Why Are We So Rude Online? 341
kodiaktau writes "An article in the WSJ discusses why internet users are more rude online than they are in person. The story discusses some of the possible reasons. For example, a study found that browsing Facebook tends to lower people's self control. An MIT professor says people posting on the internet have lowered inhibitions because there is no formal social interaction. Another theory is that communicating through a phone or other device feels like communicating with a 'toy,' which dehumanizes the conversation. Of course, a rude conversation has never happened on Slashdot in the last 15 years."
Simple reason (Score:5, Funny)
Dave was an ordinary boy with wild imagination. He was popular with the guys for several reasons, but the fact that he and his mother let us play GoldenEye on his Nintendo64 wasn't easy to ignore. All of us guys used to gather at his house and play a few rounds of the great multiplayer experience that only the original GoldenEye gave.
I noticed that people tented to get angry during the game. They would verbally attack other players and even punch them a bit. Dave didn't - he actually seemed quite an non-aggressive fella. What was the secret to Dave's non-aggressive and non-rude behavior? Because his mother made him these wonderful home cooked pizzas. He wasn't angry because he ate well!
Let me explain with a car analogy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me explain with a car analogy. (Score:4, Insightful)
My point exactly.
It the feeling of lack of consequence. If I believe I can say what I want without consequence I will say and be more extreme.
Happens in cars happens in the internet.
Re:Let me explain with a car analogy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me explain with a car analogy. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an extension to that, perhaps we need to express that much greater appreciation for those with the strength of character to remain civil in these circumstances.
Re:Let me explain with a car analogy. (Score:5, Insightful)
When people feel the absence of consequence, they reveal who they truly are. Most people are complete assholes.
Are they? Or is it only some people, but those are the people you tend to notice?
If someone is polite to you, or stays out of your way, you won't give them a second thought.... OTOH if someone makes you angry, you may spend the rest of the day fuming about them.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Texas at least, this extends to basic courtesy. I'm continually astounded at how polite people generally are in person but how few of them are courteous enough when in their cars to even use their turn signals. Vehicle code issues aside, signalling is an act of common courtesy like saying "please" and "thank you", and when in the anonimity of their cars, otherwise exceedingly polite people abondon said politeness.
Re:Simple reason (Score:5, Funny)
Cocksucker.
Dave
Re:Simple reason (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Who are you calling rude? (Score:5, Funny)
...you insensitive clod!
Re:Who are you calling rude? (Score:5, Funny)
What would a dumbass MIT professor know about social interaction? Fuck him and his studies. With a big rubber dick.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What would a dumbass MIT professor know about social interaction? Fuck him and his studies. With a big rubber dick.
Here you go why are you so rude even you don't know this dumbass professor?
GP is the professor's wife, you insensitive clod
I'm not anonymous on Slashdot (Score:3)
And it haven't stopped me from being a jerk.
Re:I'm not anonymous on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about being anonymous or not, it's simply the mode of communication.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I much prefer the internet's brutal honesty. It's the bullshit faux politeness IRL that I have a problem with. For example, I can't just say "This code sucks" at work. I have to couch everything in flowery bullshit. "This code is good, but it needs more work" is about as harsh as I can be at work without getting hammered and sent to anger management classes.
But on the internet, I can be honest. If something sucks ass, I can actually SAY "This sucks ass." Conversely, it's also a great place to temp
Re:I'm not anonymous on Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Where can you go IRL for that kind of honesty?
I recommend Germany. People often say Germans are "harsh" and "direct", but that's what I love about living here.
When someone screws up at work, you can say "hey, you screwed up" (and expect the same from them when you screw up).
And when I was dating here before I met my wife; I had women straight up tell me, "sorry, I won't go out with you because I think you're ugly". But others (including the woman who is now my wife) straight up told me, "I think you're really cute". The brutal honesty of the former is more than made up for the fact that it makes it much easier to believe the latter when you hear it.
