Final Paper

Incivility in the Online World…

            The advancement of the Internet and the World Wide Web without a doubt has dramatically changed the world that we all live in. It not inaccurate to say that with great technology comes greater risks and side effects. One of these effects includes cyber bullying and a growing incivility crisis.  Civility is a term that is coined to mean formal politeness or courtesy, and this can be applied in both behavior and speech.  Despite the fact that civility should be an inevitable manner that is taken on by everyone, it can be seen more and more that civility among people is becoming more and more of a rarity. People make connections through many different social medias, the Internet, and cell phones constantly. The Internet is a young technological invention, but is the most rapid growing and the most obsessive addiction of this generation; I say this from experience myself. The ideas of blogging, posting, and sharing thoughts on the worldwide web, have caused threats to arise in the forms of trolling, cyber-bullying, and hate comments. Due to the fact that the Internet seems to easily allow anonymity, it is found everywhere. Thus resulted in “trollers” and “bullies” hiding behind a screen and feeling absolutely no remorse for their actions. Deception and manipulation push trolls and bullies to continue what they are doing because they cannot be caught. This causes an issue of concern for the public in regards to political incivility, and if nothing is done to debunk the problem it will continue to creep into the center of our discourse. Ultimately if this issue is not addressed additional consequences can arise and affect the public in other various ways.  In order to propose a solution to the question of how the trolling and cyber-bullying phenomenon can be lessened to a degree, or even stopped completely; several approaches have been brought to light.  Taking pieces from each solution can contribute to a new approach to the situation all together. In this paper, the many solutions to political incivility and anonymity in the world today will be analyzed through many different pieces of work including videos, news articles, and journals while additionally looking at the strengths and weaknesses that may occur in all. I will also discuss and explain my main claims regarding the problem with the support of different pieces of evidence.

            There is no question that this issue of incivility and anonymity has become one of the biggest debates among people in the 21^st century. As stated above, through thorough research on incivility in the online world I have been able to pick up on many different possible solutions to these problems. Andrew Stafford, a Brisbane-based author and Age contributor, argues for the heavy restriction of anonymity in online forums, rather than ridding of it completely. He states in his article, that he would “request genuine transparency of identity” to start. He claims that this may “help to elevate the tone of how we speak to each other, and provide at least some protection from an army of baiters, haters, and spivs”.  Stafford argues that, “people indulge in their worst tendencies” when anonymity is in the equation. Yet Stafford also addresses that anonymity isn’t something that can go away completely. Anonymity is essential to the protection of people as well, in looking at both sides of the coin; Stafford is able to draw a conclusion that can satisfy several needs. He finds a specific middle ground between restriction and banning of anonymity.

In a different article, The Price of Incivility by Christine Porath and Christine Pearson, it is made obvious that the price of incivility has risen to astonishing numbers, for example Pearson and Porath report “98% [of workers] have reported experiencing uncivil behavior in the workplace” (Pearson & Porath). Additionally it was also pointed out that “12% [of people] have left their jobs due to uncivil treatment”, “80% [of people have] lost work time worrying about the incident”, and “63% [of people] lost work time avoiding the offender” (Pearson & Porath). From these numbers it is apparent that incivility comes in various forms, yet can have lasting effects. Continuing on this idea, Kathy Sierra attempts to explain the phenomenon in elementary terms. Kathy Sierra, a victim of an online troller, utilized the analogy of Kool-Aid to describe what it is truly like to be “trolled”. She states that as a victim you are considered the “Kool-aid server” who has people “take Kool-aid” (as in retweet, favorite, expand upon) for social debate (Sierra). However when everyone is “taking your Kool-aid” trollers are slowing losing audiences to you [the victim] and this causes the troller to get angered that their targeted audience likes your “Kool-aid” rather than theirs [the trollers]. (Sierra) Thus essentially turning the situation into a popularity debate amongst everyone. In the most basic terms, trollers want to be popular too; maybe not in the same ways as a victim may but they will do anything for power, even if that means harassment towards an individual whom they do not know nor may ever know.

