Slashdot Mirror
Please Die2: Raising Creative Jerks
This issue of a hostile communications style, an assaultive online environment, transcends any particularly website or Net sub-culture, having its roots in the earliest days of the Net. Hostility tends to go hand-in-hand with online media - a fact of life, like noise near an airport. There's always been an angry streak in the subculture of geeks, hackers, nerds, teenagers and academics who patched together computers and computer networks and built the first bulletin boards, mailing lists and conferencing systems.
In fact, hostility is closely tied to computing communications, the Net and the Web, to many high-tech industries. There's not a great deal of mystery about the source: it's generated largely by young men, the branch of the species that has the highest testosterone levels.
Older people abandon websites like this with almost visceral disgust: "I'm a retired engineer," Jim wrote me several weeks ago, "and I would never post a message on your website. It's complicated and it's just too hostile. I don't have an appetite for that."
Perhaps more than any other single group, women report endemic problems posting on sites like this (check the Natalie Portman postings on almost any Thread), an extension of the trouble some have encountered working in computing and technology companies.
For the second time in four months, Juno Online Services is facing a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by a former employee, a Harvard-educated software engineer who claims she was pressured to date a company executive, was paid less than her male colleagues, and worked in an environment where sexism and locker-room behavior were rampant.
In recent years, countless numbers of women have complained about the techno-workplace and the probably-related problems they face participating in sites like this one.
While the Net and the Web were conceived and constructed by men -- who dominated the technical, defense, academic and engineering professions of the 1950's and 1960's -- that's starting to change. Industry surveys show that as many women as men are buying computers now, and women are working in almost every element of the computing industry. But it's unusual to see one posting on sites like this - a surprising reality given that half of the people online are now female. Men start most topics, dominate most conversations.
And identity - perhaps the single most elemental ingredient of community - is almost eroded when anonymous posters dominate all discussions. Women seeking community often turn to all-female mailing lists, conferences and websites, a sad evolution of a medium with so much promise to be free and open. At its geeky core, the Net still feels like a clubhouse - male, white, narrow.
E-mail is convenient, visceral and democratic, but it, along with anonymous public postings, can breed hostility and raise unresolved questions. There's little tradition of taking responsibility for one's words, which can be instantly hurled all over the world in seconds.
Yet this idea of taking responsibility, of being held accountable for what one says, is also closely linked to the quality and value of communication.
The nature of e-mail and posts has evolved tremendously in the past decade, according to scholars studying e-communities. "When e-mail took root in organizations in the late l970's and early 1980's two things occurred regularly and predictably," writes Mark Stefik of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center in "Internet Dreams," published in 1996.
"One was that e-mail users spontaneously organized their own discussion groups on topics of interest: the second was a kind of organizational flattening as people developed e-mail cross-links that did not necessarily follow hierarchical lines of management."
The trend in e-mail, writes Stefik, has been towards greater connectivity, and e-mail has soared past company, university, and other boundaries. Now, says Stefik, the original rationale for e-mail has disappeared, and people largely use it for social purposes, not functionality.
And sadly, public posting areas haven't evolved much at all, apart from the fact that most websites forbid anonymity and restrict the nature of personal messages.
The evolution of e-mail and the growth of the Web has brought distinctive e-communities into increasing contact with outsiders. "From the perspective of veterans," writes Stefik, "hordes of new users have invaded their discussions over the past few years, using bad etiquette and asking dumb questions. The social problem is analogous to the problem of assimilation when natural disasters or wars lead to mass movements of people to new lands. When the rate of immigration exceeds a certain amount, the resulting chaos and need for adjustment in the host country can evoke resentment and backlash from the resident population."
In my own experience, Stefik's observations ring especially true. As a non-geek who usually (for a variety of work reasons) writes in Microsoft Word, some members of this community have been trying to drive me off the site ever since I arrived. Often, their attacks have little to do with what I think or write, mostly to do with the fact that I'm different, an outsider, a non-programmer who made different technology choices.
I've gotten plenty of praise and support too, but my own experience underscores the moral challenge facing people who run websites like this: people who attack others are celebrated. Only certain groups are really free; everybody else has the appearance of freedom but if their views diverge from the norm they are assaulted, harassed, driven off.
