the_siobhan (
the_siobhan) wrote2006-10-15 05:14 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
musings on the meta
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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.
no subject
Like Talk radio.
no subject
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.
no subject
(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?)
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
M.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
I think we're talking about the same thing, but we're approaching it from different angles.
I was referring to overt bad behaviour and you're referring to covert bad behaviour.
Bad behaviour is bad behaviour is bad behaviour. Being overt doesn't make it any more acceptable in my eyes, just easier to confront and deal with. People will be rude and nasty online in a way they would probably never dare to do in public. I've seen this dynamic all over the Internet - on Usenet, discussion forums, LJ, everywhere.
Look at Adam's recent attack on Jackie. When he's at a social event with her, he doesn't say a word to her, but put him in front of a keyboard and he suddenly thinks it's OK to spew slander and lies.
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.
I called it drama because the blow-up in my journal was not just about the fact that someone left a stupid comment that pissed people off. Tensions were already high around the whole issue of parenthood and children due to conversations that were taking place elsewhere on LJ. The comment in my LJ seems to have been the back-breaking straw for a lot of people, so the drama all spilled over into my journal and I ended up being judged negatively because of it. Someone I thought I was close to unfriended me over it. My girlfriend and I ended up fighting for two days because of it.
So basically, everyone trekked into my journal with their grievances, dumped them there, and left me to clean up the mess.
Using childfree as an example was probably a bad idea. I think it muddied my point.
I really really wish there was a way to talk openly about the choice to be childfree and the pressures that come with that choice without pissing people off.
Right now, the only people I can talk to are other people who've made the same choice. Preaching to the choir feels good but doesn't encourage progress.
no subject
I was referring to overt bad behaviour and you're referring to covert bad behaviour.
Well yeah, that was kind of the whole point of my post.
Everybody know that the internet in general tends to promote bad actors because it's always easier to have a big dick when there is a keyboard and several hundred miles of fibre optic between you and the person you just called a cuntbucket. That's been true since it was invented.
I was focusing on the specific kind of bad behaviour which I think is strongly supported in LJ more so than in other types of online forums. Specifically because of the way LJ is designed.
I called it drama because the blow-up in my journal was not just about the fact that someone left a stupid comment that pissed people off. Tensions were already high around the whole issue of parenthood and children due to conversations that were taking place elsewhere on LJ.
I guess I was unaware there was background there. I never even heard of wassername before that incident.
I really really wish there was a way to talk openly about the choice to be childfree and the pressures that come with that choice without pissing people off.
Maybe I'm lucky in that I've never found that to be a problem.
no subject
Yeah, I realize that. But the way you worded your response to me almost read as saying that overt bad behaviour isn't as bad as covert bad behaviour.
The incident in my LJ actually had very little to do with Maz Fusion. She happened to make the comment that pissed people off. The whole thing happened shortly after the US published the recommendations that all women btw the ages of first menstruation and menopause ought to be treated as though they're "pre-pregnant". That caused a lot of discussion all over LJ, and some parents got very jumpy because they seemed to think their decision to have kids was being attacked. It all spilled over into RL, with hurt feelings and heated email exchanges.
Then Maz left that rather insenstive comment in my journal and everyone went nuts. And decided that b/c the comment was made in my journal and that b/c this person was on my flist, that I must therefore condone the comment and Maz's bad behaviour.
That, couple with Adam's attack on Jackie shortly afterwards, has left me with a very bad taste where LJ is concerned.
I think LJ's biggest mistakes were calling this medium a journal, which promotes the false idea that this is a safe and private space to write whatever you want with fear of reprisal, and the Friends List, which is a term that people take far too literally.
no subject
I wouldn't say overt behaviour isn't as bad, but it's definitely something I'm a lot more comfortable dealing with. If I know where hostility comes from and who it's directed at, I can call them on it, take sides, decide they're an asshole and walk away, whatever.
The sniping kind of aggression always baffles me though. Small things that are seemingly harmless when taken in isolation can build up to create a really hostile environment. Often they are designed so I don't know who they are directed at - might be me if I'm feeling paranoid. I don't like it and it makes me lose respect for the people who engage in it, but I still haven't figured out a good mechanism for dealing with that.
The second factor is that most people will act opening dissapproving of overt bad behaviour. But the same people will often tolerate - and occasionally even encourage - the covert version. And I don't like how that seems to create the assumption that it's therefore OK to act badly as long as you do it in "secret".
I also tend to think there is an element of cowardice in the covert version because then people don't have to deal with the repercussions of their opinions and actions. An added nasty on top of something that is already unpleasant.
The whole thing happened shortly after the US published the recommendations that all women btw the ages of first menstruation and menopause ought to be treated as though they're "pre-pregnant". That caused a lot of discussion all over LJ, and some parents got very jumpy because they seemed to think their decision to have kids was being attacked.
There were people being overly sensitive on both sides of that debate.
I often think a lot of people could stand to take a step back and take things a lot less personally.
no subject
I really don't think it is.
Slag somebody off in public & they know where they stand and can defend themselves.
Slag them off in private & they can't defend themselves & you're lying to them & others.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I don't think I'm being immature to say "you don't have to like my friends, but if you're going to attack them out of the blue in comments on my journal, that's unacceptable." It is, to me, the same kind of thing as deciding I'm not going to visit someone because he's saying unacceptable things to me about someone in my relationship web. He has the right to his opinions, but not to my ear for them.
no subject
I've called people assholes in public before, but I try not to throw furniture.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And indeed The Jam: 'What you give is what you get'.