            Either way that the situation goes, trollers are on the hunt for anyone to prey upon. To elaborate more on what others have stated, I would like to discuss Roberts Miller’s paper yet again. Although never providing a solution to the issue, Roberts Miller argues how society

should be acting. She presents a sort of utopia in her argument, and what aspects would make up an ideal world with minimal incivility. Patricia Roberts Miller is a rhetoric-writing professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a very prestigious and a well-educated woman to say the least. Roberts Miller focuses on the idea of Demagoguery throughout her article, and outlines individual elements regarding the “rules of discourse” in today’s society (Roberts Miller, 462). Essentially she claims that audiences become strictly separated into in-groups and out-groups, and thus hurting the goal of debate. Although never specifically presenting a full solution to the problem known as incivility, Roberts Miller sets the guidelines that should be followed in order to avoid this problem. As well as points to the consequences that could occur due to incivility, and anonymity. Ultimately not giving a answer to the audience as to go about fixing this issue of incivility in the online world, is the biggest weakness in Robert’s Millers paper however her strength lies in the ability to motivate the audience to move towards a better future.

            After thorough research on this controversy, I find that my claims most closely follow the ideas of Andrew Stafford. I agree with this claim to the point that I have found further studies to support his position, and even further extend the stance Stafford takes in the overall argument. Yet, despite being in large agreement with Stafford, I also believe that Stafford fails to take in the full extent of time and effort to which his heavy restrictions and rules will cause in the long run. Stafford seems to neglect the statements claimed by Roberts Miller in the way that his argument for such heavy restrictions will most certainly not be completed easily. As Roberts Miller sets up an ultimate ideal “online world” by outlining the rules of proper discourse, Stafford admits wanting to move towards this utopia but not completely. I find that Stafford is accurate in moving towards this and personally I support the idea that public debate is essential for the lives of anyone. In an alternate paper written by Clive Thompson, by the title “Public Thinking”, this thought is extended. Thompson claims that the Internet can “clarify our thinking”, and help “connections to take over”(Thompson, 51). Essentially, my claim is that there most certainly should be restrictions on what can and cannot be posted on the Internet but it should also be noted that these actions would not occur overnight, as ideal as this would be. As put forth by Sierra and Pearson & Porath above, trollers and bullies will do just about anything to attack/harass online goers. Generally, there will always be predators anywhere, but in my eyes as well as Stafford’s restrictions may be a movement to a safer environment for most.

            The Internet was created to be a source of information, research and exploration. With the changing times, and advancement of society, we have gained so many more uses from the World Wide Web. We have grown to become a generation that is technology-dependent, meaning that we as a people are spending more and more time behind a screen, whether it’s be a laptop or a smart phone.  However, unfortunately with more and more active users, trollers and cyber-bullies have become more of an issue. The debate over incivility and anonymity in the online world today will forever be an ongoing controversy between what should and should not be done. The Internet will continue to change and grow, as will the amount of Internet users. Incivility and anonymity come with their benefits and consequences, as does anything else in this world. However, to better help the greater good of the people and provide sorts of protection from predators such as trollers and bullies, it is essential that we begin to move towards both Roberts Millers and Stafford’s ideals of a safer society. These propositions for solutions to the problem can attack the issue in a way that can greatly reduce the number of people who fall victim to incivility and anonymity issues in the online world. 

Works Cited

Pearson, Christine, and Christine Porath. "The Price of Incivility." Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business Publishing, 01 Jan. 2013. Web. 1 May 2015.

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. "Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8.3 (2005): 459-76.

Sierra, Kathy. "Why the Trolls Will Always Win." Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 08 Oct. 2014. Web. 1 May 2015.

Stafford, Andrew. "Who Are These Haters That Poison the Well of Our Discourse?" The Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney] 12 Apr. 2012: n. pag. Print.