Similarly, I feel a lot closer to my friends here than I did when living in other countries (note however, there are fewer of them), purely because they're so honest that they tell me when they've got a problem with me. I know they're not holding anything back or saying bad things behind my back (they'd just say it to my face).
Note that this is just "in general" and "in comparison to other places I've lived". There most certainly are deceptive backstabbing dickheads here in Germany as well; but in my 5 years here, I've met very few of them.
Re:I'm not anonymous on Slashdot (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting straight talk is great, but you need to have an expected context or folks might be overly sensitive and reject the message.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19335267 [bbc.co.uk]
Online behavior is closer to New York frankness than what we usually get face-to-face, and that's good, like you suggest. But then there's a large contingent who go overboard or are just venting their spleens rather than being sincere about their criticism. Weeding out that chaff is the trick.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I much prefer the internet's brutal honesty. It's the bullshit faux politeness IRL that I have a problem with. For example, I can't just say "This code sucks" at work.
If work and nothing else == IRL, I feel sorry for you. Most places it isn't wise to talk about sex, politics, or religion in a bar. Here in weird-ass Springfield those topics are fine, but as nearly half the population is from St Louis and nearly the rest are from Chicago, I joke that talking about baseball can get your ass kicked.
Bu
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure if your post is fucking retarded, but your cavalier and completely bell-endish attitude makes it okay :p
No Shit Sherlock (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Not rude (Score:2)
Re:Not rude (Score:5, Insightful)
Like what?
Anonymity has always caused assholishness. People were assholes in cars before being assholes online.
I had a guy here wish me to be in hospital after a traffic accident in the cycling thread.
If one met someone like that IRL, one would generally back away, call them a fucking psycho or, perhaps if one was so-inclined and felt suitably threatened, punch the guy in the face. Usually 1 and or 2 though.
Re: (Score:2)
Or something like that. I'm not very good at coming up with examples. It's just a feeling I have.
Re: (Score:2)
I get what you mean. I also hate it when people start making small talk in order to soften me up to what they actually want to ask, instead of just asking. It's insulting when people think they have to trick or guilt-trip me into helping them.
Re:Not rude (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't want to trick or guild-trip you, they want to see themselves being polite and convincing.
So the small talk is addressed to themselves, not you.
Knowing this will not soften your hate. Sorry !
Re:Not rude (Score:5, Interesting)
I like how the Hackaday forum has cleaned up its act by permabanning trolls and flamers and holding people more accountable. Yes, it's whackamole with fake accounts but if trolls don't get any traction in your forum eventually they go away. Trolls are a lot like schoolyard bullies and have similar motivations. By removing the enabling mechanism (anonimity) or removing the payoff mechanism (flame response), I expect such bad behaviour can be diminished.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Like what?
Anonymity has always caused assholishness.
It also allows you to tell the truth to "unreasonable" people. IRL if I suggested that Islam was not the religion of peace I would end up with my house burned down, and probably be killed.
Re: (Score:3)
It also allows to receiver of the so-called "truth" to disregard it even more easily. Which is why no one convinces anyone on the internet - any particular discussion tends to degenerate into incredibly long (and frequently rude) point-by-point rebuttals. This being slashdot, I'm sure examples are being provided as I post this.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why no one convinces anyone on the internet
I don't know about that. I've had my mind changed about a topic before when someone pointed out how stupid my POV was. I'm not above admitting that I become emotionally invested in one side of an argument, but I don't see it that way until someone makes a good argument with citations. Then I can step back and see the facts for what they are and realize my "one-time" experience was just a fluke and it shouldn't be shaping my opinion.
On the other hand there are times when I'll post facts and citations in an
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why no one convinces anyone on the internet
I wouldn't say that's true. Many times I argue for the sake of arguing. The reason I keep coming back to slashdot is that the comments here are better than anywhere else, except for a few very specialist forums.
I've ocasionally been convinced of a few things, or at least modified my opinions after a discussion.
