Does the internet change morality?

[Jagella]

Most of us realize that we should not insult, harass, or otherwise abuse those who disagree with us. Generally, we can discuss with people issues including heated issues without insulting those people or calling them names. If we invite people into our homes to talk, then it is rare that we will kick out anybody who doesn't side with us.

OK, most of you should realize that I'm not talking about what we do over the internet. Many people in online media very often do insult, harass, and abuse people who disagree with them. They engage in name calling. Many who sponsor social media are some of the worst abusers using their power over the media to interfere with the posted messages of anybody who doesn't support the agenda. Some individuals show little interest in discussing the issues and opt to attack those whom they hate.

So do you approve of what goes on online? Are our ideas of how we treat others different on the internet?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, the Internet changes people. Yes, our ideas of how to treat others differs on the Internet, but mostly because most of us on the Internet are not people. The Internet is populated by bots that have no consideration for a human's being, and no compunction about pretending to be be human.

I fear for the future.

 

[dybmh]

Many people in online media very often do insult, harass, and abuse people who disagree with them.

This is what I think. I think that a natural consequence of internet usage for entertainment, for news, for socializing, is that it reduces attention span and increases the demand for instant gratification. These effects have been measured and they are consistently observable with a connection to internet usage.

In the extreme cases, these phenomena produce a sort of ADHD like behavior. There's a very interesting model for understanding ADD and ADHD put forward by Thom Hartmann called the Hunter-Farmer spectrum. Those with ADD and ADHD are more naturally suited to be hunters, and those without are more naturally suited to be farmers. He's trying to establish a sort of neuro-diversity model for the so-called disruptive behaviors that parents and teachers observed from children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD. Thom Hartmann started a very unique school in Vermont called The Hunter school, now closed, for children who were not able to succeed in any other academic setting. These were extreme cases.

The point I'm trying to make is: the behavior you're describing is, in a lot of ways, hunting for prey. The internet bully is hunting and sniping, like with a rifle. But instead of shooting with a bullet, they are insulting, mocking, pointing and laughing, etc... I think, that behavior is encouraged by excessive internet use. I don't think the internet bully is evil. I think that they're brain chemistry has changed. I think they have difficulty focusing, I think they're attention span has atrophied, and they have become more like hunters on the internet. And. If they are using their lack of attention span for the purpose of hunting, they can feel good about it, such that they can ignore the negative side effects of being online excessively and justify what has become an internet addiction or dependency.

Hunter versus farmer hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[McBell]

Yes, the Internet changes people.

I disagree.
For the most part, I say that the internet with its anonymity actually reveals who people really are.

the anonymity means they do not have to fear being punched in the mouth over something they say.

 

[LuisDantas]

Behavior and even values change all the time due to a myriad of circunstances.

Various Internet environments certainly are among those circunstances, but we really should attempt to be more specific than that and take advantage of the positives as well.

 

[EinGeheimkonto]

The fact that you can be anonymous over the internet tends to lead to a lot of dishonesty and virtue signaling over anything else.

Also, any anonymous forum that gets big enough will at some point be astroturfed by corporate or political interests, adding to the dishonesty factor.

 

[ChristineM]

So do you approve of what goes on online? Are our ideas of how we treat others different on the internet?

Yes, though i don't frequent any hate sites, which are fortunately few, but unfortunately seem to have a large following.
I would say the internet allows you to be who you are without the constraint of being punched in the face for saying your piece.
I've found it very handy for sorting out genuinely nice people for not so nice people.

 

[Augustus]

Many people in online media very often do insult, harass, and abuse people who disagree with them

People may behave very differently in crowds than they do alone or in small groups.

People behave differently when they get emotional feedback in direct personal communication than when interacting with words in a screen.

Words in a screen have low information richness which affords greater potential for miscommunication.

Our innate biases mean even those acting in relatively good faith will misunderstand more frequently.

We need to fill in more gaps which means more generalisations, stereotypes and jumping to assumptions based on assumed “clusters” of characteristics.

Online communication tends to encourage siloing/thought bubbles and emphasises in group out group logic.

