musings on the meta

[the_siobhan]

I've been having an onging discussion with the_axel over the last few weeks about the design of LJ and how I think it often serves to encourage really bad behaviour. Or maybe "encourage" is the wrong word. I think it creates a climate where certain kinds of bad behaviour are really easy to do and so people tend to stumble into them without maybe even realizing what they are doing.

If I understood the debate correctly (it usually happens over several beers) Axel's stance is that it's not the fault of the tool when somebody uses it badly. Whereas I think that by configuring tools in a certain way, you encourage certain kinds of use. Kind of a "if the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon every problem starts to look like a nail" kind of situation.

And I think LJ is a particular kind of hammer.

I've seen friends behave in ways that made me squirm with embarrassment for them, at how high-school and immature they were being. And I know they are doing it because they think they can't be seen, that invisibility makes it ok or at the very least harmless. I've seen people manipulate the facts or just flat-out lie to make themselves look like the victim and the good-guy. And I knew that they were doing it because it's really easy to get stroked and have people outraged on their behalf if they bend the facts just a little bit.

There are entire communities who exist solely as a forum for people to be assholes. And the people who post there encourage and applaud each other for their assholishness until everybody starts to think that such behaviour is normal and acceptable. And then they start tracking it out into the rest of their interactions with the world like dogshit on a sneaker. The entire childfree community is a prime example of that particular flavour of bullshit.

And it's not that I think that people don't do shitty things in person, or through other types of communication. It's the LJ seems to be ideally suited for that particular kind of nonsense, with all the filters that let me choose who reads what I write. Or I could just slag people off in public and ban them from being able to defend themselves. And it's tempting sometimes. I hate that shit, it makes me break out in rants and still sometimes it's tempting when something has happened that has pissed me off. I could do it by email but it's so much more effort that it just doesn't occur to me. On LJ it's just a point-and-click away.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not on a LJ suxOrs kick and I'm not about to delete mine. I love the fact that I can have a little rantlet like this and get discussion and feedback from all kinds of people. But I'm occasionally tempted to leave LJ for some other kind of blog format, just because I don't like how high-school it can be at times.

And calling the reading lists "friends"? Dumbest idea ever.

Comments

[marefromagf.livejournal.com]

I could just slag people off in public and ban them from being able to defend themselves.

Like Talk radio.

[missjanette.livejournal.com]

Seriously.

I've unfriended ppl bc it became painful for me to read their delusional bullshit. Maybe that's craptactular of me, but self-preservation is not a bad thing. I've been privy to information that made me incredibly uncomfortable, I've been treated to slagfests of ppl I like or at least don't feel deserve the slagging. LJ definitely makes it easy to be a dick and think you're being clandestine about it. Not so.

I like what reddragdiva has (had?) on his page - "subscribers" rather than friends. that's really what it is - you're reading what you like regardless of your relationship with said writer.

meh.

[reddragdiva]

I certainly don't post anything close to the whole truth in its unvarnished glory to my LJ. It's a combination of me babbling because I can and social bonding.

(I just wrote a long rant saying exactly what I thought of all manner of people who don't rate it. See what LJ does?)

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

I've been having very similar musings over the past few months. Ever since the blow-up in my own journal a while back, to be precise. The whole thing just left a really bad taste in my mouth, which is why I've been posting less.

I do agree with Axel's point that LJ is not to blame for people who use the medium to act like tards, but I hate the whole "friends list" thing that turns the whole experience into a popularity contest. I hate the people who have umpteen little "sooper sekrit" journals for the sole purpose of bitching about people behind their backs.

I do love being able to keep in touch with people from all over the world, and I love the glimpses into the daily lives of my friends.

I have a real love/hate relationship with LJ at the moment.

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

WTF? I come back to LJ, deciding that I can't talk to my friends without it, and now everyone's having second thoughts? *hands on hips* Make up you minds, sisters!


M.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I had to think about this for a bit, because to me the blowup in your journal is pretty much the opposite of what I'm bitching about here. (Although I agree with the rest of your comment.)

What happened in your LJ was (to me) a straight up fight. And although I realize it must have been very unpleasant for you to have it happening in your space, at the end of it everybody knew where they stood and the people who can't be friends don't have to make any pretenses about it.

I find it very odd that everybody gets really upset with conflict that happens out in the open - like the one that carried out in your LJ - and calls it drama. Yet I constantly see people making "catty" or snarky remarks or making comments about "bullshit behaviour*cough*insertnamehere*cough*" behind locked posts, and everybody seems to be perfectly comfortable with that.

Using childfree as an example was probably a bad idea. I think it muddied my point.

