The Cedar Lounge Revolution

Social networking. Not necessarily funny. At all. August 24, 2010

What of this?

THE GARDA have warned people who set up pages inciting racism on online social networks that they are open to prosecution, and even people who join these sites could face charges.
Sgt David McInerney of the Garda Racial and Intercultural Office said site hosts like Facebook were also “open to prosecution” if there was a valid complaint about racist online material.
“It is only a matter of time before a prosecution is brought,” he said.

For an example of the worst sort of on-line activity in these areas you’d not have to go far to see these as being typical…

Two anti-Traveller pages were recently pulled by Facebook following complaints from members of the public.
One of the sites had more than 8,000 members before it was closed down, while another site still in operation which promotes abuse against Travellers has more than 300 members.

Although in my own life I have a Facebook page I have, and some will have noticed this – so apologies (or should they be thanking me ), not updated it since Christmas. To be honest there’s only so much time and that seemed like a bridge too far. Concentrate on the main stuff. But, I’ve never found much to inspire me about Facebook pages that have that semi- ‘campaigning’ element. It doesn’t seem, in the main, to translate to the broader world.

And in a curious way Facebook doesn’t seem to lend itself, at least to my mind, to that in the same way as other networks. It always seems a bit detached, not least in the curious formulation of the name of the person starting off every sentence. Joe27 is just home from Inception and likes it, doesn’t quite lend itself to Jane31 wants to start a riot later this evening.

Although that analysis may be wrong.

Sgt McInerney encouraged people with complaints to continue to come forward. He described racist online activity as “very harmful” and “a very very serious form of crime. People don’t realise the harm it causes. Such sites can lead directly to racial abuse against minorities in the streets.”
It’s possible although causal relationships would, I presume, be difficult to prove.

As it happens there’s another, somewhat less pernicious – although arguably more widespread – aspect to on-line discourse which was pointed up by a piece on Slate in recent weeks. One of their contributors went off-line for a long number of weeks simply to see whether it was possible to do so – and naturally discovered that, despite being linked in to various social and business on-line networks it was indeed possible. So much so that he has decided to strictly curtail his on-line access. This seems to me to be sensible. There’s very much a sense in my mind that some on-line activity is a thief of time. Again, that’s a commodity that I find increasingly precious.

But one aspect of this which he quoted an excerpt from a letter to him during this period is perhaps reflecting upon. A correspondent suggested that:

What strikes me most about the Internet, is just how devoid of compassion and empathy it is. Something about anonymity and not having to look the other person in the eye makes for very cruel, one sided interations. It removes our humanity, both as subjects of discourse and objects of discourse. I say this both as someone who has ruthlessly attacked others via internet communication and as someone who has been attacked. This is one reason I no longer read blog comments, message boards, forums or the like. It is just too disheartening.

I think I know what they mean. Outside of a circle of blogs and sites that I trust I tend to avoid reading comments. Guardian on-line is perhaps the worst, but it’s by no means unique. There is a terrible leaden inevitability not so much to the opinions – which in truth bar the most extreme are fairly innocuous, if occasionally irritating, on all sides, but to the form the interactions take where it becomes one half-truth being used to batter others. And, few are exempt. What’s fascinating to see is how this form overwhelms content, indeed in some respects trumps it. So we can see when – say – a site exchanges proponents of one worldview with another, and it happens, that the underlying dynamics remain very much the same.

And we all become prey to this. I know I am and have been. And it’s uniquely irritating, because that level of discourse is something I’ve generally hoped I grew out of early on in life. But no, it’s there, dogging ones steps.

What will be of particular concern, and utility, will be to see if there are quantifiable outcomes from social networking. Whether the person quoted on Slate is correct in his or her perception. And whether that online mode of expression transitions to offline modes of expression.