Does the internet change morality?

[Augustus]

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.

It seems to me patently incorrect that the main reason people don't behave more like that in real life is simply that they fear a violent response. Otherwise people would do it more often to those they don't fear.

Some people are vindictive and cruel, but I'd say this is a small minority.

People behave very differently in football crowds than they would in direct personal communication. Reserved, polite people will shout and swear aggressively, dance and sing and feel a form of hatred for the opposition. They don't secretly want to do this all the time except that they fear a punch in the face. It's not like they do this to folk IRL who are weaker than them and no threat.

In a local rivalry, the opposition crowd they are doing this towards often contains many of their friends who they will meet for a friendly drink after the match. Online discussion often doesn't have the clear end point after which folk just go back to normal, and increasing polarisation means fewer people meet up with their 'enemies' and return to seeing them as their friends and colleagues.

It's like the ancient and medieval carnival times where normal rules didn't apply and people could let off steam. Behaviour and its rules of etiquette are contextually contingent

People's behaviour is mediated by both positive and negative feedback. Most bad behaviour online is just people seeking status in an arena with different rewards, or people playing a kind of game. As folk are generally isolated from seeing any negative effects of their behaviour, different dynamics apply.

IRL, people are far more likely to refrain from behaviour out of politeness, or for fear of hurting or upsetting someone than they are because they fear a punch in the face.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Does the internet change morality?

No. If something is morally wrong, it is wrong whether or not the internet exists.

Does the internet change people's behavioral patterns and cause them to view their own statements in a different moral light?

Yes. But now we're talking about behavioral psychology. Not morality.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

Yep. No accountability.

 

[Jagella]

Most bad behaviour online is just people seeking status in an arena with different rewards, or people playing a kind of game. As folk are generally isolated from seeing any negative effects of their behaviour, different dynamics apply.

Yes, online behavior often resembles a game of sorts. It's a kind of mischief where the goal is to insult and harass a person who has a minority opinion and get away with it. This goal is often made achievable by moderators who are also biased against the minority viewpoint and who will allow harassment of the dissenter by people on the bandwagon. If the dissenter fights back, then the moderator will censor the dissenter or even ban the dissenter. I was treated that way on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. Here's one of my threads Is there a God of atheism? My name there was Unknown Soldier. Note how I was being trolled on that thread, and that the mods didn't do anything about the trolls.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If they didn't know before who they really are, wouldn't that be a change?

 

[Willamena]

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

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

I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, online behavior often resembles a game of sorts. It's a kind of mischief where the goal is to insult and harass a person who has a minority opinion and get away with it. This goal is often made achievable by moderators who are also biased against the minority viewpoint and who will allow harassment of the dissenter by people on the bandwagon. If the dissenter fights back, then the moderator will censor the dissenter or even ban the dissenter. I was treated that way on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. Here's one of my threads Is there a God of atheism? My name there was Unknown Soldier. Note how I was being trolled on that thread, and that the mods didn't do anything about the trolls.

That’s not surprising.

2 of my rules of thumb are that:

People who identify as “freethinkers” are among the most homogenous and predictable of all groups

And

The 2 groups of people who are least open to revising their deeply held ideological beliefs are fundamentalists and “rationalists”.

 

[Jagella]

That’s not surprising.

2 of my rules of thumb are that:

People who identify as “freethinkers” are among the most homogenous and predictable of all groups

The Internet Infidels website lauds "free thinking," yet the IIDB was very biased against dissenters or at least very biased against my dissent. So atheists can be very dogmatic too.

And

The 2 groups of people who are least open to revising their deeply held ideological beliefs are fundamentalists and “rationalists”.

Obviously those who call themselves "rationalists" are not necessarily rational. Inconsistent thinking is not the sole province of the religious.