Quick thoughts on the Internet on the Daily Show

[sistermagpie]

You know, I'm listening to this guy on The Daily Show talk about how the Internet is so awful and...well, he obviously has read a lot of stuff because he's referring to stuff that goes on "these threads" and all, but honestly he just doesn't really seem to get it.

I think after all this time I've gotten to the point that the minute somebody starts saying things like "but where are you? You're just sitting at home in front of your computer! You're no one going nowhere and doing nothing! Talking to somebody on the phone is totally personal, but this is talking to phantoms!" I just have to dismiss them as people who don't get the Internet. I'm as interested as the next person in discussing the differences in Internet relationships and RL relationships, but if you're just waving your hand vaguely and saying, "It's like talking to a ghost!" then get back to me when you have a problem beyond just feeling weird about something new and different.

His suggestion that we project onto other people on the 'net because we can't see them is interesting and I think there could be some truth in that, but it's obviously not *all* people do when conversing on the 'net--nor is it something nobody does in person.

Sometimes it just strikes me that I'm pretty sure when I was a kid and people complained about TV they probably would have touted the superiority of the written word. Look at all that old correspondence that famous people used to write in the last century. So eloquent and impressive, is letter-writing." And now it's "You're talking to somebody but they're not actually in front of you! You can't see them-communicating through the written word doesn't work!"

I also find it ironic that he mentioned that story about the mother who drove the kid down the street to suicide with a fake Internet persona, just because the guy's obviously focusing on the fake Internet persona and not mentioning that this was actually a neighborhood feud that spilled onto the Internet. Iow, yes the Internet offered her a way to torment the girl while hiding behind a fake persona, but the problem was created face to face. In fact, a lot of big wanks look like weird neighborhood brawls--especially if your neighborhood was Salem, Mass. 1692.

Comments

[samaranth.livejournal.com]

I have been having virtually the same argument with the people I work with. You know where I work, you know that part of the deal is seeing how the net is used, particularly by kids. There’s been the exponential growth in Web 2.0 services (LJ included – hey, we were social networking even before they’d invented the term!) – and an exponential growth in the divide between those who can see how good, and how much potential these things have and those who think it’s the embodiment of evil. It’s almost impossible to shift the latter group in their opinions.

I get really tired of the endless ‘but why would you want to do this, put all this out there, share photos, chat to people you don’t know…’ And I keep saying ‘But I do know them!’ For kids and young people there’s little distinction between communicating face to face, or via the net/mobile phone/ smoke signals. 'Friends' has a thousand different meanings. This is life now. Deal.

And exactly: the Megan Meiers case is sadly indicative of the fact that whenever something bad happens now people automatically look for an internet – usually MySpace – connection, as if it’s that which is the problem rather than the behaviour behind whatever it is. Bullying, harassment, and neighbourhood disputes all happen in the day to day world too. It’s treated like a new phenomenon when really it’s as old as the hills. Ditto with lots of other things…

It’s an interesting question about projection. I guess so – I remember in the early days trying to work out who everyone was in Frodo’s Kitchen. Perhaps not so much projection, as trying to learn how to read personalities without the usual signals. And even then these friendships have spilled into the day to day life. Names have faces and voices now. :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This just reminded me how in Harriet the Spy Harriet used to play a game where she'd listen to people talk and try to imagine what they looked like and then check to see if she was right. That kind of be the same on the 'net.

People always talk about how you "don't know" the person because you can't see them, and it's true people can be conned--but they're conned in real life too. Why do I know the guy I met in the coffee shop is a nice guy just because he looks nice any more than I know the guy who earnestly argued Tolkien with me is nice because he sounds nice? It seems like in reacting against the 'net people sometimes put a little too much faith in their supposed instincts at telling what people are like in person!

Also it seems like people don't get the kinds of conversations you have the 'net, that so many of us really are just interested in conversing with people rather than posing or tricking people. So maybe you talk about a certain thing but eventually it spills out into your life--like in Frodo's Kitchen I can't remember how it came for all of us where we were all from, but it turned out it was a big international group. If you're talking about hobbits what's the worst kind of deception that could be going on, after all? That the person really doesn't like Samwise?

It's like anything involving people, it's complicated. Sometimes the anonymity does add something to it for people.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

It seems like in reacting against the 'net people sometimes put a little too much faith in their supposed instincts at telling what people are like in person!

And a little too little faith in their abilities to tell what people are like based on what they say and how they say it.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Sometimes it's like they're so weirded out by the whole thing they don't think they can tell anyone on the 'net apart at all. We're all just talking in random numbers, letters and emoticons.

[truehobbit.livejournal.com]

I dunno - the people I've met on the 'net are all a bunch of nutcases.
Sometimes they apparently even enjoy my company - I mean, how wacky can you get?

:P

Using the internet for communication, rather than information is still not quite common here, I think. Communication is largely restricted to e-mail, but even that's sometimes considered slightly odd.
Two anecdotes from my recent job, which I thought were strange but telling:
One day I overheard a colleague telling another how she felt annoyed by someone expecting her to have received an e-mail the same day it was sent - she made it sound as if she thought it was odd to read your e-mails each day.
I wondered whether she also thought it odd to pick up the phone each time it rang, or even to see if there's something new on your answering machine when you get home...
The other time, I got an e-mail request from a colleague, but couldn't be bothered to answer right away, thinking I'd do it the next day. However, I forgot and only remembered the day after. I felt rather guilty about the delay when I replied - only to be thanked for the 'swift response' in the answer back (and it didn't seem to be meant ironically). :D

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hee! I love that difference in people. It really is the weird thing about e-mail. It gets there right away, but there's a big difference in how fast people can get to them. You can tell you're an Internet person that you feel guilty about the couple days wait!