Code, Conduct - Words to Live By

I think you may be right about the rusty armor, Phil. Either that or I have a 12-year-old boy’s psyche. I thought the McCain bit was darn funny, but then again, I find it ridiculous that most of these candidates wouldn’t know how to log in to MySpace themselves, much less set up a profile there, and they were ganking bandwidth because they were too lazy to even donwnload images to their own server.

I don’t think that the web is really any different than everyday life. Sure, people won’t post rudely Photoshopped pictures of you, but they will stab you in the back in a business deal, and I’d rather have the picture, because at least that’s honest and to my face.

I have heard it said that this is a problem of anonymity; that there is no comeback on the web because you can hide who you are. While I think this plays a part I don’t think it is an underlying cause. In that aspect then I agree with you, it is to do with society.

While I will admit this is mere speculation I wonder whether the internet, by democratising publishing and giving everyone a voice, has also made everyone that little bit smaller. When you are in school people act out because it is the only way they can get noticed; if they can’t be part of the cool set, or part of the sporty set, or part of the rebel set they become ostracised, which of course serves only to deepen the discontent.

With the internet anyone can find a voice, but that also means you need to stand out to be noticed. It puts everyone back into that cool, smart, attractive comparison and some people by the very nature will be offensive to be noticed.

I don’t know how you fix this. Certainly not by creating a code. This serves only to deepen the divide.

Cool, I love it when the debate gets thoughtful! I certainly don’t have all the answers either, but I do have the hypothetical. 25 years ago adolescent angst did not have the outlet it does today. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad one, but I just know that the results of improper behavior back then were more immediate and painful than repercussions from Internet interaction.

Cyndy’s rationale is essentially the same as most of the people who commented in the Digg fiasco, and this is not unusual or bad either. The McCain story was funny to a degree, but notice where the divide mentioned is coming from. Obviously, McCain just wants some young votes, but comments there at Digg reflect an underlying current against older people. Cyndy is a very intelligent and skilled person, but looking at her innuendo it might seem apparent that “older” politicians (meaning people) are somehow less because they are not as technically inclined as their younger counterparts.

Quantification and qualifiers like age are a mine field for injuring feelings and causing rifts. I often fall into the trap myself when making comments about rude people, but generally try to qualify the statements to exclude members of groups. In the final analysis there are as many 50 year old adolescents as there are 12 year old versions. That is why I qualified immature behavior as not age specific.

Code? Code of conduct is from the Latin condūcere & conduct, meaning to “lead” together. I do not see how human interaction can take place for very long without at least a loosely defined set of principals that lead us to somewhere positive. I personally do not care if a 12 year old leads or some old fart in an old folks home as long as we all get “there”.

The world is at a point where “fun and games” need to be put on a back burner so that there will be a world in 50 years. My generation has not done a very good job here, and we had lots of fun and games in the 70’s. While we played, massive forces were being exerted toward one of several ends, but primarily toward accumulating resources and wealth. You are witnessing the results of this rather Machiavellian process today (that is if you are watching).

I want people to be able to laugh and have fun with their gadgets, but goofing off at Digg looking for stories about the 21st Century version of the three stooges is effectively intellectual and civil suicide at this late date, especially when the time and effort could be collectively focused on some greater goal.

I am an idealist, so I get disappointed a good deal as you might imagine. However, the flack idealists have always received is illogical. An idealist (not strictly defined) is a person who’s philosophy asserts the vision of what could be rather than what is. Most practical people define idealists as unreasonable people who are at odds with practical life. So, is “what is” all there is, and can practical behavior promote anything other than what we now have? I visualize a place (Web 2. whatever) where ideal means perfect. The unattainable cannot be even approached by accepting the status quo, period. All the “new lions” will accomplish by pursuing the same old tactics is a derivative of what we have now, albeit with fewer resources on a dieing planet. Think about it, and give me your very best argument.

There, I am off the soap box for the week! Thanks again ya-ll, I really do appreciate you.

Always,
Phil

Phil,

Your post and the articles you linked to are thought provoking. When it comes to ageism with technology I have had a great role model in my father who learned to use a computer in his 60s. He was so computer illiterate before but the Internet and email changed his world. He also keeps up-to-date on the latest technology which is challenging for me because it means I have to be on my feet.

