Social Networking and Social Responsibility

[Roman]

And that's at the heart of the question: Given that there are human beings behind these avatars and façades, what responsible consideration do we owe potential emotional and psychiatric fragility?

None.
If they don't like it, they can walk away. One assumes they're here on their own time, after all.

If it was school or the work place, it'd be different.

 

[greenberg]

What are our social obligations in a semi-anonymous social network?

...

And that's at the heart of the question: Given that there are human beings behind these avatars and façades, what responsible consideration do we owe potential emotional and psychiatric fragility?

None. For to give any appropriate "responsible consideration" to "potential emotional and psychiatric fragility" would take according professional education and so on (starting with diagnosis, which, even in a professional real world setting, is not a simple and straightforward thing). In my estimation, lays trying to play professionals usually turns out bad, very bad.

That said, the internet is one of the gray areas, in every sense - cognitive, moral, financial, time-wise, social ...
People are in a situation where they can care, but where they can't really do anything of much value. Care over the internet is, mildly put, a perversion of care.
I find that no care is better than a perversion of care.

 

[Baron Max]

If people really cared about others as most people claim, would there be as much strife, poverty and conflict in the world as is now present? Or do those people just "claim" to care, but don't really care? ...make the claim so they fit in with others who make those same grandiose claims? ...or so they won't be ostracized for telling the truth?

What was the last event, problem, etc, that people claimed to care about? Burma? It's not a distant historical event that's obviously of little or no importance. Or perhaps the bombing of Lebanon? Geez, that's ancient fuckin' history ...all but forgotten. The tsunami disaster in Indonesia? Huh? What tsunami?? ...LOL!

Oh, but we cared, didn't we? Didn't we whine and cry about "those poor people"? And yet ..."those poor people" are still poor and they're trying to rebuild their lives ...while we all go to the movies and out to dinner for a grand, happy evening of fun and laughter. And we can actually claim that we care? Really? (I'm laughing my ass off!)

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Ah, it's so liberating, isn't it, to have no obligations whatsoever toward the people you deal with.

Tina and Ron saw a grief counselor. Tina went to a couple of Parents After Loss of Suicide meetings, as well.

They tried to message Josh Evans, to let him know the deadly power of mean words. But his MySpace account had been deleted.

The day after Megan's death, they went down the street to comfort the family of the girl who had once been Megan's friend. They let the girl and her family know that although she and Megan had their ups and down, Megan valued her friendship.

They also attended the girl's birthday party, although Ron had to leave when it came time to sing "Happy Birthday." The Meiers went to the father's 50th birthday celebration. In addition, the Meiers stored a foosball table, a Christmas gift, for that family.

Six weeks after Megan died, on a Saturday morning, a neighbor down the street, a different neighbor, one they didn't know well, called and insisted that they meet that morning at a counselor's office in northern O'Fallon.

The woman would not provide details. Ron and Tina went. Their grief counselor was there. As well as a counselor from Fort Zumwalt West Middle School.

The neighbor from down the street, a single mom with a daughter the same age as Megan, informed the Meiers that Josh Evans never existed.

She told the Meiers that Josh Evans was created by adults, a family on their block. These adults, she told the Meiers, were the parents of Megan's former girlfriend, the one with whom she had a falling out. These were the people who'd asked the Meiers to store their foosball table.

The single mother, for this story, requested that her name not be used. She said her daughter, who had carpooled with the family that was involved in creating the phony MySpace account, had the password to the Josh Evans account and had sent one message - the one Megan received (and later retrieved off the hard drive) the night before she took her life.

"She had been encouraged to join in the joke," the single mother said.

The single mother said her daughter feels the guilt of not saying something sooner and for writing that message. Her daughter didn't speak out sooner because she'd known the other family for years and thought that what they were doing must be OK because, after all, they were trusted adults.

On the night the ambulance came for Megan, the single mother said, before it left the Meiers' house her daughter received a call. It was the woman behind the creation of the Josh Evans account. She had called to tell the girl that something had happened to Megan and advised the girl not to mention the MySpace account.

(Pokin)

Damn.

I mean, damn.

Good to know it's nobody's fault. Oh, except, of course, for the deceased.

 

[greenberg]

Ah, it's so liberating, isn't it, to have no obligations whatsoever toward the people you deal with.

It seems to me that you assume that by saying
"one has no obligations whatsoever toward the people one deals with"
one is also saying
"... therefore, one can do whatever one wants".

I do not think that way though, nor am I advocating it in any way.

I believe it is possible to act responsibly also due to other intentions, not only out of "regard for others".

