Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Microsoft Technology

Internet is Getting More Civil, a Study by Microsoft Says (fortune.com) 230

Posted by msmash from the hmm dept.
While social media may feel like a trash heap at times, Microsoft released a new study on Tuesday that claims civility is spreading on the Internet... at least slightly. From a report: Microsoft's Digital Civility Index fell two points, to 66, in 2018, signaling that Internet users around the world are treating each other slightly better, although there's still plenty of room for improvement. The closer the index is to zero, the more civil people are toward each other. The survey measured the perceptions of teens and adults in 22 countries about their online experiences and the risks they face when spending time online. If the news that the internet is apparently becoming more civil comes as a surprise, U.S. readers may want to hold onto their seats. The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet is Getting More Civil, a Study by Microsoft Says More

Internet is Getting More Civil, a Study by Microsoft Says

Comments Filter:
    • People "have" to treat each other nice online or they end up getting sued and yes, printed digital documents will stand up in a court of law.

  • benefits of censorship (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    when more than one 'side' is way too many..

  • I think it is partially due to the Anti-Cyber Bulling information going out. Also how most tech companies are tracking down on Trolling.

    I think we need to indirectly thank Trump for this. By emboldening the "Deplorables" we are really seeing what the Racists and how they were using coded messages before. A lot of people may have begin to realize (as I have), how many things I use to say, actually hurt people.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sycodon ( 149926 )

      dog whistle
      noun

      1. a high-pitched whistle used to train dogs, typically having a sound inaudible to humans.
      2. a rhetorical device meant to imply racism where no evidence of racism can be found.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.

      Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.

      • Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.

        And violence. If words are a form of aggression then it is acceptable to respond with aggression and force to stop aggressive people.

        It really is a damning line of reasoning that is used to abuse innocent people for wrong think. It's kind of scary how quickly and popular it became.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        I'm curious... why do you single out a particular word as "actually hurting people" and dismiss everything else?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sinij ( 911942 )
          My apologies, I will issue you a full refund of the fee you paid to read my post as it doesn't appear to meet your needs.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            See, when I said "I'm curious" I meant that I was curious why you did that. I assume the smartass reply means you don't want to share the reason?

      • I don't know you or your past conduct, but unless you were casually dropping N-word or viciously going after someone in other ways, you were not "actually hurting people" with things you used to say.

        Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things by creating an environment where their ideas are normalized. It's not just N-bombs, or "vicious" verbal attacks, but also the maintenance of a culture of abuse.

        Speech is violence is a discredited trope and an excuse used to try to justify censorship.

        Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sinij ( 911942 )

          ...some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things ...

          Citations? Or at least try to explain to me how this is different from discredited "video games cause violence" trope, only with "ideas dinkypoo finds objectionable" substituted.

          Speech is not itself violence, but some speech does legitimize violence in the minds of the willfully or otherwise spectacularly ignorant. It might not be direct harm, but it's still contributory.

          "Legitimize violence" is a nonsensical standard, as it uses judgment and actions of external actors that you have no control over to judge your actions. That is, how other people might react isn't a good standard for evaluating one's actions. For example, if someone goes on a killing spree after reading this post, am I contributory

          • ...some speech is that it emboldens people who do bad things ...

            Citations?

            You are being disingenuous [washingtonpost.com], this stuff is not hard to find if you want to. You clearly don't. Now ssssssshhhh, the adults are talking.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sinij ( 911942 )
              Please, you can do better than "Orange man bad" shitposting. Plus, Trump in context of free speech is clearly a red herring argument.

              • Please, you can do better than "Orange man bad" shitposting.

                If only you could do better than "It says orange man is bad so it must be wrong" head-up-ass posting.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by sinij ( 911942 )
                  It is telling that you would rather herp a derp about Trump than speak about original point - speech is not violence. Trump is as bad as it gets, but going full SJW to get rid of him is not a worthwhile trade-off. For now checks and balances are mostly containing him, and one of those checks is freedom of speech that you working hard on undermining.