           

           

           

Slightly Less Rough Draft

               Civility is a term that is coined to mean formal politeness or courtesy, and this can be applied in both behavior and speech.  Despite the fact that civility should be an inevitable manner that is taken on by everyone, it can be seen more and more that civility among people is becoming more and more of a rarity. The people of the world seem to have a fascination with the idea of calling each other out, whether it be morally correct or not. The fact of the matter is that the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place everyday. People make connections through social medias, Internet, and cell phones constantly. The Internet is a young technological invention, but is the most rapid growing and the most obsessive addiction of this generation. With the idea of blogging, posting, and sharing thoughts on the worldwide web, threats arise in the forms of trolling, cyber-bullying, and hate comments. These threats are arising due to incivility, rudeness and bad morals. Yet the “trollers” and “bullies” feel no remorse, because in the online world, it is so easy to fake an identity and hide behind a screen. Deception and manipulation push trolls and bullies to continue what they are doing, and hurting people just due to the fact that they know they cannot be caught. This causes an issue of concern for the public in regards to political incivility, and if nothing is done to debunk the problem it will continue to creep into the center of our discourse. Ultimately if this issue is not addressed additional consequences can arise and affect the public in other various ways.  In order to propose a solution to the question of how the trolling and cyber-bullying phenomenon can be lessened to a degree, or even stopped completely; several approaches have been brought to light.  Taking pieces from each solution can contribute to a new approach to the situation all together. In this paper, political incivility and anonymity in the world today are analyzed through many different pieces of work including videos, news articles, and journals. In an effort to argue further on the topic, I am motivated to present my position as well as propose a solution to this debate regarding incivility and anonymity in both the online and non-online worlds.

            As stated above, through thorough research on incivility in the online world I have been able to pick up on many different possible solutions to these problems. In order to better represent my assessment of what the greatest solution would be many different sources, articles, and journals aid me. However, first I would like to address what others have suggested to solve this problem. Andrew Stafford, a Brisbane-based author and Age contributor, states in his article, that he would “request genuine transparency of identity” to start. He claims that this may “help to elevate the tone of how we speak to each other, and provide at least some protection from an army of baiters, haters, and spivs”.  In a different article, The Price of Incivility by Christine Porath and Christine Pearson, it is made obvious that the price of incivility has risen to astonishing numbers, for example “98% [of workers] have reported experiencing uncivil behavior in the workplace”. Incivility comes in various forms like stated in “The Price of Incivility” by Christine Porath and Christine Pearson, yet can have lasting effects. It is pointed out that “12% have left their jobs due to uncivil treatment”, “80% lost work time worrying about the incident”, and “63% lost work time voiding the offender”.  Continuing on this idea, another theory regarding trollers utilized the analogy of Kool-Aid to describe the phenomena. Kathy Sierra, a victim of an online troller, puts it as a victim being the “Kool-aid server” who has people “take” (as in retweet, favorite, expand upon), and this causes the troller to get angered that the audience gravitates towards your (the victims) “Kool-aid” rather than theirs. Mostly turning the situation into a popularity debate amongst everyone, however the only way that trollers believe they can “win” is through torment and harassment in various forms or however they see fit. After looking at what others have said, now I can take this to expand on my position in the overall topic of incivility and issues with discourse.

            In my assessment

           

           

