December
Sticks and Stones, Public Shaming, and LULZ
cyberspace norm police can be extremely dangerous—with an unprecedented new power and an underdeveloped system of norms to constrain their own behavior
This article is part of a virtual reading group for Daniel Solove’s book The Future of Reputation (schedule here).
‘Hard words break no bones’ is a phrase that has been in use since the Renaissance, but things may be changing. The internet is a realm composed mostly of language, and the process of identity creation that youth go through is thrown into sharp relief when it’s stripped down to words. When teens invest themselves online, they are putting a great deal of value into terms: names, labels, and the power of specialized language to build a sense of community. In a world of interaction and reputation built entirely on words, the old adage is being revised. Online, ’sticks and stones will never hurt you, but words may break your heart,’ and on the internet, reputation and the damage done to carefully constructed online identities can have devastating ‘in real life’ (IRL) consequences for youth who are already unstable and in need of help.
International Dog Crap
Sometime in 2005, a tiny dog—one of the toy breeds very popular in Asia—crapped on a subway train in Korea. It’s owner, a young college student, refused to clean up the mess. A fellow passenger took a picture with a digital camera and ridiculed her online, unleashing a tidal wave of online activity that made her the center of a moral witch-hunt and an international discussion about privacy. The consequences for the Korean woman far outweighed her poopy faux pas. The stress ended in her dropping out of college and becoming suicidal. The introduction of Daniel Solove’s book, titled “When Poop Goes Primetime,” uses the case of ‘the dog shit girl’ to introduce us to the issues surrounding privacy and freedom of information on the internet. Even if you’re not going to read any of the rest of the book, this first chapter is worth your time.
More below the jump…
More recently, the tragic case of Megan Meier has revealed online emotional abuse as an issue of vital importance. Solove discusses how enforcing societal norms—a common and arguably necessary social force IRL—takes on new and disturbing dimensions online. While not precisely the same as the varied problems of the Meier case, both deal with the issue of ‘public shaming.’ Most of us probably remember occasions in our youth where we were singled out for ridicule because of some difference or infraction. The snickering, finger pointing, and name-calling is usually bearable IRL, and there are safety nets in place for those kids who can’t cope on their own (although the Columbine massacre shows that even our IRL safety nets miss the opportunity to prevent the very real damage possible from social ostracism). However, the power of the internet to draw massive crowds and unite communities has changed the dynamic of public shaming. Where once the class nerd may have had to deal with a handful of tormentors, now thousands or even tens of thousands can potentially participate in the shaming process.
The Internet Hate Machine
How do we allow people to control their personal information
without curtailing free speech or stifling freedom on the Internet?
There is a sizable online youth culture that makes a hobby of ridicule. Sometimes organized for arguably noble purposes—sometimes scorn is necessary, after all—this very loose association of people is mostly just in it for the lulz (for the uninitiated, that’s a nuanced plural of LOL with strong overtones of Schadenfreude). The tamer venues for those who find age-old humor in the misfortune of others include sites like break.com and collegehumor.com, but these sites are generally not much more problematic than the content you might find on youtube.com or the evening news. (Not that youtube.com hasn’t caused its share of problems.) Where the practice of public shaming comes into play in an arguably problematic way is deeper down the rabbit hole, on 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica[NSFW], and other sites frequented by what Fox News outrageously termed ‘hackers’ and ‘an internet hate machine.’ It is on these sites, in part, that self-identified members of culture-moniker ‘Anonymous‘ carried out various campaigns that fall under ‘Project Chanology.’ Some of these, such as the actions against Scientology, are carried out with a strong moral sense in mind (for better or worse), and Anonymous as a whole cannot be called ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ really. It is simply / complexly an internet culture. However, some of the venues and individual actions of public shaming read like virtual scenes from A Clockwork Orange.
4chan… I’m not going to try and describe 4chan’s /b/[NSFW]. It’s an imageboard, better known than but similar to 420chan.org[NSFW], 711chan.org[NSFW], and other (English) parts of the Japanese Futaba Channel. Here’s how Digg user Frywater described /b/:
Are you brave? If so, come hang with the most intelligent, most vile, most underground kidz on the net hands down. Chat with hotgirls, professors, artists, pedos, geeks, all at the same time. Have images burned into your head for the rest of your life. Stay long enough, and meet satan himself. youve been warned.
Right. So, contrary to the seeming chaos, things actually do get started on 4chan and its sister sites (see Project Chanology). On a smaller level, these sites have been used by individuals to propegate public-shaming memes such as the Korean ‘dog shit girl.’ The virtual mob leaders who start public shaming campaigns often adhere to an anti-philosophy that is most evident on the humor site Encyclopedia Dramatica[NSFW].
Encyclopedia Dramatica is a Wiki whose mission is simple: “spread the lulz” (read: time for a little of the ultra-violent, my droogies). As part of the fun, authors single out individuals online for strong ribbing (have a look at the Drama Queens or Furries[NSFW], for example). Many of its contributors are intelligent and college-educated, and it’s multi-author approach to dark humor leaves the articles drenched in a pervasive nihilism. For example, frequently the site challenges societal norms with the ironic use of hate language—used in such a way that it ridicules both the haters and the hated—and the articles are often deeply self-depreciating. The overall sense I came away with is that, were the site to have a singular author, that author would have no philosophy, moral, or belief whatever. Even the stated devotion to humor rings hollow, as the site’s long chronicle of lulz seems laced with bitterness and anger. In the end, none of it is real at all—not the humor, not the hate, and certainly not the ever-changing and conflicting sense of normalcy—and that irony may be the site’s only core ideal.