[digital-space.livejournal.com]

ditto

[ravensee.livejournal.com]

I know exactly what you mean.

[ravensee.livejournal.com]

I am tired of internet drama spilling over into real life drama where people stop speaking to one another over assumptions made from LJ.

[billyname99.livejournal.com]

I must agree with the_axel on this.

LJ can be just like a newspaper column, or a radio talk show.

I don't believe that the tool itself is to blame.

The 'Net is just like real life, you will find assholes everywhere you go. You will also find intelligent, witty and likable people.

Unfortunately, you will find them in the exact same cool vs. asshole ration as real life.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Anyone remember usenet? Alt.fan.kibology anyone?

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Wow, child free seems to be one long group-screed.

I'd like to think that LJ is a lot of things including some heated arguments where those that argue still are able to be friends. I disagree with you and Axel on a number of things but damn, I don't hate you guys. You guys are good people and I can see beyond disagreements and still like people and see their value as friends and in general. Some people are just not able to do so.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you on that, but I'm not really talking about just disagreeing with somebody. More like the kind of cliques and gossip that you seen among high school kids. (And to be honest, mostly among the girls.)

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

And calling the reading lists "friends"? Dumbest idea ever.

I still want to set up a LJ-like environment where "friends" are called "bottoms", just to see what dynamic develops.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

They changed "friends of" it to "stalkers" once, and people lost their minds.

My favourite quote out of the entire debacle, "Your girlfriend is triggered by the word 'stalk'? Better keep her away from corn."

[kightp.livejournal.com]

Couldn't agree more about the whole "friends list" naming thing - I think that's been the source of more inadvertent drama than any other feature of LJ.

As for the occasional high school atmosphere, I chalk it off as much to the user demographics (http://www.livejournal.com/stats.bml) as anything. The majority of LJ users are in high school, or barely out of it, and communities in particular tend to reflect that.

Most of the people I read regularly (which is to say, that fraction of my "friends" list who are in my default view filter) are considerably older than the LJ average, and behave like it. Thank god.

[grimjim.livejournal.com]

Clearly, some tools can be less safe than others. It's never purely the tool's fault, as people's motivations also are in play. Guns, typewriters. and lawn darts are tools.

Still, it's possible to design tools to prevent certain types of abuses, since coded behavior is an embodiment of rules.

While it may be potentially authoritarian to permit posters or admins to squelch all opposition, the other extreme of permissive posting would enable mob rule capable of harassing individuals on their own journals. As well, in a democratic or anarchic system, there's nothing preventing people from collectively deciding to be assholes. I'd say we're still in the infancy of designing online systems to favor constructive discourse. And anyone who disagrees is, of course, a doo-doo head. Heh.

[(Anonymous)]

LJ as a tool isn't necessarily at fault for people behaving like losers and retards, although it does give people more opportunity to do so. when i first started blogging back in '98 the site i was on had no filters, you couldn't post something only to specified people, and anyone could read anything you wrote. i resisted LJ for a long time because of the kind of cloak-and-daggerish nature of posting here. at the base of it, the tools to behave like a complete tard exist on this site, but at the same time that doesn't mean you have to use them.

i use my journal to keep in touch with people, to read people that i really like and respect and find interesting, to toss ideas around and keep up with what's going on in other parts of the world. i have one other journal that has people that i trust and respect very deeply in which i wrestle with personal demons, log things that are very pertinent to my life and work at any given moment, and toss around bigger ideas that aren't ready for anyone to see or hear about but i kind of want to bounce off people. that's it. i have filters set up that i hardly ever use. i do not, however, leave everything open for everyone to see, which i know is hypocritical of me, but after experiencing what it's like to have what i say being taken out of context and dragged through the mud by stupid cunts, i figure i have the right to a private life.

at the end of the day, i really think that if people want to use an online medium to behave like idiots, let them. we ALL use it differently, in a way that fits our own needs. if someone uses a medium in a way that i think is childish and stupid, more power to them, i don't have to read their stuff, pay attention to them, or acknowledge their existence, and they can go on believing they're very clever and making a very intelligent use of their time. it doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on how i use the medium and what i use it for. let communities like childfree, the drama queens and the panting attention whores march on - i can see them as a microcosm for something more sinister and far-reaching, but at the end of the day, fuck people, IT'S THE INTERNET.

[disastrid.livejournal.com]

(sorry, that was me.)