Super Rough Draft

              Civility is a term that is coined to mean formal politeness or courtesy, and this can be applied in both behavior and speech.  Despite the fact that civility should be an inevitable manner that is taken on by everyone, it can be seen more and more that civility among people is becoming more and more of a rarity. The people of the world seem to have a fascination with the idea of calling each other out, whether it be morally correct or not. The fact of the matter is, the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place everyday. People make connections through social medias, Internet, and cell phones constantly. The Internet is a young technological invention, but is the most rapid growing and the most obsessive addiction of this generation. With the idea of blogging, posting, and sharing thoughts on the worldwide web, threats arise in the forms of trolling, cyber-bullying, and hate comments. These threats are arising due to incivility, rudeness and bad morals. Yet the “trollers” and “bullies” feel no remorse, because in the online world, it is so easy to fake an identity and hide behind a screen. Deception and manipulation push trolls and bullies to continue what they are doing, and hurting people just due to the fact that they know they cannot be caught. This causes an issue of concern for the public in regards to political incivility, and if nothing is done to debunk the problem it will continue to creep into the center of our discourse. In order to propose a solution to the question of how the trolling and cyber-bullying phenomenon can be lessened to a degree, or even stopped completely; several approaches have been brought to light.  Taking pieces from each solution can contribute to a new approach to the situation all together. In this paper, political incivility and anonymity in the world today are analyzed through many different pieces of work including videos, news articles, and journals. In an effort to argue further on the topic, I will present my position as well as propose a solution to this overall problem of incivility and anonymity in the online world.

            As stated above, through thorough research on incivility in the online world I have been able to pick up on many different possible solutions to these problems. In order to better represent my assessment of what the greatest solution would be many different sources, articles, and journals aid me. I would like to present the position I call my own, and in this solution it is necessary that rules and regulations be put in place as well as filters across the World Wide Web. It is obvious the price of incivility has risen to astonishing numbers, for example “98% [of workers] have reported experiencing uncivil behavior in the workplace”. Incivility comes in various forms like stated in “The Price of Incivility” by Christine Porath and Christine Pearson, yet can have lasting effects. It is pointed out that “12% have left their jobs due to uncivil treatment”, “80% lost work time worrying about the incident”, and “63% lost work time voiding the offender”.  

Hw 4/20

In searching for articles to use to support my position in the last paper, I used google as my friend. I searched for topics by using keywords such as "incivility", and "trolling" and "solutions for bad discourse. I came across many different scholarly articles, definitions, and blogs regarding all these different issues. Fortunately, I didnt have to go very far to find any of these results either... They all happened to be provided on the first page of results by google.

http://www.webdistortion.com/2013/11/30/discourse-open-source-forum-solution-weve-waiting/
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/trolls-will-always-win/
https://hbr.org/2013/01/the-price-of-incivility/

Paper #3

Trolling and Cyber-Bullying

            Civility is a term that is coined to mean formal politeness or courtesy, and this can be applied in both behavior and speech.  Despite the fact that civility should be an inevitable manner that is taken on by everyone, it can be seen more and more that civility among people is becoming more and more of a rarity. The people of the world seem to have a fascination with the idea of calling each other out, whether it be morally correct or not. The fact of the matter is, the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place everyday. People make connections through social medias, Internet, and cell phones constantly. The Internet is a young technological invention, but is the most rapid growing and the most obsessive addiction of this generation. With the idea of blogging, posting, and sharing thoughts on the worldwide web, threats arise in the forms of trolling, cyber-bullying, and hate comments. These threats are arising due to incivility, rudeness and bad morals. Yet the “trollers” and “bullies” feel no remorse, because in the online world, it is so easy to fake an identity and hide behind a screen. Deception and manipulation push trolls and bullies to continue what they are doing, and hurting people just due to the fact that they know they cannot be caught. This causes an issue of concern for the public in regards to political incivility, and if nothing is done to debunk the problem it will continue to creep into the center of our discourse. In order to propose a solution to the question of how the trolling and cyber-bullying phenomenon can be lessened to a degree, or even stopped completely; several approaches have been brought to light.  In this paper, political incivility and anonymity in the world today will be analyzed through many different pieces of work including videos, news articles, and journals; and I will present my position as well as propose a solution to this overall problem of incivility in the online world.

