So this is going to be a thing now? The Cuddly Internet

I seriously don’t know what to write about first. When there is no news, someone is always talking about something, and I’m like what this is a thing now?

So the Internet is a nice place, I guess it would cuddle with us if we’d let you. No, shut that shit down or it will piss all over your bed. But for real you guys, the Internet with its ability to bring us together after tragedy in a way never before seen (except it is probably the same perception as after cell phones were invented, automobiles, mail, you know advancements in technology) is such a nice place, and I guess too nice (?). I didn’t really get this part of the argument. Like too PC, oh no. Those liberals are going to make me talk to people without racist, sexist, and classist language. There goes our vocabulary, what ever will we say?!?

Jesting aside, the article I’m referencing looks at a very narrow aspect of the Internet, essentially that by making the world cyber and smaller, we connect in a positive way particularly after natural disasters and tragedy. It disregards the realities of cyber bullying, stalking, sexual exploitation of minors, issues of consent, and of course the trolls. Though the author of this piece does make a nominal head nod in that direction, but he doesn’t get the damage done by these actions. I maintain that the Internet has positive and negative features, but it is in a lot of ways where goodness goes to die. It is an unchecked and often unregulated medium so it attracts those who believe they have the right to say and do anything without consequence. Perhaps that is the true myth of the Internet, lack of consequence so now that there may be consequences some are concerned.

No, really this is a thing according to Nathan Heller. Heller seems nostalgic for a time when the Internet was “a hostile, predatory, somewhat haunted place.” Clearly, he hasn’t ever read Jezebel, Feministing, or The Good Men’s Project comments let alone Reddit. The trolls are a live a well, and preying on people. Below is a brief excerpt from the beginning of his piece:

For those of us who learned to love the web best as a hostile, predatory, somewhat haunted place, this kindness is startling—but not as startling as it might once have been. These days, life online has become friendly, well mannered, oversweet. Everyone is on his or her very best behavior—and if they’re not, they tend to be quickly iced out of the conversation. The sweet camaraderie that flourished during Sandy isn’t just for terror and crisis anymore; it has become the way the Internet lives now. 

And it’s made converts of even the most truculent cases. In mid-October, Perez Hilton, the famously snide online ogler of celebrities, decided to turn over a new leaf, and delivered the message in song. “I resolved I must be kind!” he sang onstage at a 42nd Street theater, the New York Times reported, part of a recent public shift he’s tried to make toward a friendlier, gentler approach to celebrity culture. (It meant a lot to publicists.) Gawker, once considered the reigning champion of snark, has similarly moved away from its claws-out mission and toward more earnest investigative efforts—often with the aim of making the world a better place. Among the site’s most notable stories this fall was the outing and shaming of Reddit’s ViolentAcrez, one of the Internet’s most notorious trolls. (Gawker and Hilton’s site are surely catering to the market in some sense, but the market itself may be changing: For years, it was their meanness, not their generosity, that earned them page views.)If anything, these days, we risk regarding the web as too much of a cultural mirror or, at least, a mirror pointed in the wrong direction: Good faith has become indistinguishable from good speech, and agreeable words risk outweighing the actions that push them toward fruition. In truth, crucial decisions are never quite as simple as an exclamation-filled post of support. We’ve just emerged from a bitter election season through which many of us moved forward fueled by like-minded applause, seeing only what we wished to see. Yet what comes next isn’t a cuddle; it’s a struggle. As Sandy reminds us, progress requires strain, discord, and difficult choices. Even the worthiest environmental initiatives come at a cost. Organics can leave a greater carbon footprint than canned food; local produce can cost jobs somewhere far away. Believing in something means being prepared to disagree about it—to fight over it. But who wants to give a thumbs-up to that?

So let’s start with the beginning of this excerpt. What Internet does this guy have where everyone is on their best behavior? Because if I comment on anything from Ohio, I’m called at best a dirty hippie at worst receive rape threats. Or is this behavior their best? Heller acknowledges Sandy, but doesn’t address how this specific disaster has changed the discourse, but we’ll come back to this.

Second paragraph, Heller calls out Perez Hilton, Gawker, and the outing of predatory trolls as examples of how the Internet has changed. Hilton’s case is very specific. I’m a reader over there. I can’t help it. But Hilton turned over a new left when the gay bullying got really bad, and kids were killing themselves left and right. Hilton was trying to live up to what he was telling kids. Don’t bully and survive. He was also undergoing this transition when Lohan and Spears went off the track with serious issues. Gawker feels a little more financial. The whole network of Gawker sites seemed to take a minute and decide to more news like and aimed to be taken more seriously. I’m not saying it worked, but they have distanced themselves from their porn site (Fleshbot). Finally, on Reddit, so I’m completely in favor of outing these tools. Everything has consequences, if you can say it you can take what you get. This brings me back to the change in discourse online.

So with the Occupy movement, revolutions, and Anonymous discourse has changed online. For real. Information spreads quickly and effectively. The chant “the whole world is watching” has taken on a literal meaning. Occupy follows in the same vein, which was seen in Occupy Sandy; people can mobilize in hours what used to take days. A call on Twitter can yield results from all over the world. And because of this there is a new recognition about how our actions affect other people. Perhaps a less, we are the world example for Mr. Heller, The Innocence of Muslims. Clips went out on the Internet and riots started that evening. I would be interested in hearing Heller’s response to that. The Internet now also a tool for violence. Civil unrest goes both way, and I’m in favor. We can’t pick and choose.

So Anonymous works really well here with Heller’s discussion of Reddit, except he doesn’t mention them, and I have to wonder if it is because they do not fit his model. Anonymous has successfully gone after people who they perceive to be preying on young people. I think of the poor girl who killed herself after being sexually exploited online (wait I thought the Internet is full of people holding hands?). They outed him, and he lost his job. I’m crying on the inside. Troll Justice. That is the other side to this story Heller doesn’t mention at all. The Internet is unregulated in theory so the participants have found ways to regulated it from within i.e. moderators and such groups like Anonymous. You threaten people, you sexually exploit people, you act like a racist, and there are repercussions for actions and words. Don’t like it, sign off.

There was also quite the scandal after President Obama’s reelection. Racists were posting all kinds of racist things. Many of these racists were students, and the Internet had screenshots of their racism so even when they deleted them there was nothing that could be done. And they are really sorry, you guys. Too damn bad. I believe what I say, and while opinions change I will fess up to everything I’ve written. Oh, is racism not fashionable? Then don’t be racist.

Now, Heller makes a jump to how the Internet should be a place of free discourse without fear of what will be done to you. See below, his conclusion:

He argues that we can’t just agree with one another; we must disagree for progress. Shenanigans. I disagree with people all the time. This idea that we can’t possibly have an honest conversation without deregulation is bullshit. Additionally, it is the risk most of us take every day when we speak out online. So apparently, those in privilege would like to not be held accountable for their words and action, while the rest of us can be threatened and exploited at their discretion. Of course, Heller concludes with some antagonistic comments, which appears to be a challenge right. Look, at how he’s been silenced because of niceness.

Sorry bro, that doesn’t fly here. You want to be a tool then be one, but don’t get pissy when people hold you accountable for it.