When I read Cyndy’s article I agree that the best defense is to ignore the inappropriate comments/commenters. Though I don’t know what I would do if I were in Kathy’s situation. It would probably freak me out as well if I were to get threats for putting myself out there on the web. So, until I am in that situation I really can’t judge what others do or think they would do.

I have family members who don’t like the fact that I have an online presense. It bothers them that someone could track me down if they wanted to. But the reality of the world we live in today is that anyone can stalk or track down anyone if they want. As I realist I need to take precautions and a sharp eye out for anything unusual. As an idealist I would love a world where we all could feel safe and respected for who we are.

I agree that it takes the community to reign in the offenders. What Scoble did by taking the week off was his way of saying, ENOUGH! I think he got his point across and certainly generated a great deal of discussion about what we should do. You asked what would adults do if a 15 year old interupted a conversation with an inappropriate comment. Most would ignore the 15 year old or tell him/her to come back and join the conversation when they have something of value to contribute.

I tend not to post on digg because it can become a flaming war for little reason. I also don’t belong to MySpace because I’m a bit too old for that crowd. That’s for my nieces and nephews. The web is becoming more and more generational with different web 2.0 sites aimed at the younger crowd and ones aimed at the aging baby boomers. There is cross over because like you pointed out there are youngsters that are more mature than some 50 year olds out there.

I think the most important thing that came out of Kathy’s experience is the discussion it has generated. And, for me I guess the response is to step above those who have a need to belittle others and if someone where to attack me the way Kathy was attacked to ask the community of my fellow bloggers to back me up the way that many have backed Kathy up.

So, that is more than my 2 cents worth. Thanks for posting about this topic and I think it will be a discussion that will be going on for a while.

Phil,

It has less to do with ageism and technical elitism than the fact that I don’t tolerate phonies well. I have no problem with McCain having no tech savvy. What I DO have a problem with is that he still went ahead and authorized a MySpace profile, and even the people he surrounded himself with were so ignorant of basic Netiquette that they set up the site and participated in bandwidth theft. I’d much rather he be honest and be himself and not turn to the tech of the moment to try to sway younger voters.

Does that make a bit more sense? I found the profile “vandalism” funny not because of the content but because it exposed the Emperor’s nudity in that arena.

As for Scoble, bah humbug. His week off said absolutely nothing other than “I’d like to insert myself into this obviously attention-worthy event.” What point did it prove?

People are going to be people. A code of conduct is only needed for those who wouldn’t follow it anyway.

Thanks Guys! I agree that the best thing out of all this hoopla is the discussion it has fostered. I am not really sure if anyone will be swayed one way or the other though.

As for Scoble Cyndy, I guess it depends on whether one believes he acted out of support or simple sensationalism. As for my suggestion for a code, thanks for making my argument for me in the mention of “Netiquette”. The root word “etiquette” can be found at Wikipedia or the Websters Standard:

“Etiquette, one aspect of decorum, is a code that governs the expectations of social behavior, according to the conventional norm within a society, social class, or group.”

So, even in the lax social form of the Internet there is already an implied code (if we take note of the subject in the definition). All I want to get across is that this code, net fart contest, rule, law, gesture, attitude, level of spiritual resonance or whatever we call it should start to head slightly North of its current position.

If people want solutions, first it is necessary to recognize the problem. A lot of people have a problem with rude or unacceptable behavior. The Web has always been a tricky place. One seldom has the insight to really evaluate others truly, why Scobel could have a pit next to his computer where he yells: “It puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again” as he typed his blog for all I know. I just doubt it based on what I can tell from here.

So, based on what we have learned here, can we now accept tentatively that a code does or should exist. If it does, will it only apply to banwidth theft and leave humanity out of the equation? Do we want to be nice or is it okay to Cuss anyone at the drop of a hat? Which is it? Flame or no flame, good or evil? Choose now, quick!

Phil..you are spot on!…its a challenge to be met….and reminds us that we are carbon based individuals with values, responsibility, integrity and ethics.