[siani-hedgehog.livejournal.com]

I've seen people manipulate the facts or just flat-out lie to make themselves look like the victim and the good-guy. And I knew that they were doing it because it's really easy to get stroked and have people outraged on their behalf if they bend the facts just a little bit.

i've never been entirely convinced that the majority of people are *capable* of being entirely truthful. we're social animals, and we're hardwired to manipulate social status. it's what humans do, all the time, in all social networks.

i think it's too much to expect to rely on anyone's word on its own, especially in any situation where there's a possible 'victim'. the overwhelming majority of people always try to make themselves look good. the ones who are good at it, you just don't *notice*. it's a sophisticated dance, between looking vulnerable when it doesn't matter, and looking good when it does.

i rather like LJ. i resisted it for a long time. but as far as i'm concerned it's just a social networking tool. an easy way to keep in touch with a lot of people about a lot of things without having to write long individual emails about the same things to loads of different people. like alt.gothic was, only rather more diverse.

i haven't noticed much of the drama, although i have heard things that i thought pretty mild called "drama", and i haven't noticed much of the hundreds of different journals just for bitching, or forums that exist just for being an asshole in. i found dramatards kind of a distasteful concept like that, though.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Apparently, yelling at somebody is now considered "drama".

Which I think is kind of funny.

[kest]

some people just suck. LJ just makes it visible.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* kest, as typical, finding the essence of a problem in ten words or less. This is one of the reasons I admire you.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

I suspect I probably fit into this thread somewhere, if not in numerous places.

If I'm not just being mildly paranoid, I hope that I don't cause any opinion of me to drop too much, but I don't have much in the way of defence for what I do, as I -mostly- think before going nuts. I try to learn and be a decent chap, but even with lots of effort, thought and good intentions, it's easy to fuck up. Often.

Seeing people's actions and them falling in your esteem may simply reflect a sad reality that your initial opinion of them was overly generous, particularly if you have a kind enough heart to expect people to be good. All I hope is that if I fuck up here, I'll do right there, and hopefully the ones who matter will see both, not just the bad one.

I shall be attempting to keep my big yap shut (about anything of consequence) for a while. x

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I don't think you do - I see you call people out right out in the open and you take whatever slings and arrows that result. You don't talk shit about people in secret while being nice to their faces. Completely different animal, in my opinion.

I don't expect everybody to always like each other, and I sure as hell don't expect everybody to always be nice to each other. But I lose repect when people think it's ok to be underhanded about it.

And everybody's human. I don't always live up to my own ethics, but I try to be aware of that and do better.

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

If course, now I have to go read 'childfree'


M. (at least on LJ, you can't cross-post)

[meetzemonsta.livejournal.com]

(at least on LJ, you can't cross-post)

In the communities, unfortunately, you can.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

Eh, drama people will have drama no matter what.
The big drama always happens with people I know IRL anyway, because it's those people that I actually give/gave a shit about and so they're closer, and I take those things more personally. Have I said anything in LJ I haven't said to someone's face? Yes, but don't think I wouldn't love to.
Thankfully, all my current LJ drama has nothing to do with anyone I actually know, it's all community stuff, and that could happen on USENET just as easily.

One of my filters exists purely because people deal with the same issues I do, and it's actually hurtful for them to read how I deal with it. Fair enough, they shouldn't have to be subjected to it.

I never used to lock anything, but as time has gone on, I figure that the are certain people in the world who don't have any right to some of my thoughts. In the end, that's what my personal LJ is: thoughts. Sometimes they're happy, sometimes they're not, and people are pretty good about sticking by me either way.

There's something else you haven't touched on: the notion of privacy. People think what they put on filters is somehow safe. It's not of course, it's just slowed a bit. Two cliches here:
1) Never put anything on the internet you wouldn't want everyone else to see
2) If you invade someone's privacy (however theoretical) you will most certainly not like what you find


I still like LJ for the most part. I don't spend a lot of time shit-talking in my journal, filtered or otherwise. Actually, other than one outburst recently, I can't remember the last time I actually dissed anyone on LJ. Right now, it's mostly about my minor health issues. Heh.

[2ndaryairplane.livejournal.com]

you are your own watchman. if you don't do it, nothing else will make it right.

i'm with axel, the cause of the problem will be there whether or not the tool is easy to use. it will find a way out, just in different ways.

in this case, the lj is just 'the emperor's new cape' that shows you the user's ugly [or not] backside.

a metaphor, if you will

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I don't put locks on my doors to prevent people from stealing my shit, because I know a determined theif isn't going to be deterred by that.

But a lock on the door will prevent a casual theif from taking something because it's sitting right there in front of them with absolutely no protection at all.

LJ has no locks on the doors.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

There's a number of people I thought I liked till they got LJs, for the very reasons you list.