            In efforts to solve the incivility crisis that is suddenly rising due to the Internet as well as all forms of social media, many solutions have been presented. These solutions can best be described as three potential resolutions; the “rules of discourse” position, the ban or restriction of anonymity, and the redefining of incivility. All of these presented solutions differ in their approaches to the problem, yet all of them have the central goal of creating a better online world for all. To look further into each one of these proposals different texts were analyzed to find the differing ideas that can be offered to the overall issue. To dive into the solution known as the  “rules of discourse”; Roberts-Miller’s paper was considered due to the fact that it describes and outlines the specific terms and guidelines that are civil discourse, and proper civil discourse for that matter. As for looking into the ban or restriction of anonymity in the online world, Andrew Stafford puts forth in his paper titled “Who are the haters that poison the well of our discourse?”, in which the recurring theme of his solution is to “heavily restrict” or “monitor” the things that occur within the Internet world. Lastly, to redefine what incivility is, analyzing the “GamerGate and Gendered Hate Speech”, a ted talk given by Anita Sarkeesian, we as readers can find ways to join the issue that has been blown so far out of proportion in recent years.

            As mentioned above, there are three alternate solutions that could possibly resolve the problem of incivility in the online world we know today. The first that will be discussed is Roberts Miller’s approach to the situation. Patricia Roberts Miller is a rhetoric-writing professor at the University of California, Berkeley, a very prestigious and a well-educated woman.  She wrote, "Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric" a well-known article that puts demagoguery discourse and fallacies into different lights.  Roberts Miller focuses on the idea of Demagoguery throughout her article, and outlines individual elements regarding the “rules of discourse” in today’s society. Roberts Miller’s paper essentially sets the standards of what discourse should be recognized as. Although she never specifically presents a solution to the problem known as incivility, Roberts Miller sets the guidelines that should be followed in order to avoid this problem. She states what the rules are and then acknowledges that should everyone follow them appropriately, problems like incivility wouldn’t arise. This provides strength in the sense that it can guide people into the right direction of action. Of course, naturally with rules, there always tends to be the few that rebel against what is right and here lies the weakness of Roberts Miller’s assessment.

            The next solution to be discussed is the ban or restriction of anonymity in the online world, and across all forms of social media. Andrew Stafford presented this idea in his paper by the title of, “Who are the haters that poison the well of our discourse?”. Stafford is a Brisbane-based author and Age contributor, and blogger. He introduces this article with a story of a newspaper company by the name of The Kings Tribune. This particular newspaper, after receiving one hateful comment too many, decided to eliminate comments on their website all together. Stafford presents this to show readers that there is an easy way out as well as a more complicated way in the incivility crisis. According to Andrew Stafford The Kings Tribune definitely took the easy way out. Given that newspapers survive off of feedback from their readers, how could a radical decision such as this one suffice for a company that relies on critique? However, it is apparent that the Tribune does not stand alone, many other writers, and bloggers are venturing down this path as well. Yet Stafford continues to disagree with this method. In Stafford’s argument for what he believes should be done, he describes that he would “request genuine transparency of identity”. Through saying this Stafford is really asking; why can’t names and addresses be withheld on request? If comments are going to be constructive, it might help “elevate the tone of how we speak to each other, and provide at least some protection from an army of baiters, haters and spivs”.  Given that this action will take time Stafford still believes that it is a proper solution. It has the strengths of publishers continuing to receive feedback for their works, as well as being able to expand discussion and have it go up for debate. On the other side of Stafford’s solution, the weaknesses include the time, extra money and effort that would be put towards the notion. This solution correlates somewhat with Roberts Miller’s proposition as well.