Albert

It is refreshing to see that someone finally “gets” it. Apparently, you do. When I read the article written by the other profy author, Cyndy Aleo-Carreira, I had no idea she was addressing the situation involving Kathy Sierra. In all honesty I don’t think her article was about Kathy’s incident at all. I think Kathy was just an example she used to say look at me I survived a male dominated world so I am better than Kathy. It seemed almost childish to me. She missed the entire point of what brings this behavior about and what society as a whole accepts as proper human interaction and conduct.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it takes something really terrible to happen to get anyone to react to it, except what it really takes is something really terrible to happen to someone people respect and admire. Unless it happens to someone we are familiar with, someone we like, society just says oh what a shame or they must have deserved it etc. and moved on.

I do think that society tolerates far more on the internet and has actually come to expect this type of behavior from people on the net. First many feel helpless to change it and others still see it as the acts of youth (even though it isn’t always youth misbehaving).

We have become a society of excuses. Everyone is allowed to behave any way they want and society makes an excuse for their actions. Society as a whole has lost the most basic concept of good manners and proper conduct. Just as you said in your article much of what we see today and yes even what happened to Kathy Sierra comes right down to a breakdown in our moral fabric. What was once never considered proper behavior under any circumstances is now the norm.

We have some sick puppies in this world and rather than holding them accountable for their actions we make an excuse for them and blame it on their childhood. I think Americans are by far the worst in this area. We see it everyday in the workplace, the classrooms, the streets, just about everywhere.

When it comes to the internet any damn thing goes because it is rare we even know who the person is and no one is going to invest money in tracking down someone who offended someone else. In the end they get by with it. It isn’t going to change until each of us get our own house in order and go back to the days when we did right by others just for the mere sake of doing right.

This is a much bigger issue than what people do on the net. Human life no longer has value to many people; children killing other children everyday, children plotting to blow up schools, random drive by shootings. We have become a society that believes in do until others before they do unto you. However, until we give people back a world where they feel valued and safe people will continue to lash out at others. Until we start holding people accountable for their behavior and start teaching proper behavior nothing will change.

In the bigger scheme of things someone on the net insulting someone is minor. But that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated. Think about it, if human life has no meaning to so many people what makes anyone think someone’s feelings are important. Simple respect has vanished. Your co worker Cyndy completely missed the boat if you ask me. She reminds me of these people who address an issue superficially, but run as far as possible before addressing the cause. God forbid we look deep enough to see that each of us is responsible for our own actions, and that everything we do affects others. Instead it is easier to blame the victim. In closing I just want to thank you and let you know how truly rare it is to see someone speak the truth and address what lies beneath the surface.
Thank you.

Sheilah

Phil, I am not going to comment on how great this entry is. You already know that and the other bloggers before me have made this statement more than clear. I am just going to point out two other issues. That Tim O’Reilly warned against any kind of legal/governmental control is nonsense. A death threat is a death treat – online or offline – and it should be treated as a serious issue. After all when people receive death threats in the real world, the police does take actions for investigation and prosecution of such actions. Guess what: the Internet is a part of the real world. The death threats are not software generated. They are made by real people, addressed to real people!

On a second note: when you stop blogging you only let the offenders win. I am totally against the idea to stop blogging. If we want to help Kathy, we have to blog. We have to speak up, get loud and let these people know they cannot have it their way!

In response to Sheilah’s comment, I didn’t miss the point. I think I got it at a much different level than many people did.

I never said I approved or nor condoned what the individuals did. I also said that it was a form of terrorism, and who won? Did they get Ms. Sierra to not speak at a conference? Sure did. Did they get attention and stand out? Sure did. It doesn’t make sense to me to let people get exactly what they want when they demand it in unacceptable ways. These people wanted attention, pure and simple, and they weren’t happy with Ms. Sierra’s public visibility.

It isn’t easy to look at situations like this one and NOT respond with a knee-jerk reaction. But the knee-jerk reaction is EXACTLY what these folks are looking for, and it’s exactly what they got. So they win. My point was that when you’ve seen the same situation repeat itself time and time again, you are able to see what the perpetrators want, and hopefully can react in a way that doesn’t let them have it.