And indeed Mixy. His internet experience was always filled with backstabbers and scene-malarkey. Mine isn't/wasn't. You may draw your own conclusions.
no subject
no subject
To echo the 'Drama created in a cave far from anywhere' comment above, there are a set of people who will create Drama from whole cloth. Miscommunication has little to do with it, since it's usually a clear and wilful reinterpretation.
People get Drama because they want it.
no subject
no subject
We had a running joke about how he would hold it at Jilly's, the strip club, and we were all going to go scream at London After Midnight to "Lick the pole!"
Good times. :)
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
Myup. I wonder why that is, in the end.
no subject
Poison has always been seen as a woman's weapon because they were less likely to have the strength and skill to weild a knife or a sword. Maybe the whispered betrayal is the modern equivelant.
no subject
Hmmm yes. Following that, we're also still taught not do to so, and to be "nice" so we put a good face on things while we quietly seethe. And then lash out in weird ways later.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-10-18 11:00 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
I still want to set up a LJ-like environment where "friends" are called "bottoms", just to see what dynamic develops.
no subject
My favourite quote out of the entire debacle, "Your girlfriend is triggered by the word 'stalk'? Better keep her away from corn."
no subject
I think Ryan's got a bit of a point about USENET. There's *always* perennial victims, and *always* shitstirrers with long spoons ready to feed the victims. If anything EL JAY attracts them because the barrier to entry's a lot lower. When USENET was king, someone participating had to be 'leet enough to have net access, and at least a modicum of brains to set up a news reader. And, there was a least the likelyhood that they'd get to hear that USENET was a place of subtle humour, rapier wit, and some of the most disgusting ideas imaginable. Plus, people were all over the world. If you weren't on a newsgroup that specifically focused on a geographic region, odds are the people you were talking with were hundreds if not thousands of miles away. So local stuff didn't really hit a newsgroup and newsgroup infighting seldom hit the real world.
In a sense, I suppose, EL JAY is the anti-Convergence. Instead of getting a bunch of distant people together for a grand weekend of festivity, it takes the day-to-day festivity and adds all the elements necessary for distant misinterpretation.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-10-15 10:45 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
no subject
The communities I can mostly ignore - much as I like to rant about them occasionally they don't really affect my life.
What drives me bonkers is seeing shit going on among people who I otherwise like. To paraphrase what
I always want to grab them by the shirt and yell, "Stop forcing me to lower my opinion of you!"
no subject
Some people on LJ have deepened into real people from the 2D stereotypes they presented in clubland/Whitbyage, and that's really good.
Some others really do make me wish hard that they'd remained the cardboard cutouts.
no subject
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
no subject
Which I think is kind of funny.
no subject
no subject
no subject
The difference is in whether or not you choose to wallow in it.
i took a day to think about that...
Re: i took a day to think about that...
The difference is that crap people I can just choose not to deal with. When people I like are crap it causes me a lot of stress, because I have higher expectations of them.
Re: i took a day to think about that...
Re: i took a day to think about that...
I find it hard to forgive meanness though, and I don't have a lot of respect for cowardice. And this particular rant was inspired by seeing numerous incidents of both coming from people I otherwise like. And because it's easy to do with this particular tool - as opposed to say Usenet, where all your wobbling warts aere out in the open for everybody to see - I see a lot more people slipping into that behaviour who I would rather think were above it.
Re: i took a day to think about that...
if i find them turning out to be mostly crap, i'm generally only angry at myself, for not realising straight away.
no subject
no subject
no subject
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
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
I try to live by the creed of not saying anything about somebody that I wouldn't say to them. Unfortunately I don't always live up to that standard and I'm acutely aware of my failures.
no subject
Of course, for me this is mostly about RL behavior. I talk negatively about other people in my journal very very rarely, and when I do I never mention names.
no subject
I put that all in the category of saying to.
Maybe the dividing line is what you do if somebody confronts you and says, "Look, do you have a problem with me?" Do say yes and explain why or do you say, "No, no, everything's fine" and then continue sniping about them behind their back?
no subject
99.999% of people will read this and say, "I don't do that. Well just that that once but it was a long time ago. Well yeah OK there was that other time, but the bitch deserved it." You never make excuses for yourself and you are always honest.
You will never make me think less of you being who you are.
no subject
M. (at least on LJ, you can't cross-post)
no subject
In the communities, unfortunately, you can.
no subject
M. (The players may change, but the 0's and 1's remain the same)
no subject
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.
no subject
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
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.
Re: a metaphor, if you will
I just wish they'd re-name the whole 'friends' bit. I could SO do without the accompanying drama from people who dranatard like the world is coming to an end when you decide you don't want to read what they write anymore, or don't have time to, or whatever. If we don't talk on the phone, email, snail mail, chat or interact in any way outside of lj we are not friends. LJ would be so much simpler if we could just refer to it as our subscriber base instead of friends, with all the accompanying baggage that goes with that word.
Re: a metaphor, if you will
I think everybody is capable of being a fuck-up. What I hope is that people will call me on it when the fuck-up is me.
no subject
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"
no subject
and another thing....
(this is getting long. might be more later. )
Re: and another thing....
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
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.