Which is almost but not quite a point-by-point rebuttal :)
Re:Not rude (Score:5, Insightful)
If one met someone like that IRL, one would generally back away, call them a fucking psycho or, perhaps if one was so-inclined and felt suitably threatened, punch the guy in the face. Usually 1 and or 2 though.
Physical proximity is not the opposite of anonymity. What I think is going on here is consequences. If there are painful consequences for rude behavior, even if nobody knows who you are, then there's disincentive to be rude.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So you're saying we should hook up the Slashdot moderation system to an electric shock collar?
Let me be the first to say "-1 Great idea!".
Re: (Score:2)
I also feel that we're being desensitized. What used to be rude IRL but okay online, is now considered okay IRL as well. I'm not sure this is a bad thing per se. Sometimes it makes conversation just more efficient, without all the social cruft.
There is a difference between omitting social niceties and getting to the point and being deliberately rude. I agree its sometimes nice to be able to get straight down to "I disagree with your position", without all the "good morning, how have you been keeping" stuff - but online it will be "fuck you - how can you say such crap"! Thi hasn't (yet) entered most real life conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been in real word conversations in which something needed to be said, and probably said bluntly, but I did not say it for fear of, well being too blunt about it. I chose not to hurt feelings and as a result something which needed to be said---in someone's else's benefit---was left unsaid.
If the discussion had been in an internet forum, I would have let rip.
In my opinion, honest productive conversation should be forthright. It's harder to do this face to face when you know that being forthright---with
Obligatory Penny Arcade (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a phenomenon very similar to road rage if we think about it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know (Score:3, Funny)
N/A to me (Score:2)
This does not apply to me. I am exactly the same, online or offline. Whoever met me online and then offline could testify. I use some profanity in both "worlds" and I act and react the same. These realms are't different in my view. Of course, I'm maybe one of few, but I've seen other people act similarly.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I can admit to being more of a dick IRL. But I'm trying to behave better.
For me, the reason... (Score:5, Funny)
She was great, by the way.
Re:For me, the reason... (Score:5, Funny)
Necrophiliac bastard!
Re: (Score:3)
fuck you (Score:2, Funny)
the same reason youtube's flash player sucks more as time goes on: fuck you, that's why.
Rude? (Score:2)
Obligatory Oscar Wilde quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Give a man a mask and he will show his true face. -Oscar Wilde
The question is not "why do some people act like fucktards online?". Deep down, fucktards is exactly what those people are. They just hide it better in real life.
Human Psychology (Score:5, Interesting)
The sad truth pointed out by both of those studies is that approximately 60% of us -- all of us, even those of us who claim to be, and act like, normal ethical people in polite society -- will commit acts of cruelty upon another human being, even to the point of delivering potentially lethal electrical shocks to someone obviously in distress, if the social sanctions against it are removed.And those were both cases in which the victims had voices and (in the latter case) faces by which the perpetrators could witness the suffering they were causing.
In short, the majority of people will be cruel, spiteful bullies if they believe they can get away with it. For me, a good example is (oddly) watching how people treat pigeons (??): they're harmless, no more dirty than, say, hoboes, and live around us. But they are negatively viewed as carriers of disease ("rats of the skies" is such a cliché, and what's so bad about rats, anyway?), and most people wouldn't think twice about trying to scare them and threaten to cause them harm. It seems a bit melodramatic, but I often wonder why a person would want to be mean to some random harmless animal. I think, sadly, that it's because most people like being mean, and just need a venue to get away with it.
The Pinochet regime in Chile figured this out pretty quickly: you don't need to make people commit acts of cruelty against their will. All you have to do is provide a venue for cruelty without consequences, and the people will come out of the woodwork of their own accord. And Facebook/YouTube/your local news station's comments section are just such venues.