In response to Cyndy’s latest post. I agree they should never win and you make a good point with that. The point is these problems on the internet with threats and such don’t begin and end on the net.

These problems all stem from the fact that people in this society have lost all respect for life and for others. No one gets up in arms over ths stuff unless it happens to someone they know and like. Otherwise it is just accepted as the expected.

The problems do not start because someone is allowed to win. The problems start because we as a society have forgotten how to treat others. We do not react unless it is a well known figure being victimized.

We have placed a higher value on some than on others. Look at the case with Nicole Simpson. My God we listened to media reports on that for years, yet we never hear about the hundreds of thousand of other women who die at the hands of a spouse.

We treat symptoms, but never the cause. We make excuses for people’s behavior and we no longer hold anyone accountable for their actions. That is why these things continue to occur.

It isn’t about who wins my dear. It’s all about how they started winning in the first place. This all comes down to a loss of morals and values and basic manners in our society.

Sheilah

Phil, you wrote: “If two adults were talking about a business deal and a 15 year old waltzed in and blurted out ‘F…That’, what would the adult response be?” Good point. We all know what the response would be, if the two adults were talking privately.

I am 57. If a person of any age were to use obscene language in 1957, privately or publicly, adults would likewise intervene, because there was an understanding that, for the common good, such behavior should not be tolerated. Today, an adult who intervenes risks either (a) getting his clock cleaned by the kid, (b) getting swarmed and possibly killed by the kid and his or her friends, (c) getting charged, or (d) getting sued. Only 50 years ago, people at least made some effort to treat people well, outwardly. In other words, they may have suffered from ill will, but at least exercised a little self-discipline to minimize the pain they caused others. Since then, courts of law have put their stamp of approval on the outward expression of malice. Parents have followed suit.

It is commonly believed, even by behavioral scientists, that expression of anger mitigates anger. But have you ever observed how you feel immediately after expressing anger? I have. I find that anger is heightened, not mitigated. Therefore, I try to control myself, even privately. In other words, even if I don’t have positive feelings, I *practice* having positive feelings. I make an effort to have positive feelings. According to some experts, I should be in worse health, mentally and physically, as a result of having repressed my emotions.

Ironically, my health is improving at age 57, and I am much happier.

The lesson, I think, is this. Listen to experts. Learn from experts. But don’t fail to observe yourself. And when experience contradicts expertise, go with direct, personal self-observation. There is no more valuable source of knowledge.

But how many take the time to do this, on the excuse that external objects are more important? I look at it this way. If there were no internal psyche, externality would be irrelevant, because we would have no way of knowing it existed. In other words, everything in this entire universe is dependent on what is inside you.

If people would pay more attention to what is going on inside themselves and observe the karmic effect of their outward conduct, they would see that, ultimately, mistreating others is the same thing as mistreating oneself. Lord Jesus is not in vogue today. But I think that, 2000 years ago, somehow, He managed to get it right.

Thank you for your comments, Phil. ‘Net civility is a subject near and dear to me. I’ve been moderating/ administering a large forums site for almost 5 years, before that was a forum hound and before that I moderated chats and also hung around Usenet briefly. My comments are going to be mainly forums-centric as I know that aspect best. However, since I’m still an active Mod, I can’t go into huge amounts of detail in order to better serve my site.

Incivility is everywhere. But what are the causes? A few come to mind quickly.
1) The overwhelming youth of the people online. This is not just your standard “these kids these days are all a rude bunch of so-and-sos” complaint. Rather, mores have changed. People are more cynical. More is accepted. Trash talking replaces reasoned debate.
2) The overwhelming machismo of the people online. That sounds awfully sexist. But there is a definite macho culture out there, and that’s not just a male trait. I mean the swaggering, I’m better than you, I’m always right, you can’t tell me anything kind of behavior. It knows no gender.
3) Politics, politics, politics. It interleaves right in with #2, the macho culture and the belief that I’m right, dammit, why can’t you idiots see that?!?!?!?!?! One thing on forums is that if a person only discusses politics, inevitably they tend to be harsher in their behaviors (like all observations, this has exceptions and the exceptions are not all female). However, when people discuss politics, even if it’s their primary focus, but also discuss their pets or home improvement projects, play word games or post pictures of their kids, those people soften. And that doesn’t seem to have as many exceptions. It takes a split of focus and a move beyond tunnel vision to move the mindset from political adversary to friend, or at least respected opponent.
4) 24/7 action. I cannot number the times I have told people to step away from the keyboard. And I also cannot number the times I’ve been told that “he started it” or “I can’t give her the last word!” or “I have to respond, my reputation is on the line!” or “If I don’t respond, people will think I’m agreeing!” It feels like I’ve heard it all, but the reality is that I’ve only heard, for the most part, variations on those 4 themes, in the years I’ve been online. The tunes rarely change. Often a break, voluntary or not so voluntary, is the best way to get a person out of this rut.

