The mean boys and girls of Web 2.0
January 29th, 2009 |
Michael Arrington posted earlier this week about being spat on at the DLD (Digital, Life, Design) Conference in Munich, Germany. Michael, one of Web 2.0’s most influential figures, writes that he has been subject to ongoing abuse, including stalking and death threats against him and his family, and this has caused him to want to take some time out to reflect on his life and career.
I don’t know Michael. A friend of mine told me a very touching story about meeting Michael for the first time, and finding him to be quite engaging and congenial. I do know he is very powerful and while I don’t think he can make or break a company, he can come close. And while I have found some of his tactics mean-spirited and unnecessarily venomous, there is no way anyone can justify the kind of conduct he talks about in his post.
I am increasingly disturbed by the meanness inherent in Web 2.0. Some have made a living out of it. I don’t want to confuse the DLD incident, which took place in person, with online conduct, but I think they are related.
Is the mean-spiritedness of so many people inherent to Web 2.0, or is it a reflection of society at large? I think the ability to hide behind an avatar or pseudonym makes people brazen, and the surreality of the online existence allows us to attack people in a way we would never contemplate were we to meet them in person. To see the very worst products of our society, keep your eyes on the comments the next time you use YouTube and it won’t take long before you spot a string of obscenities.
I’m not sure anything can be done about it (or if you agree it is a problem.) A while ago, I wrote my Social Media Love Manifesto, which I have now posted on a Wetpaint Wiki so that anyone can read it and edit it. Please take a look, make a contribution if you feel like it, and let others know about it. Thank you!
Tags: | Sphere This |
The problem is that some people are ugly on the inside. Web 2.0 is just a tool. If your goal is to be malicious, you will be malicious regardless of whether or not you can use the internet.
It may seem like Web 2.0 is causing people to behave this way, but the internet doesn’t make people malicious with YouTube comments any more than Flickr makes people take pictures of their kids. The only thing the internet does is allow us to share personal content in ways we could not in the past.
There is a growing awareness of online ugliness and more people are asking if we can do anything about it. The best thing to do about malicious people online is the same thing you would do about malicious people offline: ignore them. Anonymity or not, their malicious content will be on their heads alone–not yours.
Thank you for publishing! I enjoy reading as always.
Dre
Comment by Dre — January 29, 2009 @ 11:54 am
I would have to call this the Jerry Springer Effect. Give angry, flawed people an outlet and the chairs start flying. I too am taken aback by the civility deficit rung up on Web 2.0 vehicles. Even newspaper obituaries attract snide comments on the deceased’s social status, livelihood, and personal qualities–usually ascertained without a direct relationship with the subject.
I still believe that honest people can disagree about almost anything. Too often these days people find it incomprehensible that differences of opinion can result factors other than depravity.
Comment by Otto Nordpol — January 29, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
A big part of the mean-ness is simply the anonymity that comes with posting comments on blogs and other social media sites. That’s one of the reasons I love Disqus and Facebook Connect. It’s amazing what the removal of that cloak of anonymity can do to clean up comments and behavior.
At Watercooler we have ~800 Facebook apps that all contain a forum within them. Since the users identity (including profile photo) is directly tied to their Facebook account, I’ve seen that our forums are much more well-behaved than others. That’s not to say there’s not some flaming and trash-talking going on, because they are primarily sports apps. But people tend to be a little nicer when someone can see exactly who they are.
Comment by Bryan Bennett — January 29, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
What’s happened to Michael and within the SM Community is no different than what has happened previously in other mediums, be it TV or print media. We just notice it now, since social media is never really portrayed as having a dark side to it, that part is usually suppressed, and you only hear about the wonders of “sharing” and “giving”. Anytime your opinions are expressed to the masses, you’re always going to have critics and loyalists - look at Darwin when he released his “theory of evolution” - he wasn’t exactly the most popular guy around.
Comment by Alison Charter-Smith — January 29, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
I certainly don’t condone spitting, or any other abuse, but I do see this as a monster of the valley’s own making. I’ve never met Mike, but from his writing and listening to him on podcasts, he’s just a guy. The valley made him into the powerhouse he has become, and I suspect he’s done nothing to try and stop that by being aloof and hard to reach, and creating an air of “get’s Mike’s love of die” among startups.
It’s sad that startups and the community around them have put so much emphasis on Mike’s opinion and coverage, that they’re doing these crazy things to get his attention, and when they don’t they’re getting violent.
I hope Mike finds a good solution to this problem, but short of taking a step back, and letting the valley realize he’s just a blogger with a large reader base, he’s not going to get any rest, and may get more spit.
I’m glad I’m not in the valley, and my company isn’t that needy.
Comment by John Wilker — January 30, 2009 @ 8:48 am