The last solution that will be discussed will be from a ted talk given by Anita Sarkeesian. In her discussion, she notes that harsh comments are a reality in the today’s world, and she even shares her story of her own experience with harsh forms of incivility. She refers to the harassment she faced as an “Internet mob”. Not only did she receive inconsiderate and hateful comments from users, but a game was created out of hate as well. People had her face on a screen and with every click of a mouse; her face became more and more beat up. These low blows are childish, hurtful, and cowardly. Anita’s response and solution followed a similar line of what Andrew Stafford discussed in the opening of his paper. She turned her comments off and kept her head held high. Now this turned out to be a strength for her because overall she became very successful with her project, but realistically looking at the situation I would say this is a weakness. In a sense, turning off the comments showed a sign of weakness, but understandably the inability to trace these comments to real people was also an aspect as to why Anita turned her comments off in the end. So through her dark times with this so called “hate mob”, Anita emerged to tell the story which in her case, sparked people to move towards keeping others from feeling the way Anita did. A movement to rid the world of so much incivility through the awareness of what the problem can really hold.

In analyzing all three of these propositions towards a solution to the problem of incivility in today’s world, it can be found that there are strengths and weaknesses in every situation. The fact of the matter is, that the issue of incivility on the rise in recent years is definitely not an easy situation to tackle. In any case, it will require a lot of work, time and effort to filter through all of the possible threats to proper discourse. In my eyes, through researching these many articles I believe the solution lies in not just one of the proposals discussed above, but within all of the solutions discussed. Taking pieces from each different assessment, I would argue that the rules of discourse are to be followed and not violated as Roberts Miller discusses in great detail, yet also acknowledging that it is nearly impossible to enforce this 100% of the time due to reasons out of our own control. An action such asStafford’s suggestion for the reduction of anonymity allows those who are brave enough to voice their opinions/comments to do so while exposing there true self. There can be no more hiding, and if one is to not follow the proper rules for civil discourse, it is up to them to own their opinions. Additionally, this solution eliminates the threat of trollers altogether because they would no longer have anything to hide behind besides there true identity, and this piggybacks on the ideas of Anita Sarkeesian’s talk of how to create a safer online world. Although my solution to the problem does in fact include aspects from all of the proposals discussed throughout this paper, I do believe that Andrew Stafford presents the most convincing argument. The elements of persuasion he utilizes make for a solid paper and one that gets the point across quite clearly. In conclusion, although the overall issue of incivility is still at large, solutions are popping up all over the place; it is imperative that one puts these solutions into action to get the ball rolling towards a better future for all.

Rough Draft #1

              Civility is a term that is coined to mean formal politeness or courtesy, and this can be applied in both behavior and speech.  Despite the fact that civility should be an inevitable manner that is taken on by everyone, it can be seen more and more that civility among people is becoming more and more of a rarity. The people of the world seem to have a fascination with the idea of calling each other out, whether it be morally correct or not. The fact of the matter is, the world is becoming a smaller and smaller place everyday. People make connections through social medias, Internet, and cell phones constantly. The Internet is a young technological invention, but is the most rapid growing and the most obsessive addiction of this generation. With the idea of blogging, posting, and sharing thoughts on the worldwide web, threats arise in the forms of trolling, cyber-bullying, and hate comments. These threats are arising due to incivility, rudeness and bad morals. Yet the “trollers” and “bullies” feel no remorse, because in the online world, it is so easy to fake an identity and hide behind a screen. Deception and manipulation push trolls and bullies to continue what they are doing, and hurting people just due to the fact that they know they cannot be caught. This causes an issue of concern for the public in regards to political incivility, and if nothing is done to debunk the problem it will continue to creep into the center of our discourse. In order to propose a solution to the question of how the trolling and cyber-bullying phenomenon be lessened to a degree, or even stopped completely, 

several approaches have been brought to light.  In this paper, political incivility and anonymity in the world today will be analyzed through many different pieces of work including videos, news articles, and journals; and I will present my position as well as propose a solution to this overall problem of incivility in the online world.

            In efforts to solve the incivility crisis that is suddenly rising due to the Internet as well as all forms of social medias, many solutions have been presented. These solutions can best be described as three potential resolutions; the “rules of discourse” position, the ban or restriction of anonymity, and the redefining of incivility. To look further into each one of these propositions different texts were analyzed to find the differing sides and opinions that can be offered to the overall issue.