Re: (Score:2)
True... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, also, there is the effect of childhood bullying. I think that most people who post regularly on Slashdot are aware of this: academic children are more likely to be bullied owing to the general social attitudes of the English speaking world. And that means that when they grow up they have quite a lot of suppressed anger aimed at the stupid people who bullied them. This could be one reason why "jock" attitudes expressed on /. tend to produce such strong negative responses; the other, of course, is that in the real world far too often fools are allowed to persist in their folly and nobody stops them. Blake said that "if the fool persists in his folly he will become wise", but actually it's more likely to be "he will cause immense trouble for other people". On line, it is easier to call a dickhead a dickhead.
Re:Human Psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad truth pointed out by both of those studies is that approximately 60% of us -- all of us, even those of us who claim to be, and act like, normal ethical people in polite society -- will commit acts of cruelty upon another human being, even to the point of delivering potentially lethal electrical shocks to someone obviously in distress, if the social sanctions against it are removed.
That isn't what those studies showed at all. They demonstrated that people will act against their own morals when someone in authority tells them to. In the Milgram experiment many of the subjects protested but ultimately carried on at the behest of a man in a white coat telling them to. In the Stanford Prison Experiment the prisoners compiled with the guards demands, even though there was no legal or ethical requirement for them to do so, and the guards fed off their collective authority.
In both cases the conclusion is that when there is authority involved people will tend to both comply with it and get caught up in enforcing it, even if doing so goes against the normal moral code and involves things they would not do as an individual.
Re:Human Psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human Psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human Psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason is very simple, if somewhat disheartening. Take a look at some of the literature on human behavior, particularly the studies on the "banality of evil" (texbook scenarios are the Milgram Experiment [wikipedia.org] and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment [wikipedia.org]).
The sad truth pointed out by both of those studies is that approximately 60% of us -- all of us, even those of us who claim to be, and act like, normal ethical people in polite society -- will commit acts of cruelty upon another human being, even to the point of delivering potentially lethal electrical shocks to someone obviously in distress, if the social sanctions against it are removed.And those were both cases in which the victims had voices and (in the latter case) faces by which the perpetrators could witness the suffering they were causing.
In short, the majority of people will be cruel, spiteful bullies if they believe they can get away with it. For me, a good example is (oddly) watching how people treat pigeons (??): they're harmless, no more dirty than, say, hoboes, and live around us. But they are negatively viewed as carriers of disease ("rats of the skies" is such a cliché, and what's so bad about rats, anyway?), and most people wouldn't think twice about trying to scare them and threaten to cause them harm. It seems a bit melodramatic, but I often wonder why a person would want to be mean to some random harmless animal. I think, sadly, that it's because most people like being mean, and just need a venue to get away with it.
The Pinochet regime in Chile figured this out pretty quickly: you don't need to make people commit acts of cruelty against their will. All you have to do is provide a venue for cruelty without consequences, and the people will come out of the woodwork of their own accord. And Facebook/YouTube/your local news station's comments section are just such venues.
Don't be so pessimistic!
The Milgram experiment shows us not that people are inherently evil, malicious or spiteful but that in the right social context people will follow an authority figure's instructions even if it overrides their normal moral response. The origin of the experiment was as a response to the question of if Nazi soldiers were responsible for their actions in war or if their superiors should be held accountable.
The Stanford prison experiment showed that when given a 'role' such as prison guard people will begin to 'act' as befitting their role, behaving as they think they should behave and becoming mentally trapped by the subjective experience of the situation as opposed to the objective reality.
The truth is as always more complicated than 'people are just evil'. It's a matter of context and the situation we find ourselves in as much or more than base nature and upbringing are concerned.
But don't just trust me, keep and open mind and investigate for yourself. As a matter of fact the two linked Milgram and Stanford studies are VERY interesting reading!
Re:Human Psychology (Score:4, Informative)
The Milgram experiment shows us not that people are inherently evil, malicious or spiteful but that in the right social context people will follow an authority figure's instructions even if it overrides their normal moral response.
What exactly is the difference? If you substitute an authority's conscience for your own, you are inherently evil. It is this reaction that is responsible for the great majority of evil in the world.
