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 21st 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.
