 Recently, a generous and uncontroversial business blogger, Kathy Sierra, whose blog has always been a must-read for me, was victimized by what can only be described as savage and unprovoked hate-mongering on the Web (some of it on sites that seem to me to have been specifically set up for that purpose), and also on her blog, and in her e-mail. The threats she received were severe enough that, had they occurred in person, they would, from what I can determine, have resulted in police arrests.
The blogosphere is full of commentary on this, and the best summary of the issues I’ve seen is Ross Mayfield’s. Ross makes the point about the delicate balance between free speech and safety, and between the need for transparency (without which deep relationships are next to impossible to build, and dangerous echo-chambers can flourish) and the need to allow for anonymity (without which, just as one example, whistle-blowers will self-censor). The issue of balancing the rights of free speech against the safety of people who may be victimized by that free speech is much older than the Internet. Does a lynch mob have the right to use words that incite a crowd to violence against another person or group, even if those words are substantially true? Ross (and others in this debate) lament that as the Internet/blogosphere is largely a self-managed system, we should be able to police ourselves, and not have to turn to authorities (real or Web-based) to mediate the dispute. That’s the same view that has prevailed in all frontier communities, and it’s admirable, but probably a bit idealistic. I think there is a point at which communities may reluctantly have to admit self-management failure and bring in a mediator, one with or without enforcement tools. Mediation online is in some ways more problematic than face-to-face. But the issue of who, and how, to mediate when these conflicts arise is one that others can comment on more ably than I can. The issue that has been largely ignored in this uproar is why people hate others to the point they are driven to commit anti-social acts in the first place. We’ve seen this recently in a flurry of online cyber-bullying, which is the cyber version of the schoolyard bullying, name-calling and clique hate-mongering that has been a part of the education system at least as long as I’ve been alive. In some cases hatred is understandable ñ if you’ve been victimized by someone else’s illegal, unethical, irresponsible, ignorant or unfair behaviour towards you personally, it takes a pretty extraordinary person to forgive and forget. But so much hatred is of those we don’t even know, have never met, and who, while they may represent something we don’t agree with, have done us no harm and have harboured no animosity toward us or those we love. At first, I couldn’t understand this impersonal, abstract hatred. I am capable of losing my temper with those who have committed acts or espoused actions (or inactions) that threaten or afflict me or those I love. But I just can’t hate anyone who merely represents something that I don’t particularly like. If they have a belief that I disagree strongly with, or an attribute or behaviour that I find unattractive, then as long as it has no effect on me, nor on anyone I love, I just can’t get that worked up about it. Live and let live, and all that. For example, fashion slavery, of every variety, rubs me the wrong way, but I would never judge anyone by his/her attire, nor would I participate on a website that went out of its way to ridicule fashion slaves, whether they be rap stars or anorexic models. I don’t know these people, and they’ve never done anything to hurt me or anyone I love, so I just couldn’t be bothered to waste my time and energy in a personal attack on anyone just because of how they dress. What I saw in the attack on Kathy, and what I have seen in cyber-bullying of students on some websites, was therefore just perplexing to me in its virulence and animosity. One of the people on one of the offending sites, the self-styled ‘rageboy’, admitted he wrote “I don’t like Kathy Sierra” and “Kathy Sierra is a hopeless dipshit”. He condemned the vicious pictures and threats on the site, a site he apparently managed, but saw nothing wrong in his own behaviour. What I couldn’t understand is: What inspired this expression of hatred? As far as I can see Kathy didn’t say anything about him, or any group he belongs to. So it appears to me that what he and others hate about Kathy, to the point they devote time and energy on a website apparently dedicated to this kind of “fun”, is that she is a successful, gregarious businesswoman who is adored by her readers. Misogyny, jealousy and envy rolled into one ugly ball — that’s how it looked to me. What would one expect from a guy who defines himself by his rage? There is a propensity on