The sickest psychopath in the world is capable of killing a few dozen people on his own. But a psychopathic leader is capable of killing millions. All that extra blood isn't really on the hands of the leader, it's on the hands of those who chose to follow that leader. Those who thought obedience was the best thing. That's where true evil comes from.
I don't see how this is complicated at all. Authoritarianism is evil, and most people are authoritarians. Ergo, most people are evil.
One of the interpretations of this behaviour by Milgram himself: "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow".
And in this case I agree with Milgram, if it is the case that people shed moral responsibility and adopt the aspect of a tool, instrument or cog in the machine when dealing with an authority figure demanding they do something they find personally amoral then it seems to me to be a defence mechanism to protect and preserve their own moral viewpoint as the other alternatives are:
1. Defy the authority figure, possibly be fired, suffer a court martial or be shot depending on the situation
2. Change your moral beliefs to match those of the authority figure
Since, I would argue, most people have a preference for not being shot and an affinity towards good moral thought and behaviour they can't reasonably choose 1 or 2 and so are left with:
3. Shed moral responsibility for the action and leave that responsibility to the decision maker and authority figure.
It shouldn't be inferred from the Milgram or Stanford experiments that all humans are evil given the right circumstances, but rather, that given the right circumstances good people can do evil or amoral things.
Whatever (Score:2)
I'm no more rude online than I am in the real world. I am capable of sweetness and light right up until someone says something insulting or staggeringly stupid, and then I let them have it with both [verbal] barrels. Most of the stuff that really sets me off, nobody would ever fucking say to me face to face without trying to start a fistfight. Slashdot is especially great about that but there's definitely some jerkwads on G+ that are the same way, and I'm not even talking about the trolls.
Anonymity and internal voices (Score:4, Insightful)
First, most people are rude in general. We put a mask of politeness on top of it when in public for fear of "causing a scene" (or picking on the wrong person who *isn't* afraid of causing a scene back).
I find it amazing how many people will let, say, someone push in front of a queue. In some, perfectly civil, countries it's positively mandatory to fight with your fellow man to be the next person served. In others, you can jump in front of a queue of 50 and barely be tutted at, for fear of "causing a scene", even if you're not some huge bruiser.
But inside our heads, we're all thinking "Arsehole" when that happens, even if not with that exact word. Some people will expose that internal thought to the outside world, most won't.
On the Internet, the same reason you can have more in-depth conversations about controversial topics, tell people you've never met things about you that you haven't told your own friends, and air views just to cause a nuisance because you find it funny: Anonymity, or at least pseudo-anonymity, let's you not worry about causing a scene. The worst you'll get is some online reaction that you can block, ignore or just not visit that site again.
I've done it myself. Aired my views on a topic which doesn't have a definitive answer, been shouted down, not bothered to read the other people's rants and opinions or just not bothered to read that thread ever again.
Everyone is being rude all day long - calling their boss, the person in the other car, the person on the other end of the phone, or any number of other people names in the privacy of their head. Sometimes they let it slip because it's consequence-less or they don't care about the consequences. And on the Internet, the consequences are generally SEVERELY limited so it's easier to say what you think without rationalising too much and having to stop insulting people.
Everyone, in the privacy of their head, has thought "You're a dickhead" about someone they know or have met. The Internet just lets you air that without anyone ever knowing that it's YOU saying it (if you've half a brain about not putting your personal information on the net).
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Because 99% of the people online are stupid.
Actually, 99% of people in real life are stupid as well. Maybe I am just intolerant of idiots and being surround by them.
Not you, of course.
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Because 99% of the people online are stupid.
Actually, 99% of people in real life are stupid as well. Maybe I am just intolerant of idiots and being surround by them.
Not you, of course.
Thanks
"Surround by them"? You are one of the 99% you stupid retard. Now, get the fuck away from me and let me engage with the 1% who are not fucking idiots. I have no time for you and your kind. And, before you ask, let me answer: "yes I am like this in real life as well."
Kind regards
Re: (Score:2)
Because 99% of the people online are stupid.