That is, two people might have performed similar actions with similar results - but they could have done them with completely different intentions.
One did it "out of regard for others" and the other did it "because they believed it was the right thing to do".

"Regard for others" can be an external description of an action, but "regard for others" can also be an intention that a person can act on.

Many times, the intention of "regard for others" comes out really badly - you probably know of the terrible things that happen sometimes when a person seeks to help another, but only makes everything worse.
In short, having the intention of "regard for others" does not necessarily lead to actions that can be described as "regard for others".

On the other hand, a person's actions can be described as "regard for others", even though the person had no intention of "regard for others" while perfoming those actions. Take for example doctors who are just trying to do their work right - it comes out good, but they don't even know the patient's name.
In short, actions that can be described as "regard for others", are not necessarily performed with the intention of "regard for others".

 

[Tiassa]

Admittedly, Greenberg, I'm just being a bitch about this one. I found some of the voices against social responsibility a tad disingenuous, so I'm sort of rubbing it in. I mean, how long before I eventually stumbled across this or another MySpace teenage horror story? It is, admittedly, a far cry from what goes on here, but it's sick nonetheless. It shows that adults have no better discretion than children. And, since they had to tell the one girl to not say anything, it seems they have less discretion than kids. I picked up this story from Slog, under the headline, "People Suck". (Really, it's not worth the click.)

 

[heliocentric]

I think people still have this real hangup about what goes online and how seriously to take it all.

People who play the game of reductionism (its just text on a screen/not real/just abit of fun) i think tend to have the more invested in it all than anyone else ironically.

It's a lie people quite knowing tell themselves in order to avoid their own response which is useally far more emotional and involved than theyre probably comfortable with.
Even austistics know that theres people behind the words when they communicate with people online (ive spoken to a few).
So when people start claiming 'theyre just words on a screen' its nothing more than self-justifying rhetoric. Someone like Baron (although i could use alot of other people as an example) knows he creates an emotional response in the people behind the words, thats what keeps him comming back.
So when he protests that none of its real anyway so why should he care? its more about absolving himself of responsiblity than anything else - "but i didnt know they were real people!"
On a basic level it's quite encouraging though because the excuse actually shows an understanding that they are commiting a mild form of social transgression.

 

[Baron Max]

It's a lie people quite knowing tell themselves in order to avoid their own response which is useally far more emotional and involved than theyre probably comfortable with.
Even austistics know that theres people behind the words when they communicate with people online (ive spoken to a few).
So when people start claiming 'theyre just words on a screen' its nothing more than self-justifying rhetoric. Someone like Baron ... knows he creates an emotional response in the people behind the words, thats what keeps him comming back.
So when he protests that none of its real anyway so why should he care? its more about absolving himself of responsiblity than anything else - "but i didnt know they were real people!"
On a basic level it's quite encouraging though because the excuse actually shows an understanding that they are commiting a mild form of social transgression.

Interesting. But tell me, do you feel the same way about people who write fiction for novels, magazine articles and such?

See? The issue for me is ...when is it fiction and when is it factual? And that makes a major difference in how I react to the articles (the words on the page of a book or the words on the computer screen). You seem to think that all words typed on the computer screen are factual or valid information ...while I view it as mostly fiction. Makes a big difference ...no?

And likewise, I view the "person" behind the words as nothing more than a creation of someone's vivid imagination .....purely fictional.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Presuming people to be liars, Max, is just a sad excuse to justify your abusive behavior and intellectual sloth.

 

[Baron Max]

Presuming people to be liars, Max, is just a sad excuse to justify your abusive behavior and intellectual sloth.

No, Tiassa, it's because people ARE inherently .....liars!

And what's worse, of course, is that on the Internet, hidden behind anonymity, the lies can be spewed forth without regard to any punishment or social ostracism. The Internet enhances that natural desire/need/trait to lie that all people possess in abundant quantities.

Baron Max

 

[greenberg]

No, Tiassa, it's because people ARE inherently .....liars!

Allright, if you insist - Then be like House MD and show the brilliance of finding the truth despite the lies.

 

[Baron Max]

Allright, if you insist - Then be like House MD and show the brilliance of finding the truth despite the lies.

Can't do it ....there's too fuckin' many lies!

If you should happen to know how to tell lies from truth, I'm sure many people here would love to read about it.

Baron Max

 

[heliocentric]

You seem to think that all words typed on the computer screen are factual or valid information ...while I view it as mostly fiction. Makes a big difference ...no?

