Something Sick At The Heart Of E-Democracy?
25. February 2009 – 14:21 by Dan JellinekOK, so it might have been like tossing a canary into a cat’s home – with clipped wings, and a fish in its beak - but there was something about the deluge of abuse that former UK Home Secretary David Blunkett received in a Guardian newspaper ‘Comment is Free (CiF) – Liberty Central’ posting a day or two ago seemed to summarise something sick at the heart of ‘internet democracy’.
Blunkett’s article was relatively unexceptional – an attempt to set out why he had acted as he had as Home Secretary in certain policy cases; and to explain why he positions himself on a certain point in the line of balance between security and civil liberties, while others may place themselves elsewhere. He also asserted some of his political values, and suggested that those who claim Britain is a ‘big brother state’ are in danger of crying wolf.
Six pages of comment were duly generated, around 300 comments: a large response, but not that unusual for CiF.
What did they say?
The first comment was from ‘AutoReply’, and says: “Point being missed is that as long it is Labour ‘Protecting liberty’ then it is ok.” That’s a fair comment, short but sweet, and there is a very good point buried in there, if only ‘AutoReply’ had been able to tease it out a bit. The next comment, is from ‘Mswoman’. She repeats back the quote from Mr Blunkett (who she simply calls ‘Blunkett’) when he said “We need principles” and responds: “Never a truer word spoken. So when’s NuLab going to get some then David?” Again, there is a genuine point being made here, though it’s not really followed through, and the language is beginning to become more discourteous, though really this is still Teletubbies.
Next up: ‘sneeboy’, who opines: “Breathtaking…Children vote the way their parents do. I am educating mine to the evils of your party. If others do the same we can make sure your party never sees office again. I’d be insulting hypocrites if I called you one.”
If there is a point here, it is deeply buried. But the tone is clearly changing – if someone spoke to someone else like in a pub say, we would have a fairly tense situation on our hands.
Next comes ‘MJTValfather’, who quotes back Mr Blunkett’s line that: “As home secretary, I gained a reputation for being “tough”" and begins his response: “Mr Blunkett, as far as I am concerned, you gained a reputation for being an idiot, a liar and morally corrupt.”
And so on - six pages of free comment, most along these lines, and much presumably even fruitier, as it had been removed by moderators.
One contributor, ‘Justabloke’, bucked the trend by suggesting wearily: “Very good article, but no chance of being greeted as such here. Political correctness on CiF demands that Security=NuLab=Stalinism, which is probably what 90% of the posters will rant on about. Predictions: Thread will be very long; Thread will be very boring; Nothing of value will emerge.” All safe predictions, though one or two freedom-lovers attacked ‘Justabloke’ for making them.
So why am I writing this? And, for the love of Pete, why am I blogging it?
As someone who has observed, written about, engaged in and managed online forums for debate, I think it is a great pity that a medium that is ostensibly something that democratises – and that surely does have the power to do so – should ever descend into a bear-pit.
This has nothing to do with my political beliefs, which I keep to myself. In any case, I have never been a party political person: I always try to listen to intelligent arguments on both sides of an issue, and make up my own mind.
Do I think politicians are above criticism? Hardly. I know some.
Do I think some people’s views are less valid than others? Definitely not.
The problem is, it often seems to be hard to engender a proper discussion of political views, separate from a slanging match. It also seems to be the case that the larger and more open the forum, the less valuable the debate. This is not democratic. Tolerance and freedom of expression are at the heart of a functioning democracy. An environment where the one who shouts loudest, or is the rudest or most dismissive, wins out, is not democratic, it is more akin to the environment engendered by totalitarianism, the survival of the most violent.
Perhaps it is to be expected: the larger you net you cast, the most extreme (or extremely expressed) views will be out there, and they will then tend to dominate. Perhaps it is the anonymity of the internet that allows people to behave like this, in the same way that it’s easier to lose your rag in a car.
Maybe the answer is clever moderation methods: more peer ranking of the value of responses, perhaps, not just the crude tool of voting something rude off which does carry the danger of censorship. The point is that we need to find ways to encourage as many people as possible to at least try to make the debates they enter more constructive, to be part of an exchange of ideas, and not just to let off steam. Sometimes. If they can.
WTF? Am I ***ing nuts? Who is this loser?!!?
12 Responses to “Something Sick At The Heart Of E-Democracy?”
By Tim on Feb 25, 2009
Nice post. Who wrote it? Somehow, the author information has disappeared or isn’t always properly added to articles on the PEP-NET blog.
By Rolf Lührs on Feb 26, 2009
@Tim This nice (I agree, it’s nice and I will comment later on) has been written by Dan Jellinek from our partner headstar (https://pep-net.eu/wordpress/?p=26). The author is displayed on the main page but disappears when you read the complete post. This is a bug, we will try to solve it a.s.a.p. Thanks for notifying.
By Bengt Feil on Feb 26, 2009
Thanks for the info Tim. Just fixed it.
By TimHood on Feb 26, 2009
We haven’t had to delete one question yet from https://www.yoosklondonsummit.com , a site which is giving the public the chance to put questions to ministers and other leaders on the global financial crisis.
I think it has something to do with putting a question to a named individual. Perhaps this personalisation engenders a little more politeness?
There is also so little response from any of the writers on CiF, including from the Guardian’s own journalists, that there is very little sense of real dialogue. Perhaps if there were, then people might be more restrained.
But as Dan says, the wider you cast the net…
The Yoosk sites are still small is comparison to CiF and maybe it is that simple fact that keeps it civilised.
