Quotes come courtesy of CCP hf., the-riot-act Sabine Wolff and Malcolm Turnbull.
PS. Before I begin, I'll just link this: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_600041
So the social media world has been an interesting world of late.
A den of thieves, scoundrels, bandits, black market dealers, gamblers, pimps and prostitutes. All in all, a nice place for a holiday.
Life under the bridge
Trolling isn't new, of course. If you want a Short History of Trolling, you won't find it here, but I'd say that it's as old as the internet itself. Spineless morons with limited self-worth and exaggerated self-entitlement aren't new, either. Nor is the issue of anonymous abuse by said spineless morons whose contributions to society are in inverse proportion to their egos. Some people would call it projection, I dunno.
What is new is the sudden level of public discourse around it. I'm talking, of course, about the #stopthetrolls campaign that has resulted from a variety of famous people collectively realising that, hey, on the internet you can be a complete fuckwad and no one will ever know you personally. I found it amusing, personally, when this morning a tweet was dug up that showed that someone had once sent a tweet calling for Julia Gillard to be sent a noose - and then this week demands that Julia Gillard exercise her ~powers~ to remove twitter trolls, but that's by-the-by. He overreacted to what I'm sure was quite an emotionally charged situation, we all do that. I'm pretty sure the former was meant as a joke, in any case, but this is the internet and context is both king and non-existent - but I'll get to that later.
Also quite funny is the fact that it's the Daily Telegraph, of all people, spearheading the campaign. Might want to check out all those glass windows in your house before you go around hurling bricks, but hey-ho. Also by-the-by.
(A brief run-down for non-Aussies. A few people, famous people, have recently made a stand against online Twitter abuse and trolling, including politicians, sportsmen, media personalities etc etc. It coalesced today under the hashtag #stopthetrolls. Rather odd to watch for mine)
Killing the hand that feeds you
More interesting - and concerning - to me is the trio of DW related "trolling" events that I found out about this morning. Namely, Steven Moffat closing his twitter account, Caitlin Blackwood getting abuse and then Amanda Abbington getting death threats for having the temerity to *gasp* stand up for her friend. The first doesn't surprise me - the level of vitriol he receives from some in the DW "community" now has gone beyond pathetic. Most of it is groupthink-addled bullshit stemming from confirmation bias and a rigid refusal to see the world as more than three inches wide. But I'll get back to that. I don't blame him in the slightest for pulling the plug, as he is an extremely busy man and I doubt he has the time nor the inclination to deal with every moron who takes it upon themselves to prove their innate "superiority" by sending tripe.
The irony, of course, is that these idiots do far more to kill Doctor Who - which is their common catch-cry, pleasantly devoid of any basis in objective reality, but how could it be? - than he does. A show like Doctor Who lives and breathes on the enthusiasm of those who dedicate their time and energy to create it - the enthusiasm of the Steven Moffats of the world. It has absolutely nothing to do with the brigades of the self-entitled who feel their interpretation of the show is the only valid one, and all other interpretations are just WRONG WRONG WRONG (but, again, we'll get back to that).
I vehemently disagree with the interpretations of the show that say he is misogynistic and homophobic (seriously?!) but that's fine. They're opinions. We can argue about them in a civil way. What isnotso cool is the dismissive attitude many in this camp take towards differing opinions - despite the fact that those they so merrily dismiss mayjust, y'know, have a bit of experience in the matter. I also think that we have to be much more careful about inferring, indirectly, deeply personal things like misogyny from a distance - these terms could potentially be extremely offensive, hurtful, snide and presumptuous, and I certainly don't blame Moffat for choosing to get away from dealing with people who have the temerity to make such a judgement about someone they don't know at all. But this isn't strictly a Doctor Who post.
The second and third are far more concerning, and particularly the second. I have no idea in which world abusing a twelve-year old is OK, especially one whose only "crime" was to appear several times on a popular TV show, and if such a world exists I'd rather not be part of it, thanks. But I do live in a world where it happens. Regularly.
Why?
There are two issues I think people are conflating here. Trolling, as I understand it, is not quite the same as straight out abuse. But they've all been lumped under the giant heading "trolling", despite them being two quite different things at heart.
Daddy, daddy, I got a bite!
Let's look at the former, because it's easier to understand. And also because someone (http://the-riotact.com/in-defence-of-trolls-because-someone-has-to/82350) has actually written a good piece on this already.
Trolling: The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn’t count as trolling; it’s just flaming, and isn’t funny. Spam isn’t trolling either; it pisses people off, but it’s lame.Sounds terrible, huh?
The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
Trolling requires deceiving; any trolling that doesn’t involve deceiving someone isn’t trolling at all; it’s just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccessful troll.
Yet Top Gear is immensely popular, and many people find it hilarious (including me, I might add, in the earlier seasons at least). I would suggest that many, if not all, racially/ethnically/"sociologically"-tinged jokes (think your average Irish joke) have an element of the troll about them. So do many comedians. There is something we, as people, find alluring in the audacious, we find it fascinating to see people push the edges of acceptability. Something we, as people, have accepted and encouraged. We have allowed a line to be drawn, and behind the line, it's all fun and games - but cross that line and NONONONO youdunabadthing.
That, for mine, is the real discussion. But it's one that #stopthetrolls completely ignores. Whilst I applaud any attempt to make the internet more civil, I'd caution against overestimating the efficacy of passing the buckets whilst the dam leaks.
