Topic 38: How we treat one another in the online world By: telluride (jmalloy) on Mon, Jul 26, '93 0 responses so far Session Topic: How we treat one another in the online world Convener: Howard Rheingold Participants: Anne Branscomb, Doug Carmichael, Mark Graham, Dave Hughes, Shulom Kurtz, Richard Loveless, Kathlee Martin, Vaughn Moyer, Carter Norris, Jo Norris, Eric Theise, Sandy McCune Westin HR: The topic I had in mind in convening this session was online conviviality - the quality of our interactions in cyberspace. I see two sides to that: as a host, how does one go about facilitating connections between people, including shaping the social environment when necessary, and secondly, how to deal with people who act in a hostile or un-convivial manner online. What is it about this medium which lends itself to the outbreak of anti-social behavior? RL: It's possible that this medium, by its very nature, attracts persons who are a bit lacking in their social interaction skills - those who are not comfortable in face to face interaction. They may come to the online world needing to learn more social skills. SK: My background in broadcasting makes me see flaming as somewhat related to the phenomenon that occurs in radio. There the announcer relates to people with only voice and message. Online we lack that human quality of intonation which can result in the reader misinterpreting the intent. We need to be using more emoticoms to lend voice qualities to our communications to somewhat avoid that. SMW: My concern is for the newcomer to the online world. There is an intimidating enough barrier in just the technical aspects of becoming comfortable getting online, but then to be confronted with the high risk potential obvious in some online confrontations can cause people to blow off the whole medium. As a result, its potential is lost to them, and their potential as resources to the rest of us is lost as well. I'm not sure we can afford that sacrifice. MG: Personally, I'm not too effected by ranting, but I guess I have thick skin. I am concerned about the benefit that could be gained by tapping into the 20 million users who are currently online worldwide - how to connect with people who have an interest you share. DH: I see this whole arena being a lot like what we all go through as children. We learn socially acceptable behavior from our peers through a process of social maturation. I don't feel comfortable with a movement towards setting rules prematurely. Peer discussion is the best route. This is a new, different form of social setting - we need to discover what new rules apply here. AB: As the only representative of the legal industry here, I think I need to say something. I've been very involved in examining the rights and responsibilities of both users and providers of online services. The human reality is that when a person feels he/she has been damaged by another, they will take it to court. Whether we agree with that or not, itUs a matter of fact. So we need to determine what is unique about this environment, and what unique rules apply. It will ultimately have to come down to what a normal, reasonable person does on the networks, and considers acceptable as online behavior. But there are related questions that are not so easy: issues such as whose jurisdiction is it? Who is the peer group? Who administers sanctions? ET: As a word of explanation to those here who are new to this world, I'd like to explain that there are two (at least) contrasting areas that apply here. Bulletin Boards, BBS, and conferencing systems have hosts, and are a closed environment - only those permitted by their subscription take part in the discussions. These settings lend themselves to setting a style, a tone, and people can establish norms of behavior among themselves. The second type are news groups and the like - here anyone can chime in from anywhere in the world, and there's no sense of community. MG: Well, I somewhat disagree. There can be some consistency of those in the groups. My greater concern, though, is the larger question of freedom of speech - in ANY medium. What are the valid rules of restriction? DC: I host the Metanet network, where we've had relatively little problem in this area. I think people - especially those new to the medium - need to have safe havens online where they can feel comfortable. I hate to see people wandering out onto this electronic highway like baby deer and suffering the consequences! It really doesn't take much to establish a tone - positive or negative. SMW: I think we need to recognize the unique character of cyberspace - the group is always changing, so its hard to accumulate a group agreement. DH: True, you can't tell what's being meant without the body language of face-to-face encounters, but there are other signals: the reputation of the network or the host, the name of the conference, the first screen that appears when signing onto the conference, and the first greetings they encounter from the host and others. HR: Let's get back to Anne's comments on free speech. I feel strongly that we mustn't restrict creativity and free speech in this arena. But how do the rules for slander and defamation of character and theft of intellectual property differ when applied to online communication rather than traditional forums? SK: Among scientists on the networks I've seen some of the most severe character assassinations you could imagine - and these comments are printed and distributed to all members! AB: It really depends on the peer group's protocols. Can we mediate an environment if sources are anonymous? There are problems legally. What is the responsibility of the host? DH: Distributed (no-host) conferences have the worst incidences of flaming and ranting - there's no sense of community there, no culture to draw on. Anti-social behavior seems to be more than a function of anonymity - it's also apparently related to both the lack of group cohesion, and even the character or possibly ethnic background of the person speaking. I've seen the Chinese be so hostile to one another online as to make Americans look tame; Japanese on the other hand appear to be more prone to lurking and being