It's an inverted kind of tyranny in which the most hostile people are truly the freest. Most people who aren't paid columnists will go elsewhere.
As an e-community grows, so does the small group of people likely to send or post hostile or bizarre messages. The flamers are never required to take responsibility for any of the things they say, nor are there any consequences. They aren't embarrassed to be vicious or inaccurate, since they don't ever meet the people reading their messages. One might even argue they're rewarded for shutting down free speech.
Behavioral psychologists like Robert Coles and James Wilson describe the evolution of human behavior and conscience this way: the young are praised for good behavior, punished for bad. In this way, through a complex system of cues, rewards and signals, they learn to differentiate acceptable from unacceptable behavior. If you insult a kid down the block, he belts you. If you slug your sister, you get sent to your room. If you taunt your teacher, you stay after school.
But online, this process of learning how to behave is oddly inverted. You might be rewarded for being creative and technologically-skilled, but not for being civil or tolerant. Perhaps more significantly, you never suffer for being hostile. Frequently -- through your ability to post public messages, to attack others and disrupt conversations --- you are actually rewarded.
In the real world, people learn to hold or moderate speech. If you're smart, you don't yell at the cop who's pulled you over, and you resist the urge to tell your boss he's a jerk. Online, there is no moderating impulse. Some websites are actually installing "reply delay" software to force posters to mull their words for a minute or two.
In virtual communities, especially those that guarantee anonymity, there aren't even such mild social pressures as disapproving glances or cold stares. The targets can't simply walk away, although that's increasingly the goal of some moderated systems. Even though electronic communities have demonstrated many of the same traits as real-world communities, older, veteran or more experienced members have no tradition of coaching or mentoring their aberrant peers. The result is a curious new kind of sub-culture in which a small group can experience unbounded freedom and creativity, yet never have to develop empathetic or communal social skills. The results are on display every day: the Net is breeding some of the brightest jerks on the planet.
The result is that flaming and hostile environments become a political as well as technological question, especially for those who are assaulted or excluded. Hard-core geeks embrace as a political ideology the idea that all communications should be free. Yet hostility and cultural bigotry to outsiders and newcomers usually only ends when it becomes a consensus political issue - in this case, when website leaders, lurkers, veterans and other people with influence move to challenge hostility, and to curb non-productive and personal verbal abuse.
As e-communities evolve, so do their politics. Although it makes perfect sense that websites will find ways to preserve even the most raucous freedom, the preservation of hostile environments make no sense at all - technologically, politically or commercially.
Tomorrow: In hostile environments, how to talk about technology?
So I tend to view the internet as not a solution or a problem, but like one of those fun house mirrors. It still shows you what was there all along, but sometimes in a really warped and twisted fashion. You never know until you look.
Katz, you're on crack :) The people who post Elian Gonzalez Naked And Petrified posts aren't stifling free speech, they are in fact its most oppressed practicioners.
The first amendment (contrary to apparently popular belief) doesn't say a damn thing about intimidation, or your own willingness to speak. If you say something, and someone else says you're wrong (and maybe even mocks you for it), free speech has not been violated, it has in fact worked perfectly.
I'm sick and fscking tired of these Politically Correct morons wanting to use the first amendment to censor anyone who doesn't agree with them. "But they're *scaring* me!" or "That's *sooo* offensive." doesn't quite work as an argument. There are pre-existing legal guidelines for harassment, online or off.
Free speech means exactly that, it does *not* mean "nice speech." It does not mean speech that's been pre-approved by the standards of a snobby elite few seeking to control our methods of expression. And while I personally agree that well thought out, nicely articulated pieces are leagues more effective than a crude flame, I will defend to the death the right of the 14 year old 5cr1p7 k1dd13 to flame a newbie. They're 1's and 0's people. They don't hurt people.
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
I mean, just look at the pixels here! They're like 90% white! Sure, blacks have some representation, but even green seems to be doing better.
I don't know about "narrow", though. Sure, I can shrink my browser down to 640x480 and have Slashdot fit sometimes, but what about when stupid ACs create a thread nested 25 deep? Then Slashdot becomes one of the broadest sites on the web. Site width is definitely a more complicated issue than color.
The real problem with online communication (e-mail, /., etc.) is that it is too quick. It's pretty easy to fire off an e-mail instead of print off a memo or go and talk to someone. The "thinking time" is removed. If you have to get up and go somewhere to complete your communication, you have time to think, and you usually tone down your message. Typing a message and clicking "send" removes the "thinking time".