Note: I'm not arguing against the 'line'. I'm not even arguing that the 'line' is in the wrong place. And certainly abuse of the kind Caitlin Blackwood received is far beyond any line that could be deemed acceptable. But let's have some consistency in our moral outrage, yo.
And let's recall the definition as per above: seething outrage may easily have been the whole point of the exercise. Especially if the twitter account involved is new, with very few tweets or other message - that to me screams the more "baiting" side of trolling. People often underestimate this, but in my experience (on social media, moderating internet forums etc) it happens alot. There are large online communities whom I will not name dedicated to this. I'd denounce them and call them horrible - but then I'd be ignoring my own hypocrisy, because I've unwittingly laughed at them from time to time.
Only when it's behind the line, of course...
Stop the opinions
I like confected outrage as much as the next internet person but I'm starting to wonder if humans' intellectual capabilities are overrated.A friend of mine made the excellent point that what people often call trolling is in fact no more than *gasp* different opinions.
It's an important point and one that must be remembered.
You're allowed to be different. You're allowed to be controversial. You're allowed to be wrong. None of this either justifies nor excuses abuse in either direction - but this is all stating the obvious. I do think it's worth bearing in mind, though.
But if we can all agree on that, and we all agree that abuse is bad, then why are we not all thinking and talking about how one leads to the other? Because I think many would agree that the former case, whilst more widespread than people expect, is hardly universal. People actually believe the shit they say for the most part.
Why do people - many people, and I would suggest many people we would probably consider friends - find it appropriate or acceptable to make their views so rigid, so extreme that they exclude others and try to shout down those who may, shockingly, disagree? Why do people find it appropriate of acceptable that they should take a twitter to abuse and harass someone they've never met and will never know, simply because they take a different view of how to run a TV show than them?
For the record, in my book, unsubstantiated and snide calls of 'sexist' and the like are tantamount to abuse. Not saying you can't criticise, but there's a difference between saying something is racially insensitive and saying someone is racist. The former is a criticism. The latter is an attack. You better be damn well sure you know what you're talking about before you make one, because otherwise you look like a judgemental pillock who rushes to conclusions far too quickly. Disagree? Consider how you'd feel if called you or your friends sexists/racists/homophobes just out of the blue and then get back to me. Ta.
Saying "oh it's so obvious" when it so patently isn't doesn't cut the mustard either. It's presumptuous in that it assumes that your interpretation of the world must be the correct one. And this is the fundamental issue at play here. In my view, the central reason some think it's OK to take to abuse to make their point is because they are so utterly convinced that they are correct that they find it shocking that anyone could disagree with them. Moreover, having come to this conclusion, they are so convinced of their own righteousness that they don't just argue that others reach the same conclusion. They demand that you reach the same conclusion.
You must agree with me. Otherwise you're a dickhead/asshole/wanker.
The inability of people to agree to disagree without lashing out is at the heart of so many issues in our society, not least the alarming polarisation of many political spheres we see nowadays, and this is just another in my view.
Where does this come from? Who knows. Self-entitlement, lack of self-worth resulting in a need to assert superiority, projection, schaudenfraude - pick one.
They've always existed, of course. Idiots have always existed and will continue to exist, but we can help by not falling into the same traps. If someone has a different opinion to you, even a completely different one, don't abuse them for it. It's as simple as that. And if someone does something or says something you find odd or objectionable, or you didn't like the latest DW episode for whatever reason, do something else with your time and save the rest of us the hassle of dealing with your rubbish. Don't go abusing those who have contributed so much time and effort to making something that they hope you will enjoy. Your favourite sports team lost? Don't go abusing the team members on twitter on the match when they've done infinitely more to try ensure that the team won than you did or will ever do. It reeks of an awful self-entitlement mindset that says that if it's not perfect for me personally then it must be taken down, it must be lambasted and degraded.
This is not an argument for censorship. This is not an argument that people should not be permitted to be dickheads from time to time, or that people should avoid discussions. It's an argument for consistency. Want to stop trolling? Start by avoiding the same rigid, opinionated mindset. And this extends everywhere - the idea that trolling is limited to the internet is a staggering misconception, but one alarmingly many people seem to believe.
So rather than calling for twitter to censor abusive tweets (which is impossible as a matter of practicality not to mention an disturbing overreaction, raising all kinds of questions regarding free speech), how about we look in the mirror first. And that includes me.
There is a caveat to all this, and I'll deal with that now.
And the train rumbles overhead
I strongly recommend watching this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/capital-hill-friday-17-august-2012/4206462
It's a highly cogent discussion about how the digital world comes into all this. Up to now, I've avoided discussing the internet itself, because I don't see it in those terms, but it can't be denied that it's a factor. And I absolutely love this:
People think that the online world is the equivalent of standing under a railway bridge when a train is going over and screaming out obscenities at the top of your voice... people think it gives them anonymity, but it doesn't.Yes, the internet has made it easier to send abuse to someone.
Yes, the internet has made it easier to hide behind a pseudonym - much like I'm doing now - and post unreadable rubbish in the public domain - again, much like I'm doing now.
But we're attacking the symptoms, not the cause, if we starting pinning it all on the 'net. Whilst, yes, the fact that some tweeps don't have names attached to them means that some of them do like to post vile rubbish, plenty of people do so without a pseudonym either.
Are they not trolls too? Are we missing the point here?
Or are we conveniently ignoring the fact that trolling exists because we, as a society, have legitimised a form of behaviour which explicitly pushes the boundaries of trolling?
Are we all under that railway bridge as well?