No that wasnt the point atall, im talking about recognising that there's a human being behind the text. It doesnt matter whether you believe whats being presented or not, you have to acknowledge their 'humanness' at a fundamental level, otherwise interaction completely breaks down.

And likewise, I view the "person" behind the words as nothing more than a creation of someone's vivid imagination .....purely fictional.

Oh definitely, in some respects your absolutely right.
But then 'real-life' isnt any different in that regard either, we're all works of fiction masquerading under some sort of pretense.
e.g. - even if i dont overtly lie to my peers i can still project the image that best suits my purposes simply through the omission of data.

I think the problem you have isnt really anything to do with online communication, its really a problem of social interaction in general.

 

[Baron Max]

No that wasnt the point atall, im talking about recognising that there's a human being behind the text. It doesnt matter whether you believe whats being presented or not, you have to acknowledge their 'humanness' at a fundamental level, otherwise interaction completely breaks down.

Hmm, interesting. But do you do the same when you read a fiction novel? Do you, for example, recognize some human being behind the characters in the novels? Or do you just read the novels for enjoyment, knowing that it's all just plain ol' fiction and there ain't no real humans in it at all?

No, I don't agree with you ...even at a fundamental level. The posts on this site, or the thousands like it, the people who type the messages are trying to present themselves as someone else ....in no way different to a fiction writer writing about his characters in the novel. There is no need for "human interaction" at all. And indeed, it might actually be more harmful.

I think the problem you have isnt really anything to do with online communication, its really a problem of social interaction in general.

Another interesting comment. Does that mean that you've psychoanalzed a fictional character on sciforums?? ...LOL! Perhaps you should give that some thought ......some very deep thought.

Baron Max

 

[heliocentric]

Hmm, interesting. But do you do the same when you read a fiction novel? Do you, for example, recognize some human being behind the characters in the novels? Or do you just read the novels for enjoyment, knowing that it's all just plain ol' fiction and there ain't no real humans in it at all?

You're trying to ompare apples with organes.
A book = one way communication (the author with you via artistic creations)
Internet = two way communication (you the internet user with other internet users)
So i dont have to worry about how i react to fictional characters in a novel, because for one its explicit that theyre not real, and two they can't respond to anything i throw at them since they have no independent thought or consciousness (since theyre just artistic creations).

No, I don't agree with you ...even at a fundamental level. The posts on this site, or the thousands like it, the people who type the messages are trying to present themselves as someone else ....in no way different to a fiction writer writing about his characters in the novel.

The difference being you can actually meet people off the internet, you cant 'meet' peterpan or dorothy gale no matter how much youd like to.
And interestingly, despite what you might think about online misrepresentation most of the people ive met off the internet have had the exact same opinions, views and characteristics theyve expressed online.
Of course people do amplify and over-egg certain aspect of their online persona, but thats nothing like people building themselves online characters from scratch.

There is no need for "human interaction" at all. And indeed, it might actually be more harmful.

What do you think youre doing now, interacting with a bot?
I mean if you really dont believe youre interacting with a human-being right now, what it is you think thats communicating with you?

Another interesting comment. Does that mean that you've psychoanalzed a fictional character on sciforums?? ...LOL! Perhaps you should give that some thought ......some very deep thought.

Good point actually.How similar is your off-line self to your on-line self?

 

[Baron Max]

So i dont have to worry about how i react to fictional characters in a novel, because for one its explicit that theyre not real, and two they can't respond to anything i throw at them since they have no independent thought or consciousness (since theyre just artistic creations).

Ahh, yeah, but if you and the author were to communicate, with the author using his imaginary fictional character, you'd never know ...you could type away to your heart's content thinking that you were communicating with a real person. When in reality, you'd be communicating with the author ...playing the part of his fictional character.

And interestingly, despite what you might think about online misrepresentation, most of the people ive met off the internet have had the exact same opinions, views and characteristics theyve expressed online.

And just how many people is that? And you base your entire theory on such an insignificant number?

What do you think youre doing now, interacting with a bot? I mean if you really dont believe youre interacting with a human-being right now, what it is you think thats communicating with you?

A fictional character! And being fictional, I have to assume that it's one who is lying in what he says as well as who he claims he is. Or are you really named "Heliocentric"?

Good point actually.How similar is your off-line self to your on-line self?

And the other good point is .....you'll never know. Which is exactly, precisely, what I'm trying to make you realize. Even in real life, people try to project what they'd like to be ....how do you think they'd do if they could remain completely anonymous? ...like on the Internet?

