds to join ToastedRav.com or log in.
© Copyright 2010 ToastedRav.com and Bonneville International. An Equal Opportunity Employer all rights reserved.