I've always had a low threshold for Drama Queens, IRL and on the net. There is no Drama in my life. I have worked long & hard for it to be that way. Dragging it into my periphery is not welcome. I'm on an even shorter fuse these days, as I work with two 40-somethings who seriously behave like they are 12, all day, every day, so anything that reeks of the playground sets me off. Coincidentally, the only people I ever say bad things about in my journal are my co-workers, because I have nowhere else to vent (Jason's heard it enough).

My "friends" list consists of a few people that I have not only never met IRL, but I have no idea who they are. I've come across them reading friends of friends' stuff (which on its own apparently makes me into the biggest arsehole in the world according to a certain subset of LJ users) who write well about interesting things. I treat it as "people who have interesting things to say"

[hirez.livejournal.com]

AO-fucken-L.

and another thing....

[missjanette.livejournal.com]

I think one of the things that has happened is that ppl have gotten more sensitive as more ppl have gotten on the internet. Years ago on usenet, you'd regularly roast someone's ass & then get drunk with them at the bar. Even on local lists like chigoth back in the day - we'd call eachother pigfucker & then go out & party together. If there was ever any actual animosity, most of it was a goodnatured sort. Sure, there were some ppl I fucking loathed, but that loating did not come from the fact that we'd argued. Nowadays, you disagree with someone & it's all OMFG U R A MEEN WON. There's a difference between going "i think you're full of shit, here's why.." & going "i'm so offended I'm going to take my big black ball home & talk shit about you behind a filter." The issue (for me, anyway) lies with whether or not I think the person will hear what I have to say and maybe consider their actions in the future. If you're going to piss me off repeatedly & I call you on it repeatedly but you continue to do things in front of me that piss me off, I'm probably eventually going to fuck off and possibly talk some shit about you. Not bc I expect you to change who you are, but bc I'd like for you to fucking consider me (as a part of your readership &/or if you actually are my friend and respect me) & at very least give me a warning or a disclaimer or SOMETHING that lets me know my fucking head might blow off after reading it.

(this is getting long. might be more later. )

Re: and another thing....

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Ha. I remember having a BIG NAME-CALLING ARGUMENT with... was it Jim Dugan? And then he came up to me in NYC because he recognized the hair and I dragged him around and introduced him to everybody I could find. And he was really really cool.

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

One thing i dislike about LJ in comparison to Usenet (aside from the limited-time thing) is that a lot of discussions take place on a given person's private journal, where there is the potential for a 'lively' discussion to be cut off with a "this is my journal and i'll say what i like" veto, which i've seen happen a few times. It's kind of like the difference between debating a contentious issue with someone down the pub versus being a guest in their living room, which can limit its usefulness as a means of discussion.

That aside though, the potential for people to be bigger arseholes online than they'd ever dare offline is probably a common feature of any net-based forum.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I was trying to nail down the ways LJ is specifically different than other online forums, but I don't think I explained it very well.

[disastrid.livejournal.com]

you know, after i posted here, i realized that the issue everyone is discussing can be summed up in one of penny arcade's more brilliant panels. it took me a little while to find it:

[individuation.livejournal.com]

You know - I only have a problem with LJ because I think that it leaves the door open for major misunderstandings. I've literally lost friends over things I said that were misunderstood. But then, if that person wasn't willing to discuss the misunderstanding I can only assume s/he wasn't a real friend anyway.

I went through some pretty difficult times emotionally and may have had tons of drama in my LJ during that time, but it was _my_ drama and I take ownership of that - and I was really damn glad I LJ to rant in and to get feedback from others in. It was a lot safer than what I could have done.

Now that my life is boring and stable (amazing what a steady relationship with a great guy can do) I use it to vent over stuff that no one cares about but me (which is totally fine) and keep up with people.

As for the name of the friends list - eh, who cares. If I have someone on my friends list and allow them into my life like that - they better damn well be at least a friendly acquaintance. Just because I don't talk on the phone with them and hang out with them doesn't mean I don't see them as a friend. I think of it this way: would I invite you to my wedding? If the answer is yes, you're a friend.

And Sio- I'd want you and Axel there..regarless of how infrequently we communicate one on one or see each other. That isn't for lack of caring.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I don't really have a rule for my f-list. I've had people on there who I thought had pretty odious personalities, but they were really interesting to read.

The trouble arises when people assume that somebody else's "friends" are chosen for the same reason that their own are and end up making all kinds of assumptions. But I think we've had that converstion before.

And friends are people who I will try to make an effort to see if I get the chance. And if the chance only comes along every ten years or so, well that still counts.