                  Also, I find your post deeply offensive, hence it must be you enacting violence on me.

                  • It is telling that you would rather herp a derp about Trump than speak about original point - speech is not violence.

                    You don't get to talk shit about herp a derp while willfully misconstruing the argument, you disingenuous douchebag. It's not that speech is violence, it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sinij ( 911942 )

                      It's not that speech is violence

                      I am glad we agree that speech is not violence, and treating it as such is wrong.

                      it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

                      "Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility. The fallacy you are trying to sneak into this argument is that if speech can be shown to promote an action, no matter how reasonable such action in response to speech is, then speaker should be held responsible for such action. An example of this principle would be, you ask me to get a coffee, I go rob a coffee shop and n

                    • it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

                      "Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility.

                      No, it's a conditional which denotes the fact that not all speech promotes violence. This is a lot simpler than you want it to be. Reality doesn't work the way I want it to either, but I don't pretend otherwise.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by sinij ( 911942 )

                      it's that speech can promote violence. Until you understand the argument, the best you'll ever be able to do is logical fallacies.

                      "Can promote" is not a an argument, it is a hypothetical without any kind of attribution of responsibility.

                      No, it's a conditional which denotes the fact that not all speech promotes violence. This is a lot simpler than you want it to be. Reality doesn't work the way I want it to either, but I don't pretend otherwise.

                      No, it isn't a conditional, as it can't be evaluated objectively. How could you possibly create objective standard around "can promote others to act in violence"? This is how you end up with blasphemy laws.

  • I can't argue about the validity of what they're measuring, but it seems they're measuring the perception of civility. It's entirely possible that people have become more "rude", but others are more willing to put up with it. I quoted "rude" because what is considered rude is a social perception.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      I can't argue about the validity of what they're measuring, but it seems they're measuring the perception of civility. It's entirely possible that people have become more "rude", but others are more willing to put up with it.

      TFA makes it clear that people are not becoming more civil, at least if it can be believed. History tells us it's better to believe Fortune than Microsoft, and I'm going to listen.

      But there was a dark side to the results. Microsoftâ(TM)s research found people were experiencing more consequences of online harassment, bullying, and unwanted contact. People reported losing sleep, feeling more stressed, and becoming less trustful of people both online and off. Each negative consequence increased three to f

  • It's not getting more civilized (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @10:11AM (#58078456)

    It's just that people are now aware that it's massively under surveillance, that anonymity has been thrown out the window, and that anything they say, even under a pseudonym, can come back to haunt them. So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.

    Exactly the same effect as when people realize they're being watched on CCTV cameras in supermarkets : many don't dare scratch their butts discreetly behind an aisle like they used to.

    It's quite chilling actually, if you ask me... I preferred the wild internet to the self-censored one: at least you could see humanity raw, as it really is.

    • So the worst offenders are becoming more PC because they don't feel totally free to say any old shit anymore.

      Nah they're just saying the same old shit, and automation has made it boring [github.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Been reported and watched by EU and the UK gov/police will do that to computer users.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swell ( 195815 )

      Surveillance is a factor, no doubt. In this century my emails to friends and family are as vulgar as ever, but we are all very careful about the speling of certain words. Speaking of our prezident, Mr. t. Rump, for instance, or any US erected ofishul. We obfuscate words like tererist and Central I.A. Even events/people/organizations in other countries require such treatment.

      This is slightly more convenient than encraption and it offers a bit of creative exercise.

    • You might not like it, but how is that not more civilized? People behaving because of social mechanisms is the very definition of civilized. Being polite and well-mannered, regardless of why, is another. Both fit quite well.

  • Civility, when enforced is not civility. It's other people/bots censoring you. (Like if Dice eliminated the AC option in Slashdot because usually AC posts are uncivil)

    Freedom is the right to say anything you want. Consequences of that free speech are another issue.

    Civility would be considering what you are saying before you hit the submit button so you can be the first poster. It's possible to be more considerate if you want to, you shouldn't be forced to be civil.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      People need to recognize that no-one owes them a platform though. If that channel decides they don't want certain content, that's their prerogative.