People behave in a manner to gain status within their peer group.

Misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting out groups helps gain online status.

Of course this change the way people interact online.

(And this is without considering things like trolling, tongue in cheek interactions or the deliberate adoption of a persona for entertainment or interest).

The idea that this is more likely to be someone’s “true self” is silly. People’s behaviour is contextually contingent, and I’d assume very little about someone’s demeanour IRL based on their online interactions with those they disagree with.

It’s like thinking the best way to judge someone’s “true self” is to evaluate their behaviour in a crowd watching a cup final against their fiercest rivals after drinking 6 pints of lager.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most of us realize that we should not insult, harass, or otherwise abuse those who disagree with us. Generally, we can discuss with people issues including heated issues without insulting those people or calling them names. If we invite people into our homes to talk, then it is rare that we will kick out anybody who doesn't side with us.

OK, most of you should realize that I'm not talking about what we do over the internet. Many people in online media very often do insult, harass, and abuse people who disagree with them. They engage in name calling. Many who sponsor social media are some of the worst abusers using their power over the media to interfere with the posted messages of anybody who doesn't support the agenda. Some individuals show little interest in discussing the issues and opt to attack those whom they hate.

So do you approve of what goes on online? Are our ideas of how we treat others different on the internet?

The internet shows people how they really are and is not cloistered and insulated like media was in the old days.


Sometimes the shock of it all can affect a person's sense of morality and leads into various directions depending on how sensitive and insensitive people are when they use a medium like the internet.

 

[Quintessence]

So do you approve of what goes on online?

I neither approve nor disapprove - it simply is and will be regardless of my sentiments so there is little point to passing such judgements. Plus "what goes on online" is about as broad as "what goes on in forests" or "what goes on in households" - how do you make any meaningful statements about that?

Are our ideas of how we treat others different on the internet?

There's no "our" in this. One should only speak for oneself. Or consult social scientists who have done proper academic study of this question at the broader level. I don't doubt that's been done. You can probably reach out to a professor in a relevant department at a nearby university for some leads there.

Speaking just for oneself, I don't treat other humans differently just because it's the internet. I have a hard time understanding doing otherwise, if I'm honest. Any differences are because of the nature of the medium. I am far more articulate in writing than in spoken word. That's sad, in a way, but it is what it is. It's gotten better over the years, but there's still quite the gulf there. I am just not much of a speaker, I'm a writer.

 

[Balthazzar]

I disagree.
For the most part, I say that the internet with its anonymity actually reveals who people really are.

the anonymity means they do not have to fear being punched in the mouth over something they say.

It's a lot like going to a bar, then?

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a lot like going to a bar, then?

You know, you may have presented it in quite the right way.

People go to bars because there is a certain set of expectations and social rituais in there. The same can be said of many other places, both presential and online.

The way I see it, the innovation and challenge that the Internet presents is not in the simple existence of a new sort of social environment; it is in the disorientation from having no obvious and stable social protocols.

That may be a good thing in disguise, but the challenge is there all the same.

 

[Balthazzar]

You know, you may have presented it in quite the right way.

People go to bars because there is a certain set of expectations and social rituais in there. The same can be said of many other places, both presential and online.

The way I see it, the innovation and challenge that the Internet presents is not in the simple existence of a new sort of social environment; it is in the disorientation from having no obvious and stable social protocols.

That may be a good thing in disguise, but the challenge is there all the same.

I was alluding to getting whiskey bent where some people get to feeling 10ft tall and bullet proof, comparable to a loss sense of, or thought to possible consequence. Online, it's anonymity. At the bar, it's lack of sobriety, so it may amount to not being sober minded here and there.

 

[Ostronomos]

Aha ha ha.

 

[Jagella]

Yes, the Internet changes people. Yes, our ideas of how to treat others differs on the Internet, but mostly because most of us on the Internet are not people. The Internet is populated by bots that have no consideration for a human's being, and no compunction about pretending to be be human.

I've never heard of that before. Are there bots on this board?

I fear for the future.

It's not that bad. Maybe the world would be better off with fewer people and more bots.