I read somewhere that some 75% of people lie on their resumes ...thinking that the employer probably won't check. If he does check, it's no big loss ...if he doesn't check and hires them, then the guy is sitting in tall cotton, ain't he? See? Lies, lies, lies, lies, ........that's what humans do best.

Baron Max

 

[greenberg]

Ahh, yeah, but if you and the author were to communicate, with the author using his imaginary fictional character, you'd never know ...you could type away to your heart's content thinking that you were communicating with a real person. When in reality, you'd be communicating with the author ...playing the part of his fictional character.

This leads me to think that a big fear some people have when communicating with others (IRL, but probably moreso online) is that someone would have them for a fool.
And so to avoid this, they seek to depersonalize the whole communication.

 

[sniffy]

Although it may be possible to maintain a 'persona' for a certain amount of time in real life as well as on the internet doesn't the 'real person' begin to seep through eventually? even the most skilled actors cannot maintain an 'act' indefinately. Also, Isn't attempting to hide one's personality an indicator of psychopathy?

 

[heliocentric]

Ahh, yeah, but if you and the author were to communicate, with the author using his imaginary fictional character, you'd never know ...you could type away to your heart's content thinking that you were communicating with a real person. When in reality, you'd be communicating with the author ...playing the part of his fictional character.

I think youve over-stretched the analogy abit there.

And just how many people is that? And you base your entire theory on such an insignificant number?

Ive met 5, although bare in mind ive also asked other people ive met off the net about their experiences with people theyve met off t'internet. So the figure is more like 20.
Yeah still quite a small number, but youre forgetting that i only have to meet *one* person who's personality matches up with their online persona to disprove your theory.
And how many people are you basing your theory on btw, zero?

A fictional character! And being fictional, I have to assume that it's one who is lying in what he says as well as who he claims he is. Or are you really named "Heliocentric"?

How do you define 'fictional character' and using this def' to what degree do you believe people online are fictionalised? e.g do you believe people tell a few porkies here and there or do you believe people invent everything about themsevles - their likes, dislikes, views, opinions?

Also how are you even arriving at these conclusions?

And the other good point is .....you'll never know. Which is exactly, precisely, what I'm trying to make you realize.

Its not like the potential isnt there for me to meet people online though, and no matter what you feel theyre being disingenuous about theyre still human beings (that much we can be sure of).

And comming back to the original point, im willing to bet that youre more or less the exact same person you project in your online life as you are 'offline'.
Purely for the fact that i dont think youd have the stamina to accrue 15,000+ posts pretending to hold views and opinions which arent your own.

See? Lies, lies, lies, lies, ........that's what humans do best.

I really hope that isnt the entire basis of your argument, that barely qualifies as thought.

 

[Baron Max]

I think youve over-stretched the analogy a bit there.

No, I don't think so. And if you think about it some, there are many authors who write numerous novels, series works, with the same characters in each novel. Actors on-screen play the characters regularly in series shows week after week. No, I don't think I've stretched that analogy at all. Think about it.

Ive met 5, although bare in mind ive also asked other people ive met off the net about their experiences with people theyve met off t'internet. So the figure is more like 20.

You're failing to take into account that the people who are willing to meet you might not be projecting a fictional character ....ON THAT INTERNET SITE. But it says nothing about what they do on other sites ....where you don't know who they are. It also says nothing about others who are NOT willing to meet you.

Helio, if someone is lying like a rug, do you seriously think he'd be willing to meet with you in person? So see, only the people who aren't lying are willing to meet you .....and by your own count, that's only 5 out of ....how many?

How do you define 'fictional character' and using this def' to what degree do you believe people online are fictionalised? ....or do you believe people invent everything about themsevles - their likes, dislikes, views, opinions?

Depends on the site, of course. For example, there's several very popular Internet "games" where people invent the character that they wish to play in the games. And notice that I said ....very popular games?

If the sites have anonymous names, then I'm more than willing to assume that lots/most/everything they say is lies in one form or another. It's sorta' like meeting a used car salesman ...don't you just automatically mistrust everything he says? And when you hear a politician speaking, don't you automatically suspect most everything he says?

...im willing to bet that youre more or less the exact same person you project in your online life as you are 'offline'.

And once again, you'll never know. And see, that's the beauty of anonymity on Internet forums ...anyone can be anything they wish.

...Purely for the fact that i dont think youd have the stamina to accrue 15,000+ posts pretending to hold views and opinions which arent your own.

I don't know about that ...perhaps you should go back and check some of my posts. I've been accused on several ocassions of being contradictory and hypocritical from one post to the next. But see ...you'll never know, will you?

Baron Max