  • Brings to mind this Penny Arcade classic: gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com].
  • Microsoft is a software company. They could have used technology to, say, web crawl pages published in the past year and look for ranked words that may be considered offensive or lewd. Instead, they did a survey, which had a minor variance from the results they had last time they did a survey. Big story there. In other news, Microsoft asserts that people on the internet are feeling pretty good about the end of the world [whatdoesth...tthink.net].
  • No it's fucking not.

    • No it's fucking not.

      Microsoft: Internet is becoming more civil
      Internet: Hold my beer!
      Slashdot: Microsoft can stick that fucking beer up its ass

  • Yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tempest_2084 ( 605915 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @11:00AM (#58078746)
    I suppose you could say that the internet is more 'civil' than in the past, but the reasons why aren't what you think. If my small circle of friends is any guide, it's because everyone is scared to death to say ANYTHING that can be considered 'non-PC' or taken the wrong way by the internet lynch mobs. So they just keep their comments private among a chosen few or don't bother saying anything at all. Why risk saying something, even the most benign comment, that can be used to get you fired or destroy your life by a bunch of nameless people on the internet looking for trouble? It's just not worth it anymore, so the sane people just drop out. Even my 'woke' friends (hate that term, but they seriously do use it) walk on eggshells these days.

    So yes I guess the internet is more civil than in the past, but only because a small but vocal group of people have effectively silenced the rest (this isn't a left/right conservative/liberal thing, this is something much more sinister). I really had hoped that people would eventually start getting tired of the latest outrage de jour, but people just seem to feed on it so it continues to grow to ever larger and more bizarre forms of outrage. After all, outrage and victimhood is power these days. Who would willing give that up?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sad_ ( 7868 )

      ... they just keep their comments private among a chosen few or don't bother saying anything at all...

      this is it, all the horrible stuff is still there, but now it's done in private groups, mostly shared among like-minded people. every now and then somebody gets access to it, leaks the stuff, and the group (or site) is shut down and moves to somewhere else.

      because you can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't really there.

  • The Good ol' Tarkin Strategy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eepok ( 545733 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @11:44AM (#58078922) Homepage

    "The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line."

    From mass permanent public shaming for singular statements or 30-year-old acts of indiscretion, people will simply drop out from internet communication if they think earnest honesty, openness, or youthful rebellion will come back to ruin their lives.

  • Fuck you and your study.

  • Man in the Mirror (Score:3)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday February 06, 2019 @12:02PM (#58079012) Journal

    Personally, I have become a lot more civil. I'm trying to set an example for the younger Slashdotters out there.

    But the haters and losers can't seem to handle my civility. That's OK, because like Ghandi, I can withstand their trollish nonsense and allow them to fuck right off. Plus, I've fucked most of their mothers, so it's all a wash in the end.

  • I used to think 1984 was a crazy exaggeration and that it could never get that bad. Every year I am proved more and more wrong. Here, let's look at his principle of crimestop:

    Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought whic

  • Be responsible about it.

  • Civil and censorship?

  • When you have celebrities going after white males students for simply being white and male, it certainly makes me want to walk on eggshells. The fact that it gets clicks / likes / retweets to keep those addicted to the attention is sad.

    Covington was a test, and showed the worse of the so-called progressives. Most are out of touch... but it makes sense the the more extreme left are just a bunch of signalling middle class white folk

    There are good people on both sides, and there are bad on both sides. It seem

  • "The civility index in the U.S. fell ten points in the past year to 51, showing the biggest improvement, according to a blog post from Microsoft."

    We're all finally coming to agreement about certain politicians...

  • Has placed a version of its own Social Credit System over the social media internet.
    Police and gov reporting comments and the use of language.
    NGO's, political groups, think tanks and governments working to change the way people are expected to publish in real time.
    Telling people what content they can read and can link to.
    Users looking to report users for what and the way they publish their comments, links.
    People have to risk their profession, their reputation, their friends to comment on history, polit

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close