An article by David Pogue in Sunday’s New York Times asked whether the new social nature of the web is making us, well, antisocial.
As a Web 2.0 site or a blog becomes more popular, a growing percentage of its reader contributions devolve into vitriol, backstabbing and name-calling (not to mention Neanderthal spelling and grammar). Participants address each other as “idiot” and “moron” (and worse) the way correspondents of old might have used “sir” or “madam.”
Of course, as he points out, this “New Nastiness” may be no different from the rudeness we face in everyday life. Pogue surmises, “It may be inspired by the political insultfests on TV and radio. Or it may be that anonymity online removes whatever self-control they might have exhibited when confronting their subjects in person.”
Is the web making us misanthropic? Pogue’s unnamed “internet veterans” say no, just that comments are getting ruder as social sites get more popular. But the question remains: as social sites get more popular—and proliferate—will the rude take over the web?
One way around it that Pogue cites would be requiring commenters to use real names. In an age of well-justified privacy concerns, this is exactly the opposite of what blogs are encouraging (see this recent warning from Valleywag—though perhaps that was intended for one rather vicious commenter in particular.)
Hmm, let’s try this. Go ahead, doff your alias and share your thoughts, you pissed-off little blog reader. If Krucoff is doing it, surely it’s ok.
"Try to Play Nice, Wicked Wide Web" | NYT.com
Related PSFK articles:
"2007 Trends: Privacy Epiphany (Red Coat, Black Coat)
Red Coat, Black Coat in PDF
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
I object to the use of the anthropological term Neanderthal as a term of abuse. Since the Neanderthals did not write, “Neanderthal spelling” has no meaning. If you are complaining about the poor use of language by others, it would have more effect if your own use of language not nonsensical.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:36 pm