the part of a lot (and I think, a growing number) of people to put down people who are personally successful, or who represent groups that are successful or influential, solely to bolster their own weak egos. I see this in the general meanness and stereotyping in current ‘comedy’ television shows and movies (and not just in North America). I see it in the ‘nyaah nyaah’ and the more nasty, vituperative behaviours of insecure juveniles in the schools, the malls, and on social networking sites. I see it in political rhetoric which is pure ad hominem. I hear it in the misogynist and racist lyrics of popular songs. I sense it in the massive antipathy of a large majority of us, in every country, towards immigrants (often styled and tacitly equated, tellingly, with the derogatory ‘illegals‘) and towards just about any other group that fails to conform to social norms. But then I thought: perhaps the perpetrators of hate do feel threatened by Kathy, by immigrants, by liberals (or conservatives), by those who act, look or think differently from themselves. I consider Bush and Cheney fair game for personal attacks. I have written that I’d like to see mega-polluters jailed and socially ostracized for their behaviour, because our ecosystem and its suffering creatures are victims of their actions, and they are all part of ‘those I love’. Is that really all that different from those who loathe immigrants because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that their jobs and their family’s safety are threatened by them? Or those who hate and fear homosexuals (and successful, independent women) because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they espouse beliefs and lifestyles that threaten the fragile social fabric of our whole society? The slippery slope of Why We Hate becomes even more treacherous when it is viewed through personal frames that see the world in completely different ways. We can’t draw a line between justifiable and unjustifiable hatred based on real or perceived threats, because no two people will draw that line in the same place. And if we can’t draw that line, how can we legislate against actions that cross it, that act on that hatred? Is it OK to attack (in print or speech) public figures but not private ones? When is it OK (free speech) and not OK (endangering safety) to fear-monger or hate-monger against individuals, or against groups? It is our unwillingness to trust lawyers, politicians and enforcers to decide where free speech ends and endangering safety begins that leads us to try so hard to self-manage, to look after each other and draw the line in a way that is informed by knowledge of the details of the conflict, in context. When Kathy met ‘rageboy’ the other day, the two of them apparently got along quite well. There have been other circumstances, however, where physical meetings of those with profound disagreements have just produced more animosity and even violence. Tim O’Reilly has proposed a seven-part code of conduct for bloggers:
Does anyone think these well-intentioned rules could work? Rule 2 would seem to be an invitation for hate-mongers, where they could go off by themselves and whip themselves up into a fury without any moderate voices present, and seems to contradict rule 1. Rules 3 and 7 would seem to mitigate against whistle-blowing online, and other valid purposes for anonymity. What it comes down to, I think, is that we are emotional creatures under enormous modern stress and prone to groupthink. We can thank that volatile combination of nature and circumstance for genocides, the holocaust, and probably most of the wars and violence, physical and psychological, that plague our world. It only takes a few people unable to cope with this stress to lash out, scapegoat, direct and give voice to their hatred, and pretty soon it sets off a chain reaction, and we all get caught up in it. Extremism of all kinds preys on this vulnerability. So we get flame wars, bench-clearing brawls, lynch mobs, gang wars, street riots, eye-for-an-eye retribution and escalation, and it’s all downhill from there. The Internet (and notably the blogosphere and discussion forums) merely provides another, highly visible, forum for fanning the flames of stress-based hatred. But it is also, for many, a vehicle for learning, for seeing other points of view, and hence for discharging that hatred. In that sense it is no different from talk radio, or any other form of political, social or religious association. Every technology we have ever invented has presented opportunities to make things better, and others to make things worse, and the Internet is no exception. So what’s my prescription? What should we do to make the Internet a force for learning, moderation and sympathy, and prevent it being used as a lightning rod and amplifier for hatred, an echo-chamber