non-confrontational. DC:How did we get so focussed on the negatives of this subject? How about the positives? SK:Newcomers - especially those lurking - are highly sensitive to both kinds of dialogue. HR:OK, lets shift to how can Telluride serve as a model to others of how a community can establish norms without setting rules. DC:So much depends on who comes to the party - the strength of their social skills. We may need to provide a special space for people who wish to take part in asocial behavior. MG: But I'd like us to think also of the long range - beyond text based systems. WE should be looking to how we can resolve these problems in this medium as establishing precedents for future technologies. DC: Balance is important - real communities and relationships with virtuals. DH:I have a home online where I feel comfortable, relationships that are very real to me. But there are also areas online which have a real frontier feel to them - not many rules. It's my choice where I spend my time. SK:We've got to be aware that social, religious, and political extremists of all kinds are waiting in the wings who would be the loudest advocates for censorship, imposing their own ideas of what is permissible and what is not. HR: There will always be those who will be soapbox sound-off speakers. The currency is attention. The users can vote with their time whether a person is to be given attention or not. We don't have to resort to ProdigyUs approach, taking charge of setting limits to online content. DH:The technology exists now which can allow users to filter messages, eliminating those from a person they donUt want to listen to. HR:The ultimate standard setter for the online community is the individual. The individual can be given tools to filter content, and the individual has the opportunity to RpayS people publicly in the currency of attention. VM:There are a lot of disaffected, disenfranchised people in the online world, who have no voice because of the culture others establish. HR: WeUre experiencing exposure to an increasing diversity of views and types of people online. Dealing with diversity means communicating with people who have views that are very different from your own; conflict is a natural outcome of free expression among a diverse population -- how to deal with that conflict is the question. DH: Sustained, tense dialogue can be very fruitful; when allowed to run its course, it can result in development of a consensus which can prove very accurate. This is very different from most face-to-face confrontational confrontations. SK: Another problem happens when the media takes a flaming comment out of context and publicizes it. That's what gets the legislative bodies all agitated to set up rules. DH: What's the result in the public's mind? Jo and Carter, you said you're completely new to the online world? What impression has the media given you about this (before coming into this meeting, that is.) JN: Actually, I don't listen to the media very much, but from my background in psychiatry, it seems to me this phenomenon of "flaming" that you've been talking about relates to what's known as the Shadow Side - the negative elements of humankind that are being projected out and have to be dealt with. This online stuff is a new dimension of social interaction - the next step in human evolution. I'm really excited about it. CN:I'm fascinated - feel like I've been in the dark ages by comparison! The concept of people coming together and collaborating in this way is amazing. DH:What do you most fear about it? CN:It looks like a LOT of reading! HR:Attention is the currency; time is the limited commodity. KL:How do we bring in the lurkers of the world, with all their resources? MG:We need to develop the tools to help people find each other - directory technologies. I'm working on the development of such a software now. We need to explore what's possible. The medium is personal and interactive We need to create new tools to help people find resources in a fluid and accessible way. DC:If we don't go into a time of social breakdown, we can focus our development attention on learning how to build connections between people in art, science, etc. If we do experience a social breakdown, then the subject of network online behavior becomes even more important - how can networks help get food commodities distributed around the control mechanisms that might develop through the mafia, etc. DH: That brings up another whole subject. But for now, we need to be finding ways to personalize our connections - possibly by scanning in a video and/or audio clip into our online profiles. (Even though that can have negative side effects, kicking in prejudices.) We can use cyberspace to be rethinking democracy, balance in society, jurisdictions in decision making, constituencies, and the non-geographical boundaries of peoples and civilizations. AB:It is a democratizing medium, however decision makers will shut it off if there is too much chafe online. They have no patience for flaming confrontations. That can result in having LESS access rather than MORE to policy makers. The Shadow Side can actually result in a decrease in social interaction. JN:According to Chaos Theory, this field is currently experiencing the chaos which can pave the way to the emergence of a new order. HR: That's a very exciting thought. By way of finishing up here, we've looked at the applying of rules, teaching of norms, and building of tools as means to address interpersonal behavior online. Any community should start by understanding these three resources are available from the experience of others, and to choose carefully from among them in managing their interactions. SK:One more thought: the upside of resolving conflicts online is that it is based on expanding communications; real-life confrontations around the world today - the hot bullet kind - are a function of insufficient communication. DH:This whole subject is forcing me to go back to read the Federalist Papers all over again, and to examine once more the basics of human nature. HR: I've been reading John Locke again for the same reason. In America we're free to explore this realm unencumbered; perhaps other communities .