The online youth culture who frequent these venues think that the ‘internet hate machine’ phrase is ridiculous. The hate and ridicule isn’t quite fake, but it’s hardly real either. It’s just trolling. It’s just for the lulz. The problem is, the effect of their complex, nihlistic, mock-hate for the sake of chuckles is the same as real hate. It’s little different from the high school bully who defends his brutality by saying “I was just pickin’ with him.” Bullying has become more sophisticated as youth have learned to communicate with so much more than their mouths and fists, but public shaming doled out for lulz is no less damaging for its sophistication and use of in-jokes, specialized language, and philosophy.
The blogosphere can be a much more powerful norm-enforcing tool, allowing bloggers to act as a cyberposse, tracking down norm violators and branding them with digital marks of shame.
The Virtual Street Worker
So what can be done to prevent virtual bone breaking and the very real emotional damage that public shaming can cause IRL? What is appropriate for humorous mockery and parody? One thing seems clear to me: creating laws around the technology of the internet (such as what’s happening in the wake of the Megan Meier case) is not the answer, nor is a top-down authoritarian approach possible or useful. Danah Boyd had a very interesting suggestion:
The most important thing that we need are digital street workers. When I was in college, college students volunteered as street workers to help teens who were on the street find resources and help. They directed them to psychologists, doctors, and social workers. We need a program like this for the digital streets. We need college-aged young adults to troll the digital world looking out for teens who are in trouble and helping them seek help. We need online counselors who can work with minors to address their behavioral issues without forcing the minor to contend with parents or bureaucracy. We need online social workers that can connect with kids and help them understand their options.
What is certain is that adults–parents especially–need to understand these issues and work with children to help combat the issue of online bullying. This can start with something as simple as parents actually paying attention to what their kids are up to online. Teens need their privacy, but that doesn’t mean that parents shouldn’t know whether their children have invested large emotional sums in online relationships and an online persona.
Perhaps Daniel Solove will also have some insights in Chapter 4: ‘Shaming and the Digital Scarlet Letter.’ I’ll return to this topic then.
In then meantime, what are your thoughts?
December 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Here’s an interesting book, called Virtual Integrity.
This article was posted by Covenant Eyes, Inc.
—————————————————-
Across the United States and around the world, people are talking about Daniel Lohrmann’s new book,”Virtual Integrity — Faithfully Navigating the Brave New Web.”
An award winning security expert, Lohrmann is the chief information security officer for the state of Michigan and he directs the state’s Office of Enterprise Security. Among other honors, this sought after speaker was named the 2008 Chief Security Officer of the Year by SC magazine and one of the 25 most influential people in the security industry by Security magazine.
So, what is Lohrmann’s biggest concern about the Internet today? It’s not identity theft.
His greatest concern is what he calls “integrity theft.”
He says that when people surf the web they face temptations where they allow their integrity to be stolen one piece at a time. These temptations vie for thoughts, dreams, time and money, and he challenges people to surf their values.
Lohrmann tackles a of variety topics that can change how families use the Internet, and he gives helpful answers to problems with Web filters and parental controls. Plus, he provides practical tips for following his “seven habits of online integrity.”
“Virtual Integrity” is a must read for every home, and Lohrmann makes this often confusing topic an easy read by writing in everyday language. And though it offers a sober dose of reality, “Virtual Integrity” delivers a hopeful vision to empower people and families to begin surfing their values.
December 8th, 2008 at 11:59 am
That’s an interesting book, although I think most folks who already have a sense of moral integrity off-line aren’t as likely to engage in the most potentially harmful online shaming. Unless, of course, their off-line beliefs include the process of public shaming and norm enforcement as an integral part of living a moral life.
In general, I’m more concerned about the moral relativists or nihilists who use their pseudo-philosophy or sense of superiority/entitlement to engage in damaging behavior. (Here’s a comic for amusing illustration: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1127 )
January 29th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
As a young person myself who has spent a lot of time on sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica, I am both relieved and disappointed to see this discourse.
Relieved because the lulz is something you have to look at if you want to understand what’s going on online, and it seemed that everyone over 30 was completely ignorant.
Disappointed because of the naive optimism, “ooh, youth culture, let’s be tolerant and understanding.” Lurk around ED and 4chan a little more, and you’ll find a few kids who explain what brought them to their nihilism. Usually it’s what they were exposed to online when they were younger, horrible things that they saw when they were far too young to handle them. You’ll find that when it comes down to it, a lot of young people who are part of this culture resent having been exposed to the horrors of the net way too early.
Now tell me how you’re going to stop this situation without turning the whole internet into a virtual police state. It’s not gonna happen. So here’s a shocker: as a kid myself (college), I suggest a simple solution: just DON’T GIVE KIDS UNSUPERVISED INTERNET ACCESS whatsoever until they’re old enough to handle it. You know, sometime in the teens, certainly not at 10, 11. Fact is, the internet is a powerful tool, and when you put any powerful tool in the hands of children who are by definition immature, you get bad results. Would you hand an AK-47 to your 10-year old? No? Do you think the Internet is less powerful than guns? No? These days, kids question the maturity of their parents.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Confusionist: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I agree that a healthy measure of parental involvement is really necessary for introducing kids to the internet. At the same time, I wonder if something else is missing. Something like empathy and emotional sensitivity that needs functional families and IRL relationships to work.