there's not much i can say about that!
so i'll reason with you instead:
i think you will find that the more you attempt to tame online behavior, the more you simply remove online behavior
i think that, much like movies and television and videogames are outlets of antisocial behavior (pornography, violence, etc.), so the internet is as well
and this is not a bad thing, on the contrary: this in fact serves a valuable social purpose... that which is jettisoned asocially between sticky magazine sheets is not jettisoned asocially on real women, that which is fired on screen in hatred and violence is not fired in real life on real people
it's an old debate: does media curtail bad behavior, catharsis-style, or enhance asocial behavior?
no guess as to which side i come down on that old debate... the question is, which side do you?
see, the internet is still very young, and pioneers like yourself go about what they do with great optimism: the internet will be a tool that will foster a great commons of ideas and debate
except that, that debate hasn't exactly been so antiseptic: the internet troll is ubiquitous... the anonymous nature of the internet allows for human beings to express themselves in ways they would never dare in real life
and so, what do you do with the troll? do you remove him? kill him?
but then you find that every means at your disposal to remove him only removes that which is good about the internet commons too
see the problem? hmmm...
but, within that problem is also an insight into what is really going on with the internet, beyond any of our control, as it evolves on its own path
and in a good way, to a positive effect no one desired, but they got anyway, the great internet commons is also, or perhaps was meant to be, a forum for antisocial expression, so that real life becomes more liveable for us all
look man: when television first appeared, it was hailed as a great educational tool
pretty funny huh?
but simply because the early pioneers in a media, like yourself, did not see the innovation they loved take the shape they desired it to, does not mean that it doesn't serve a valuable purpose anyways
it just serves a purpose that no one could have imagined
and that is, in fact, part of the beauty of life
so, i assert to you rusty: do not attempt to control what you cannot, let the internet evolve to the way it was meant to be, of which your little experiment is an important part of i might add, and understand that antiseptic polite debate is about as possible here or anywhere else as sunlight streaming from my ass!
for more edification on my point, try my diary:
(yes i know, it's a cut and paste of a new york times article, something i've gotten in trouble about before, but you'll notice that the original story on the nyt site is gone, which is a little comment in and of itself right there about my ability to communicate... but if you read the text of the story, you'll find exactly what i am saying to be evident about channel 2 as well)
i think if you really examine what i am trying to say, you'll agree with me, if it hasn't occured to you already, that something deeper is going on here and elsewhere on the web, like channel 2, beyond any of the optimistic web pioneer's control, that is still a good thing, despite it not being of the form they desired
The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.
[ Parent ]