Actually, 99% of people in real life are stupid as well. Maybe I am just intolerant of idiots and being surround by them.
Not you, of course.
Thanks
"Surround by them"? You are one of the 99% you stupid retard. Now, get the fuck away from me and let me engage with the 1% who are not fucking idiots. I have no time for you and your kind. And, before you ask, let me answer: "yes I am like this in real life as well."
Kind regards
I actually have an answer for this. Not defending the OP, of course, but: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKOBqH8pQaQ [slashdot.org]
What? Say WHAT one more time, mutherfucker! Go on. I dare you.
Re: (Score:2)
We are the 99%! We are the 99%!
Erh... oh fsck.
Inner Dialogue? (Score:2)
On the internet people can hear what you're thinking.
In real life they can't.
Anonymity is only half the equation (Score:4, Interesting)
The other one is seeing that others get away with it and feeling entitled to do the same. That's not limited to the internet, though.
Try it yourself. Get a sign that says "no littering" and put it somewhere where people would probably drop a thing or two if there was no such sign. You will notice that people do actually heed the sign. Now throw some garbage under the sign and watch the pile grow.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
John Gabriels Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory (Score:3)
Obligatory:
John Gabriels Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com].
you don't always say what you think IRL (Score:2)
Anonymity brings out real personality (Score:2)
In real life, when I come across the type of morons who regularly posts online, I really want to punch them in the face. Kick them in the groin. Rip out their tongues so that they can stop insulting me with their dumb-ass arguments. That is my natural behavior. Social pressure as humans went from wild animals to socialized beings have made us frown upon such social behavior. Whacking someone over the head with a chair just because he is dumb enough to believe in Intelligent Design might be the right, and de
Re: (Score:2)
What a stupid fucking question... (Score:2)
What kind of idiot has to wonder why people are rude online? It's because we're rude in real life. We just make more of an effort to cover it up in person to avoid the social pressure of looking like an asshole in front of everybody.
That kind of real-life instant feedback is compelling, but does not exist on the Internet.
Now have a nice day and go fuck yourself.
The nub ... (Score:2)
Of course, a rude conversation has never happened on Slashdot in the last 15 years
This is, ironically, true. Rudeness tends to occur when people stop trying to communicate and instead engage in monologue. In a dialogue, people try to reach out and find some sort of common understanding - that is almost the definition of a dialogue. Thus, even on /., when conversation happens at all (as opposed to a shouting match), it will tend to be polite, although what constitutes 'polite' may sometimes be surprising.
Rude and crude and something else (Score:2)
It's all about showing a lack of manners.
Online? With posts being too easy to take the wrong way, there is little rudeness. What people are talking about is abuse, name calling and crudeness - and that's too easy.
You want rude online
It's not the anonymity. It's the clarity. (Score:5, Interesting)
The common answer to this question is that anonymity online makes us vicious, in the same way in vino veritas is said when some drunk person accidentally blurts out what they're truly thinking.
However, I think it's a combination of factors:
1. You see only the words and the ideas, not the person;
2. There is no social context, like being in line at a bakery;
3. There is little chance of seeing that person again if you don't want to, or of getting the crap pounded out of you;
4. People are very frustrated and angry in general.
If you are in real life, you're interacting with people in a community and you might want to see them again. However, in cities, people behave just about as viciously as they do online, with a slight modification to avoid starting actual physical confrontations.
It's the little things: cutting in line, being snide, bullying people out of the way with your SUV, littering, yapping on cell phones at counters.
Online, you're in a world made only of words and ideas. This encourages you to blurt out what you're really thinking, which is generally disliking most people who aren't doing things your way. There's wisdom in this in that if you've been in the world for awhile, your way evolved because it makes sense. You cast aside all the other behaviors and your way is the aggregate of what's left.
The biggest crypto-factor here however is that people in this society are frustrated. We are meat, with a for sale price on our heads, and we must constantly keep making ourselves available to a callous world in order to bring in the cash. It turns people into whores, makes them hate themselves, and makes them hate the competition, which is everyone else.
