Anonymous says...

I agree with David Weinberger that conversation is important in establishing common ground and understanding in a democracy. I also believe his analysis of “echo chambers” is fair and reasonable. It is not a failure for the Internet to have echo chambers. Weinberger articulates the point that having groups of people “egging each other on” is in fact worse than an “echo chamber” of like-minded believers. Weinberger cites the examples of the Huffington Post and RedState as examples of liberal and conservative echo-chambers. Both sites allow like-minded contributors to exchange and debate ideas from their area of the political spectrum. The contributors wish to share their views and consider others.

I think one point that the author misses are the instances in which “sabotage” users post nasty comments in an otherwise healthy line of debate. Some may disregard these occurrences as irrelevant and unimportant. Weinberger himself says that these sorts of outrageous comments are quickly moderated out or ignored. There’s one problem with that. Instances of bomb-throwers in echo-chamber blogs DO get the attentions of many mainstream media outlets. For example, if a conservative wished to discredit or delegitimize the Huffington Post in the eyes of the larger public, they could simply sign up for the site and start posting some outrageously bigoted remarks. In a matter of time, some of the comments come to the attention of mainstream media outlets who begin to label the Post as a “hate site.” And because of the anonymity which the internet provides, no real information about the bloggers can ever really be identified. There is no more effective strategy of silencing your political opponent and tainting their image. It’s really no different from a protester dressing up as a Neo-Nazi and attending a political rally. Once the cameras capture the outrageous figure, the candidate or cause is irreparably tainted. Mission accomplished. On the web, this is made even easier, because people are not physically around their peers, so no real accountability is possible.

As much as I enjoy my own anonymity on the web, I think it is one of the central problems in online discourse. It is a wholly different experience from someone announcing their views in a protest before a courthouse or in soft conversation in the privacy of their home. The point is that in these instances, the person is not separated from their words and their viewpoint. They can be shunned or ridiculed for what they say. In effect, there are actual consequences. I realize myself how easy it is to say something meaner or more ridiculous on the internet simply because your person isn’t attached to it. When we are responsible for our speech, we tend to curb outrageous or insensitive comments – because there are consequences.

Cyber-bullying is the extreme example of the potentially harmful effects of internet communication. Disparaging someone online becomes much easier than saying the same things to their face. Take the example of Phoebe Prince who was bullied in class and online until she eventually committed suicide. Some states are even considering legislation to target cyberbullies. I'm not sure if legal action is the best course of action. Educating people about the potential abuse of online communication seems like the solution as people devote more and more of their time to communicating online.