One key element of those, however, was to reflect upon the way in which social norms in the physical world are negotiated.

Not necessarily through explicit negotiation, more through implicit learning (in the same way adolescent development is a process of learning and negotiating social norms).

Thus – (to present an oversimplified dichotomy) we might need either:

1) To negotiate new norms that operate in the online space given the arbitrary ‘rules’ and limitations (limited identity management and social feedback loops) of the online space;

In which case we may have a very different set of ‘online norms’ from our ‘offline norms’ (and indeed, I was pondering – a different moral code online… which seems slightly less comfortable).

or

2) To build in feedback loops so the online world more closely approximate the offline world where we have already negotiated norms of conduct.

But – we might observe that two of the key elements in negotiating norms offline are time and intensity of interaction. It takes time in any new social space for norms to be established – and new entrants into that space often upset the norms just by disrupting existing patterns of interaction and so require a re-negotiation of the norms which takes time. Yet the key element of many online (e.g. SNS) spaces is to make it very easy for new members to rapidly enter a community without needing to participate in introductions and renegotiating norms…

(Ok – the picture is a lot more complex than that – and this confuses individual spaces with norms for the online realm as one space in its own right – but it should throw into the mix the role of negotiation as a concept here…)

Acouple of thoughts.

(1) “I argued that man was basically evil, but apparently this was the incorrect answer and I wouldn’t back down.)”

Jeez! Is this still what you think?

(2) The one thing everybody online fears is loss of attnetion. The dreaded “iggy”. People will moderate their behavior online if there is the expectation that ticking people off can get them barred from access to their audience. This isn’t prefect – since they can always set of a new fake identity. But if they have invested in an identity, or their identity reflects a real offline identity, then the threat of electronic ostracism could be quite real. SNS software and practices can be designed to facilitate this.

However – this is a two edged sword. The same free-for-all atmosphere that allows senseless and cruel meanness also allows the airing of important though unpopular postions on social and philosophical issues.

It’s a tricky question.

Just a thought,
-Steve

P.S. I hope you still don’t think mankind is evil. But if so, I’d be interested to know why.

Or is it just unreasonable to think out? Maybe humans arent neccessarily Evil by nature, in that it’s in our nature to want to be loved, and accepted. Is it just those that aren’t, that fail somewhow to get that love and attention they need, that lash out, and get ‘mean’?

I feel like that if Anarchists suddenly got their way, and there for some reason was a ‘great culling’… eventually we’d re-establish some kind of Order. Perhaps a King of the Hill would come in and rule by the Fist.. and then eventually that would upheave, and we’d come full circle to another Republic.

So by that line of reasoning, Humans aren’t good or evil.. they are self-motivated to *act* good by the general desire to survive, and create patterns, or Order. Given the chance, however, most of us, like we do online, let it all hang out, and act the way we’d *like* to. Purely self-interested, emotional, and with a strong desire to assert dominance (be ‘accepted’).

Online, I see three types. The ‘been-there’s: these are the ones that insist on proper grammer, usually know what they’re talking about, and are usually helpful. They assert their dominance by typing in (oft-attempted) well thought-out English, heavy reliance on ‘knowledge’, and snarkyness. The ‘ignorant’: these are the ‘lolomgz u r c00l’ people, who don’t bother to do any thinking or research for themselves, and generally want what they want, and you’re there to provide it for them, your own interests be damned. These fine folk assert their dominance by vulgarity, usually. Finally, the ‘newbies’ – they can range from ignorant to wise, and eventually settle into either camp.

The internet forums are generally populated by I’d say 20-40% ‘been-theres’, 10% or so newbies, and the rest is the ‘Ignorant’. It always a constant battle fought by the two major sides – the ‘been-theres’ trying to tame and ‘normalize’ the ‘Ignorant’, and the ‘Ignorant’ willfully refusing to change.

I see this as a reflection of society as a whole. Most of humanity is stupid, ignorant, and willfully so. We are, for the most part, lemmings. We do not like to think for ourselves, and can be counted on to take the easier path. There is always a minority (large or small), who are the opposite, and we either revolt and make changes (American, French revolution), or sat back, sigh, shake our heads, and get snarky.

semi off-topic: have you heard of ‘Black September’? What the old BBS users refer to as the month when AOL brought the Internet to the Masses (and according to them, ruined it)? I’d be curious as to your thoughts on that..

IMHO, what gives the people who abuse these networks a large measure of their power is their anonymity.
It’s the Wizard of Oz for the next millenium – the curtain is the anonymous net.
An unsettling question with regard to social norms is: how many of us would actually be tolerant if we didn’t have to be, owing to the fact that in real life we often have to declare it and associate it with our names? The popular media loves to play on the latest freudian-slip-du-jour of the Don Imuses, Dawg the bounty hunters, and others, while many in our society mumble “There but for the grace of God…”.
How many of us wish we could simply say “Silence, whippersnapper!” instead of try to reason with someone outside of our circle of close friends?

As you said, there’s only so much you can get away with when you’re going to see the person the next day. But if you’re _never_ going to “see” that person, apparently the sky’s the limit.

I’m not saying there isn’t a place for anonymity on the web, but it is clear that as a society we’re not close to establishing the social norms (and I wonder if we ever will) to handle it with universal grace.

I tried to leave a trackback to your post but it continues to give me an error saying I’m trying to leave trackbacks too quickly. I’ve responded to your post at http://socialstrategist.com/2007/12/04/turn-bad-members-into-good-members-in-online-communities with some suggestions on how communities can reduce negative behavior by removing the benefits of attention the problem-members receive. I’d love to hear what you think!