Beyond causes are cures or at least responses. Here are few, with varying degrees of success.
1) Ignore the troll. Don’t give them anything to chew on, even negative. So forget that they are there. Whether you need electronic help to do so or not does not matter. On forums, other users quickly learn who gets page views and responses, and who doesn’t. It’s like offline life. They want to hang around with the popular crowd. Ignoring is powerful not only in itself but it can also have a somewhat synergistic effect. Does the troll go away? Maybe. There are no guarantees here.
2) Remove the person from the setting, by blocking their access, temporarily or permanently, or by hiding or removing offensive postings. This is useful when a user is extremely disruptive on the board. Some users are persistent, and it depends on the skill and coverage by the moderators to keep a disruptor at bay. But access should not be blocked willy-nilly. You run the risk of blocking someone who should not be blocked but also because the disruptor might actually have something to say at times. As they say, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
3) Answer the arguments/behavior. This comes from the old chestnut (attributed to Edmund Burke but it may or may not be an actual quote from him): All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. This is not a complete contradiction to #1, which I feel is usually the better option. However, for truly outrageous claims (like Holocaust denial), this is a way to handle it. Caution is in order, though. Everyone should be abundantly aware that the Internet is seemingly forever. Post something, particularly in the heat of the moment, and it’s out there 5 years later or when a potential employer is Googling you or whatever. Or you end up with a classic tarbaby. Sometimes, YOU have to be the one to step away from the keyboard.
4) Behavior modification. A difficult online presence is probably not going to be paying too much attention to subtle attempts, but it can be tried. As in, ignore when the behavior is unappealing and reward with positive attention when the behavior is acceptable. With large sites, though, this is a time sink with no bottom. You’re not put on the earth to save users from themselves or to be the “nice police”. Hence I think this is generally a poor idea unless a site is very small or there are a lot of moderators (which can be a problem unto itself).
5) Embrace the sometimes-acceptable user, but with caveats. My experience is that as a site gets very large this is often the only way to handle things. Giving these users absolutely free rein is an invitation to disaster. Keeping an extremely tight watch on them means the moderators are stuck with a disagreeable chore (moderators, in my sphere, tend to be volunteers). Constant blocking of access or posts can make a site a bland garden party (although some blocking is probably necessary). For very large sites with grownups, this kind of response, coupled with limited answering and limited access or post blocking, seems to work best.

No matter what, though, moderation is necessary if a site is to be considered at all responsible and/or adult. But the moderation’s got to have teeth and the moderators should have a plan. There is a lot of chaos out there online, masquerading as freedom, but the reality is that it’s just chaos and a lot of nastiness. One thing about moderating is it tells the other users: you don’t have to take it.

For a blogger, I’m sure, things are a bit different, as you are opening yourself up for scrutiny just by posting publicly, and sometimes that scrutiny is less than pleasant. Recipients of threats should certainly take them seriously, at least seriously enough to inform the Internet Service Provider of the person making the threat, if that’s at all possible, and the police if it’s truly egregious.

But criticism, even clumsy criticism, should at least be read. It’s not always bouquets that will be thrown. Sometimes, there are a few rotten cabbages in there, too. But you might learn something from the cabbages that are tossed. But there’s nothing wrong with drawing a line in the sand. Governments do it all the time.

Bloggers don’t have to take it, either.

My point was that when you’ve seen the same situation repeat itself time and time again, you are able to see what the perpetrators want, and hopefully can react in a way that doesn’t let them have it.