I've lived across the world in first-world nations and third-world nations, and while the first-world nations are good on everything else, the degree of self-hatred and resentment here makes me long for the jungle.
Nash equilibrium (Score:3)
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't focus too much on the machine part of the equation.
Anonymity along with the internet bringing different cultures together creates a situation were people can get annoyed and frustrated combined with a degree of safety that allows them to become jerks with little to no repercussions.
In my travels, I have always found things people do different enough to annoy me mildly, sometime even a lot. The other people do not know it annoys me, they are used to it because it is normal for them. When we are face to face, we think more about hurting someone's feelings or the fact that they might punch us in the nose or something. When we are isolated by technology, we don't have to think about those things. But mostly, you will find other people's behavior to normally be different and that difference can be or can cause the rudeness on the interweb tubes thingy..
Re:Anonymity & the nonverbal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something about communicating with a device that ruins a lot of the non-verbal stuff we take for granted.
You can't look at her tits when you're talking to her on the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Facebook has proven this. People say offensive shit from their facebook profiles.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a problem with that theory of yours. People on facebook tend to have their real names on their accounts, so the stupid/offensive things people say on there can be traced back to them very easily.
The thing is that people say both stupid and offensive things all of the time, but if you actually say them to another person, there won't be a paper-trail of it, nor does it have a potential audience of millions. As an example all of the people who say "my boss is a dick", only to have that shared by a coll
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt that. Social networks which don't warrant anonymity (e.g. Facebook) prove to have the same rude audience as totally anonymous sites. My hypothesis is that it's
a) the larger audience. Especially male persons seem to be more aggressive if the audience is larger (yes, there are extensive studies about that, if needed I might be able to google up a citation). People who are totally nice and gentle in 1-1 situations become total jerks if many people are watching. The Internet is as an audience second only to the Super Bowl and the Soccer World Championship.
b) the decoupled reaction of the audience. Face to face the reaction starts while you are still acting, and you start to adapt while not even finishing your sentence. A lot of overreaching rudeness is thus dampened before it can be acted out. In not fully real time conversations as chats, the reaction already comes late, and via email, on message boards and profile based social sites, it can be hours until the reaction is there. Until then your own rudeness rules supreme because no social control can be exercised on you.
So no, anonymity is not the problem. Size of audience and delayed social control is.
Re: (Score:3)
This article is totally off. Of course, the most important reason is the (perceived) anonymity.
It's obvious to anyone that the real reason is that you aren't within arms reach of the rest of the world. It doesn't matter to me whether you know who I am. You're not going to hop in your car and spend a few days tracking me down, just to punch me for my opinions on Das Kapital or because I called you an internet clown. Well, I hope not, you internet clown, you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, people are assholes cuz they don't use their real names on Faceb...oh wait.
Re: (Score:3)
You are more correct than you think. By hiding behind a user name, people can "vent" online and communicate a lot of things that would never be done in person. That's why posting on Twitter can be dangerous: you know the poster's real name fairly quickly. It's also why Citrix's GoToMeeting system introduced video conferencing, which allows people to see each other--that cuts down a lot of the rudeness online since facial expressions say a LOT about your mood.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not. But I might. It really depends on the gender and disposition of the AC in question.
Re: (Score:2)
With a beowulf cluster of Natalie Portman doing email for old people.
Anything missing?
Re:Obligatory memes.... (Score:4, Funny)
1. Be rude online
2. ???
3. Profit
Re:Obligatory memes.... (Score:4, Funny)
*bow*
You win one internet, sir. But you have to put in your own tubes.
Re:Obligatory memes.... (Score:5, Insightful)
See Jeremy Clarkson of Top Rear.
Re:Obligatory memes.... (Score:4, Funny)
I'd rather be doing a beowulf cluster of Natalie Portmans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not so much a meme [penny-arcade.com] but definitely a much earlier study into this phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly is fun, but I tend to reserve that pleasure for telemarketers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)