for misinformation, and a school for extremism? I don’t think there’s anything we can do, other than what we’re already doing. Kathy is, unfairly, the victim of the cyberspace equivalent of road rage. A small, angry stressed-out group, provoked by some ‘last straw’ lost it, and looked for someone to take their rage out on, and Kathy, alas, happened to be there. No question the fact that she is female, successful, and beloved, increased the likelihood of her being picked on, and that is despicable, but that is the way we are — scapegoaters pick on the visibly different (because they’re identifiable targets) and the successful (because demeaning them makes the enraged feel better about themselves). It’s human nature, and except perhaps for Gandhi, none of us is immune to it. Most of us manage to keep it under control. And just as self-management dictates most of our behaviour on the physical highways, I think self-management, most of the time, works on the Internet as well. And just as on the physical highways, sometimes it doesn’t, and we have to let authorities step in and arrest those who abuse the privileges ofthe road, sometimes on the Internet we will have to do the same. Category: Being Human
|
Hi Dave — Thanks for this thoughtful post. About your statement that “I don’t think there’s anything we can do, other than what we’re already doing” — I was wondering if you could speak a little bit more about what you — as a blogger here — are already doing, whether in terms of comment moderation or blocking, etc. I ask because I think that perhaps a conversation about what’s worked better or worse on a more personal level for individuals could be helpful in aiding others negotiate what we’ve done, what we’re already doing, and what maybe we could or should do —
Awesome Dave, thanks!Bert
You’re missing a lot of facts here Dave. The meankids.org site was setup as a satire site. What happened was that one of the authors on that site had his desktop computer hacked and all his usernames and passwords stolen amongst other damage. It was that troll that went after Kathy in that way not any of the site owners. (and yes I believe Alan’s story about being hacked as do many fine upstanding people on the net such as Doc Searls who have known him for years)Kathy was a target for satirical ridicule on the site earlier because of her naive Valentine’s Day post about all you need is love – with regard to users. It simply begged to be mocked. That and she probably annoyed the original authors, of the Cluetrain Manifesto, one of whom is Chris Locke, a.k.a. RageBoy, with her Clueless Manifesto a year earlier. I’m sure that didn’t win her any “love” from Chris et al.Further Kathy did not atn the time hesitate at all to use this opportunity to destroy the reputations of 4 people with absolutely no proof whatsoever that they were involved. Only belatedly and very belatedly, long after the damage had been done, has she apologized to three of them,(see http://www.rageboy.com/statements-sierra-locke.html ) one of whom only had a passing acquaintance with the meankids site and was furthermore in the hospital throughout the entire affair. That didn’t stop her from naming names or the vigilante mob her post started destroying their reputations and which Kathy did nothing at the time to put a stop to.There’s always two or more sides to a story and the real story here is about rushing to judgment with no evidence in hand.
Whew! I’m so relieved. At last we’ve found out a way to blame the victim.It was pretty uncomfortable there for a while, wasn’t it, when it looked like we might have to consider the ugly, endemic dysfunction of our culture?Thank you, thank you, thank you! Thank you, commenter, for showing us how to make Kathy the scapegoat for other people’s behavior.Gosh, I feel *so* much better now. My strategic ignorance has been restored!
I just came across a podcast which I think amplifies the impact to your article. Michael Shermer interviews Professor Philip Zimbardo, the researcher who ran the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. http://skepticality.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=199743#
Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension Irony Miner. Kathy was not the only victim here.No one is disputing the horrible thing that happened to her. Nevertheless, her impulsive actions, and the actions of her readers have permanently damaged the good reputations of 4 people who were not the ones who posted the abuse and threats. Four people who have become ancillary victims because Kathy named them without any proof. I guess in your world two wrongs make a right or something, or perhaps you feel that someone who has been victimized then has the right to victimize others with no blame being attached. Well that says lots about you now then doesn’t it.
