The Internet, you remember, used to be referred to as a great democratising force. We had high hopes for how it would bring us all together in a public forum for debate and discussion, how it would allow us to bridge cultural gaps and economic divides. We would refer to the “global village” with fondness, and if we were concerned about anything, it was that not everyone had access to this digital paradise.
Somewhere along the line, that changed. Instead of encouraging free speech, opinions started getting shot down for sport. Instead of giving people equal rights, it became yet another forum for oppression. We've all noticed it, haven't we? We've seen the infamous News24 comment threads, we've stumbled upon (or intentionally visited) 4Chan, we've noticed hate groups springing up on Facebook. Something is most certainly rotten in the state of the World Wide Web.
In the past month, the Internet went all out to show its dark underbelly to an American feminist media critic named Anita Sarkeesian. Sarkeesian endured threats of death and rape, racial abuse, the vandalisation of her Wikipedia biography, DDOS attacks on her Web site, and attempts to obtain and distribute her personal contact information and physical address. An amateur flash developer and video game enthusiast, Ben Spurr, even released an online game that allowed users to simulate punching her in the face - her picture became more and more bruised as they did so.
What was her crime?
She started a Kickstarter project to fund research and production of a video on the portrayal of women in video games. That was all. She was just asking for donations towards her research. She was not making any claims upfront or forcing anyone to pay anything. Yet, she was left comments like (the censoring is ITWeb's):
“I hate overies with a brain big enough to post videos.”
“She needs a good d***ing, good luck finding it though.”
“Looking like you are, I can understand where the hate for sexy female characters comes from, but please, scamming people won't solve a thing you useless c**t.”
“What a stuck up b***h. I hope all them people who gave her money get raped and die of cancer.”
Something is most certainly rotten in the state of the World Wide Web.
Tallulah Habib, social media activist, ITWeb
And those who tried to defend her had comments like “You think you can get away with saying that s**t to men over the Internet?” hurled at them, and even death threats.
In this case, it's misogyny, but there have been similar uproars of racism, anti-Semitism and homophobia. Most people would not think to say this kind of thing to someone's face. Ever. So why is it okay to do it online?
And why on Earth is it so prevalent?
Base nature
According to the oft-titled father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, the human psyche is divided into three parts: the ego, the super ego and the id. The id is the part of us that wants, needs, and hungers. It has no reasoning at all, just desire. It is our base, animalistic nature. The ego is the part of us that reasons and manipulates in order to obtain the goals set by the id. The superego is our conscience. It is our idea of right and wrong that gets taught by parents, teachers and those around us as we grow. It is our moral compass. It is our humanity.
In my observations, it is sorely lacking on the Internet. The reason why is up for debate, but when I read most comment sections online, all I see is id. Perhaps it is because the superego relies on an idea of punishment for wrongdoing - a punishment that is either delayed (thus divorced from the action), or non-existent in cyber space.
Perhaps it's the time-space distance of the Web that makes a person feel very far away from the people who they're slandering or bullying. Perhaps it is the anonymity, the unrepentant mask that's so easy to pick up and put on and then discard when it's time to be human again.
Whatever the base cause is, it seems to me that it's become far more than a few psychologically weak characters, taking advantage of a terrain where id can run free. It's part of a culture. A culture of exclusivity and nastiness, which developed back in the murky past of the Internet. Trolling became cool and funny, and the Internet developed a whole lingo dedicated to putting people down.
Interrupting intelligent conversation with inane comments aimed only at getting a reaction became entertaining, derailing debates was a way to pass time and flaming people who one disagreed with was the only way to get a point across.
Even though the superego might not know it yet, the actions of the id do have very real and very terrifying consequences - varying from just denting one's self-esteem to actually changing people's lives for the worse. Is that really so entertaining? The argument made time and again in the comments to any article about Sarkeesian is that she/girl gamers should just grow a thick skin, because that's what the Internet is. In other words, yes, the Internet is a flaming cesspool of hate, but it's your choice to swim in it.
Paradise lost
With all the amazing things the Internet can give us - entertainment, education, a forum for discussion, introductions to brilliant people, direct contact with brilliant minds - does it really come down to choosing between that and being personally attacked? And why should it?
William Golding's “Lord of the Flies”comes to mind. In the novel, a group of children are stranded on a deserted island; they try to mimic society and fail.
The main character, Ralph, at one stage says: “Things are breaking up. I don't understand why. We began well; we were happy. And then...”
They blame fear of a mysterious and non-existent beast for setting them apart and against each other. Simon, the introspective and gentle symbol of faith, says: “Maybe there is a beast. What I mean is... maybe it's only us.”
Indeed, perhaps it is us. Perhaps we are, in this strange new land of the Internet, falling back on our primal instincts and desires. Perhaps because there is no need to behave like civilised people, we choose not to, and instead chase after anyone different with our sharpened sticks and uncompromising opinions.
Share