 

[Jagella]

This is what I think. I think that a natural consequence of internet usage for entertainment, for news, for socializing, is that it reduces attention span and increases the demand for instant gratification. These effects have been measured and they are consistently observable with a connection to internet usage.

In the extreme cases, these phenomena produce a sort of ADHD like behavior. There's a very interesting model for understanding ADD and ADHD put forward by Thom Hartmann called the Hunter-Farmer spectrum. Those with ADD and ADHD are more naturally suited to be hunters, and those without are more naturally suited to be farmers. He's trying to establish a sort of neuro-diversity model for the so-called disruptive behaviors that parents and teachers observed from children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD. Thom Hartmann started a very unique school in Vermont called The Hunter school, now closed, for children who were not able to succeed in any other academic setting. These were extreme cases.

The point I'm trying to make is: the behavior you're describing is, in a lot of ways, hunting for prey. The internet bully is hunting and sniping, like with a rifle. But instead of shooting with a bullet, they are insulting, mocking, pointing and laughing, etc... I think, that behavior is encouraged by excessive internet use. I don't think the internet bully is evil. I think that they're brain chemistry has changed. I think they have difficulty focusing, I think they're attention span has atrophied, and they have become more like hunters on the internet. And. If they are using their lack of attention span for the purpose of hunting, they can feel good about it, such that they can ignore the negative side effects of being online excessively and justify what has become an internet addiction or dependency.

That's a very elaborate explanation for cyber bullying. In my experiences I've found that most forums have agendas of some sort--very often social or religious agendas. Anybody there who argues counter to the agenda most often becomes targeted for abuse and eventual banning. In other words there's a cult-like culture in many forums in which dissent is frowned upon. The "moderators" are really just bullies who are there to enforce the agenda. If you're on the bandwagon, then you're free to harass and insult dissenters with impunity. If you're a dissenter, then one wrong move will get you banned even if you were just defending yourself from the bullying.

 

[dybmh]

That's a very elaborate explanation for cyber bullying. In my experiences I've found that most forums have agendas of some sort--very often social or religious agendas. Anybody there who argues counter to the agenda most often becomes targeted for abuse and eventual banning. In other words there's a cult-like culture in many forums in which dissent is frowned upon. The "moderators" are really just bullies who are there to enforce the agenda. If you're on the bandwagon, then you're free to harass and insult dissenters with impunity. If you're a dissenter, then one wrong move will get you banned even if you were just defending yourself from the bullying.

I hear you. You may be right. It sounds like you have more experience than I do on this.

What I'm observing, I think, is the underlying vector of change on the individual which turns them into a bully when they weren't prior to their excessive and/or regular diet of internet usage.

Then, maybe, these individuals seek out the agenda driven venues bolstering their membership and helping to create the circular firing squad you're describing.

I'm an optimist, so, my natural inclination is to assume most people are good natured until some outside influence shifts them into to a mode of justifying malicious behavior. Then I think the individual is nourished emotionally by harming others, in a way that they cannot achieve any other way, and this sets up a sort addictive cycle which self-perpetuates.

 

[Jagella]

I'm an optimist, so, my natural inclination is to assume most people are good natured until some outside influence shifts them into to a mode of justifying malicious behavior. Then I think the individual is nourished emotionally by harming others, in a way that they cannot achieve any other way, and this sets up a sort addictive cycle which self-perpetuates.

I've thought of what I formatted in bold. It seems that many people want to lash out at others but generally hesitate to do so because of fearing immediate and possibly violent retribution. The internet for the most part eliminates that risk with its relative distance and anonymity. So I think that's why we see so much trolling behavior online.

 

[dybmh]

I've thought of what I formatted in bold. It seems that many people want to lash out at others but generally hesitate to do so because of fearing immediate and possibly violent retribution. The internet for the most part eliminates that risk with its relative distance and anonymity. So I think that's why we see so much trolling behavior online.

Agreed. I think another poster mentioned that too. You're probably correct about that.

 

[dybmh]

but generally hesitate

In addition to the lack of consequences, could there be an increased impulsivity in regard to internet interactions as opposed to person to person, face to face interactions?