My intention with my previous comment was to create an opportunity for readers to see some particular ideas. It occurs to me, in retrospect, that my technique may have been more effective for bystander readers than for the commenter most directly engaged. Whether my decision about technique constitutes a mistake depends, perhaps, upon the audience I wish to influence most. I admit I’m having some difficulty deciding what portion of the potential audience to address. And that, of course, affects both my previous comment and now this one.We humans routinely judge each other. We have to. It’s prudent to continually assess the safety of being around each other according to the behaviors we present. Words are behaviors. Readers judge writers by the words they decide to present. I do try to be mindful of that. By writing a follow-up comment, I intend to establish a pattern of behavior that readers can use as a basis to judge me.My first comment portrays me reasonably accurately to a particular subset of the reading audience, but not so accurately to other segments of the lurking audience. In that sense I would describe it as a hasty decision about technique. This comment is an attempt to compensate. How well it works will be judged by readers.I’m pretty sure the comment that triggered my reaction was intended to create a learning opportunity. I suspect it was intended to display a point of view that the author felt was overlooked. I do appreciate that intent. It seems possible, however, that the displayed point of view also may represent an instance in which the chosen technique works well for a subset of the reading audience, but works less effectively for other segments of the audience.I hope readers come away from this with a synthesis, with a mosaic assembled from the many fragments of information and opinion available.As far as the particular blogosphere case Dave described, I suspect our reaction to it depends upon whether we distinguish our perception of events in retrospect from our perception of events _as they occur_. Moreover, I suspect our reaction depends largely upon whether we perceive it to be mere name-calling or a sequence of events consistent with the phenomenon of _stalking_.Unfortunately, many women in our culture have first-hand personal experience with stalkers. It’s become routine to hear news reports of women stalked, harmed, and even _killed_ by stalkers.A woman who finds herself the target of behavior consistent with stalking, behavior that includes *specific*, *graphic* descriptions of *violent intent*, that woman’s most prudent course of action really *has* to be a rush to judgment. That rush to judgment is all that keeps some women alive.In _retrospect_ we can see the case turned out to be a prank. In _retrospect_, the case can be seen as schoolyard name-calling. In _retrospect_, we bystanders can suggest that things might have gone better if the person targeted for abuse had been mindful of the reputations of her apparent abusers.From what I have seen of the behaviors demonstrated, from what I have seen of the information as it became available, the sequence of events occurred in a manner consistent with the phenomenon of stalking. I have a hard time condemning the decisions of a woman during a time when she was the target of stalking behaviors. In our world women *routinely* *die* as a result of stalking. I have a hard time telling someone she should be mindful of the reputation of her stalkers while she has a prudent basis to believe she is being stalked and targeted for death.But that’s just me, I guess.I understand that we comment to present information to help readers see new things. I hope we readers and commentators strive also to be mindful and to match the information we have available to the circumstances to which that information may be applied.Regards
Thanks, everyone. I didn’t intend this to be a discussion of the behaviour of Kathy, rageboy or others — it was intended to provoke a discussion of what leads people to hate. I’m not going to get into the debate between Doug and Irony Miner, since I don’t entirely agree with either (I’d quibble with some of the facts Doug alleges, and with Irony Miner’s unhelpful sarcasm), though for those unfamiliar with the case both have made some valid arguments. But this has been discussed more thoroughly elsewhere, and I’d rather hear some prescriptions rather than more diagnoses.Green Girl: I’ve made a note to write a follow-up article on what we are doing now, and what we can do better, to prevent and mitigate such problems.
Hi Dave,I noted one other person mentioned Dr. Zimbardo in their comments yet my thoughts run in a slightly different vein. Hate… interesting concept and choice of words. What I sometimes notice and experience as an out, gay man is that ‘hate’ is often at root only habitual, uncivil behavior rooted in fear or group permission. I think that the dynamic is often driven out of the same aspect of human nature that Dr. Zimbardo studied. I wonder/suspect ties between this same dynamic and what you post about Ms. Sierra… . By the by, Dr. Zimbardo is retiring…http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/3/8/zimbardoDeliversFarewellLectureOnEvil Best wishes,
The most important thing a parent can do for their children is to help them learn how to handle and take responsibility for their own emotions. Unfortunately, many parents don’t do that one job well enough. (Consider the case of GWB, whose parents did not do that for him, most notably when his younger sister died. How unfortunate for us AND for the rest of the world.)A further complication is that our culture does not really encourage or permit sufficient grief, either, and unexpressed grief can easily become rage.Ultimately, though, we all have to learn to do this work for ourselves because… our parents are unable, or they die, or move away, or make themselves unavailable. So, parents are just as likely pass along their own unfinished emotional work to their children who must somehow manage to contain it or work it out on their own. On their own… being the key words. Most people need help with that kind of work, and again, our culture mostly frowns on it. [Disclosure: I am still hoping for a Gore candidacy, but one of the most exciting things about the Edwards candidacy is the extent to which he and his wife are actually “present” in any situation. That’s rare enough in life, but in the political/public sphere, it is almost non-existent.]