By Dan Jellinek on Feb 26, 2009
That is interesting Tim (and hi), and yes, of course, there are many instances of discussions where this does not happen, which did make me wonder after I had posted it if I was putting too much emphasis on this as a problem.
But on balance I do think it is a serious issue and can be a pernicious virus that spreads if left unchecked.
Personalisation/authentication is definitely a safeguard - it makes people more polite, and it also makes it easier for people to be blocked - after all, you only have one genuine identity but can make up any number of ‘humourous’ aliases. But there are issues with this of course - can be hard to police, and in some kinds of debate anonymity may be desirable - if you are talking about domestic violence, for example. But with the email issues forums developed by US non-profit E-Democracy.org (some of which are in the UK, and I have involvement) it is aomng the rules that people must sign up under their real name, and in fact it is relatively easy to spot violations.
Not sure response from the writers would change much though - do you think there is much Mr Blunkett could have said to calm those people down?
cheers,
Dan.
By Dave Briggs on Feb 26, 2009
Interesting stuff. Comment is Free is notorious for the poverty of the conversation there, which to me is down to a lack of effective facilitation or community management.
There are three elements to this: getting the tech right; having people there to police bad stuff (the reactive side) and to encourage good stuff (proactive); and lastly developing a sense of community amongst the users, so a joint culture can develop.
The latter is the key, though for short term projects it might be difficult to achieve.
https://stackoverflow.com/ is a techie forum with a great tech solution to peer management of a community based on reputation and helpfulness.
By TimHood on Feb 27, 2009
Hi Dan,
No, I think you are absolutely right to bring it up as a serious problem.
I just don’t think that it is a problem with e-democracy but rather an issue with ‘old’ media’s adoption of a new form, without investing sufficiently in the areas that Dave outlines above. They haven’t tried to understand it and they have invested too much in expensive platforms and not enough in people and skills.
The result- the same booing and heckling that politicians sometimes face at public meetings but without the usual social constraints on language and behaviour you get in physical encouters. Even greater cacophony but without the eggs.
I may be wrong but I suspect that at the heart of this ‘let them have their say and leave them to it’ approach lies the media’s contempt for large sections of their audience. It’s nothing new- you just have to pick up a tabloid to see it.
By Dan Jellinek on Feb 27, 2009
Dave - exactly how does the Stack Overflow website system work? I took a quick look and saw that you could vote or rank questions and answers but it wasn’t clear to me precisely how it works.
This sort of thing is clearly part of the answer though, very interesting.
Tim - agree it is old media not yet fully understanding implications of new media, though the Guardian at least has a good attitude of jumping in and trying things out. And not sure I would lump them in with the tabloids - always a bit risky to condemn ‘the media’ in general for anything?
I suspect reason for out-of-control forums is different for different places but possible solutions may be similar.
By Rolf Lührs on Mar 1, 2009
Yes, there is something sick at the heart of eDemocracy. Even worse, there is something sick at the heart of democracy or modern society as such. If you only think that currently - due to the financial crises - every few minutes people lose their house in the UK, there are apparently lots of reasons to be really angry. And what is the impolite tone you are complaining about compared to the riots in the banlieues or to what we have seen happening in Athens last year?
Having that said, the phenomenon of harsh critics and so called flame wars in the Internet is nothing new and not limited to the political sphere. In the early 1990’s Amy Bruckman from MIT wrote about her experiences in the management of the online community MediaMoo, basically a mailing list for media workers. The communication ended up quiet often in a “horrendous flame-fest”. And it doesn’t even change when participants had to register with real names, so anonymity has obviously not to be blamed.
Bruckman concluded: „I think someone’s dog died or they hated their job or they hated their spouse and it was just a lot easier to yell at people through this political process and express their personal feelings of anger through that channel than to deal with the fact that the truth is that they hated their lives“.
I agree to everything Tim Hood and Dave Briggs pointed out and my department’s business is it as well to facilitate constructive political dialogues online. No doubt, this can work out very well if you apply suitable tools and methodogies. However, as long as the world is as it is now, don’t you think people should also have the opportunity to express their anger? Don’t we need pressure valves to let off steam? And finally, shouldn’t (e)democracy be able to cope with it?
By Dan Jellinek on Mar 2, 2009
Well, yes, we do need pressure valves, but this is not what debate sites are designed to be. It might be a reason why people are agressive, but I’m not convinced that the world is any more stressful now than it ever was or will ever be! I also don’t think one can very easily turn round to someone who is ranting at you and say to them ‘Clearly you hate your life, and that’s why you are so angry.’ Even if it’s true, it’s not very helpful to anybody…
It is certainly true that e-democracy needs to be able to cope with it, though - perhaps we need a little online voodoo doll or ranting area where people can let off steam before going onto the debate site proper and making a more reasoned contribution!
By Julia Glidden on Mar 2, 2009
Hi Everyone
I read this thread with much interest… Not least of all because it touches upon the highly related issue of blog bullying - and drives at something that has been nagging at me lately - namely the pressure to blog. As a former academic and someone who generally enjoys writing, I find I have come to genuinely resist blogging. There are all sorts of reasons no doubt. But at heart I suspect my resistance stems from the fact that my first and most formulative experiences with blogging involved harsh criticism of an admittedly not great speech that I gave which spread like wild fire …. Criticism is to be expected, but the speed and high profile nature of it really caught me off guard (in the wake of an already off key day!). My next experience involved watching a close friend have her name dragged through our circles for a very innocent mistake in inviting someone to an eParticipation event…. So I am not talking about ‘the general old media naysayers’ really - but our communinity - many of whom think that if you are not up to the rough and tumble then you should stay out bully pit. I on the other hand think that a little more civility would go along way in all mediums….