I've been in a company where we went from having no e-mail to having e-mail. There was a period where e-mail was flooded with knee jerk responses and offers for free kittens. After the learning curve, people got the idea, and e-mail because usefull, not just a buch of junk. I think the internet, given the huge number of people, will need a great deal of time for the signal to noise ratio to settle down. There will always be newbies and downright rotten people to mess things up, but there is hope for the newbies.
We were all newbies once. We got better.
Remember, this whole internet thing has been around for just a short time. It took many years for societies to develop. This internet society needs to have its growing pains also. Things will get better, but given the vast number of people involved, it is going to take a few decades for things to settle out.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Granted, there are many giant clumps of jerks on the internet... but do you really think any of them are doing much breeding?
I really don't like either this article or the previous one. I think that Jon is doing nothing more than writing paragraphs of drivel whining about being flamed by some AC. I know I can't wait to see part three. (I wonder what percentage of the people who see this comment actually read Jon's article in its entirety.)
Yes, I can filter him out, and no, I don't want to. The comments on his articles are usually a good read. Barring, of course, the 200 comment religious flamewar on his last -real- article. (Re: God hates fags, or does he?)
In part one, he took issue with some anonymous person asking him to "Please Die". Well, I'm not anonymous, and this may only be my opinion, but Jon... If this is the best you can do, -please- go away, find a corner, and curl up in it. If you choose to die at this time, press 1. If you choose to live, press 2. You must be using a true touch tone phone. Thank you for calling the talking yellow pages.
(Posted with my +1 for the hell of it.)
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
I just happen to be black, when you generalize about geeks you're just as guilty as those on the outside.
LK
PS, why is it that I dread it every time I see Katz's name on a story?
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I admit I found your first article about the subculture of geeks somewhat interesting and thought provoking. Likewise with some of your previous articles.
While some of the 'slashdotters' will take all your words as a rant about personal (even though it's electronic and may have not been meant as a personal attack, it still is personal if the 'attackee' takes it personally) attacks against you, I can see that it is more of an anology to the net at large, and a clue into the minds of people (or at least I hope that is your intent, and I'm not looking too much into it)
As an admitted non-geek, you have undoubtedly faced many of the 'leet' linux dewds who feel you should turn around and never even look in their general directions - due to something as simple as some difficulty during installing linux or using a product made by microsoft. Heck, as a geek I myself have faced them and have been disgusted by their actions.
But on to my point (yes, there is one I wanted to say) - you seem to be embracing the mass media created stereotypes too much. I had the same problem with my ex-girlfriend. She didn't think I should get a pickup truck because 'only country folks' drive pickup trucks. You seem to be clumping geeks and computer lovers into a general description pulled out of magazines, news articles, and the jargon file. While that may fit some of 'us', maybe even a majority, it is by no means accurate depiction of the whole of us.
As for my thoughts on your recent article... I think that (as undoubtedly pointed out by others even though I formed this opinion even before reading the comments) that electronic communication represents the 'true' self opinion - not covered up by civil overtones and gracious words. People, even ones who seem kind and nice, are vicous animals. We are very aggressive at times, and a lot of us don't even recognize this aggressiveness. It manifests itselfs in the physical (as opposed to electronic-ie, the web) world in subtle ways, something as simple as looking at someone who offends you in some way, or talking louder than everyone else. Or bashing someone because they are not (admitidly) a geek yet they try to be part of our culture.
In the electronic world, this aggression is less hidden. There is no threat or fear of feasible physical violence to hold us back. No permanant reputation to stain. Even I have, usually only when very stressed or angry, attacked others in usenet. I am usually a mellow guy. Everyone thinks I am on drugs because of my mellowness. In the physical world, it takes a lot of effort to push me into anger. Only once have I ever physically hit someone, and I instantly hated myself for it. But, on the internet, I have struck out several times and have not regret it nearly as much.
Still, some of us are able to maintain some civility and make some usefullness out of it, instead of just attacking everything that comes into sight.
I don't think we are raising or training people to be vicous.
We already are.
We always have been.
I hope to die peacefully in my sleep like grandpa, not screaming like his passengers.