After watching the movie last night, it brought up memories of this TED talk.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

I think there is a new threat to civility arising here as the "intelligentsia" of the blogosphere pick up on the lately popular recognition of the dehumanizing effects of intermediated communications as a primary social form:

There is a tendency for well place technocrats to use this as a purported diagnosis of people they find disagreeable and an aversion to "checking one's self". Within certain powerful cliques, it's more politically acceptable to discriminate against various third parties if you can explain your oppression as a reaction to a "condition" that those poor third party lost soles suffer from on account of the de-humanizing internet, and what not.

You can see the irony in that, right? Yet it plays out anyway. There are cliques among whom stories like the one posted here are spreading and so people are saying words about the de-humanizing internet but what they really mean is "what's wrong with *those* people?"

I think if you give some credence to this de-humanizing hypothesis and you're big on the net then in the name of intellectual honesty you have to explain either how the condition manifests in yourself or explain why you think you are immune.

-t

ITA - living our lives online is almost as brutal as when someone would pass a note about another girl in high school. It's so interesting how the slightest nuance can deliver so much more of an impact/shade of meaning.

I always say that I can write an email in my nicest voice, and one in my most sarcastic voice, and both nearly read the same.

Fine, but then we also need spaces in which we can free ourselves from the burdens of identity and choice. In trade for the intense accountability that follows giving up anonymity there must be venues and methodologies that allow humans to do what we've done for millennia -- to lose ourselves every now and again. Therapeutic space, sanctuary, etc.

If our histories precede us like felonies we must adopt compensatory mechanisms that effect amnesty. And these should be in place prior to or concurrent with the explicit demand to disclose ourselves, or it's going to get real messy real fast.

What's fascinating to me is how the same tech community that thrives on digital mediated living is also the same community that has tons of conferences, various bar camps and socials, that put an emphasis on face to face interactions.

I think most people love the power of living online, but at the same time we crave all the stuff we can't get living online alone.

This story, and Jason's post, reminds me we have no real idea what we're doing, or what the consequences of these things we're making will be. This is fine as long as we admit it. or perhaps chat more about the natural consequences of new technologies, especially social ones.

And then again, there always have been, and always will be, people who take things too far. The tech involved might be irrelevant for them.

Now think what porn does and has always done over centuries, a lifetime - for all its fun.

(This comment is anonymous because I imagine its not a popular parallel to draw and I don't want to deal with any flack, but it's the truth.)

Anonymous -- you're right, and I agree. Porn is incredibly damaging to people's sense of other people as people. They become things. And you're also right that this is not a popular position to take as for some reason porn has a lot of defenders, as if it were a "freedom of speech" issue and not a feminist issue.

While I certainly agree that anonymity begets cruelty, the problem with requiring people to identify themselves is that anonymous speech is valuable as well. Consider 12-step programs and dissent against power.

I agree on the importance of anonymity - but why are you insisting on looking for it at the wrong side of society?
If you want to be anonymous then do what people did for millenia: Go into the desert. Become a hermit. No one asks for your name in the desert, no one can hold anything against you.

But we all want to stand in the center of society. And so we have to face the disadvantages that have haunted people in prominent spaces for millenia. Alexander the Great, Lucrecia Borgia, Queen Victoria, JFK - they all stood vulnerable to every psychopath in the crowd.
If you want the power to talk to millions you have to face the millions - including the rotten tomatoes, the poisoned daggers and the lone gunmen.

The Great Kings of Persia had an interesting solution: The court ceremony included kissing the monarchs sleeve. After a few assassins used that one chance to get close enough for a dagger attack, the Great Kings did not give up the ceremony. They had 5 meter sleeves sewn to their gowns and a trusted servant roll them up. They prefered giving up the use of their right hand while being admired to giving up the fun of getting admired.

I think we all should think about that decision's motives ...

yaay for anonimity!you are allowed to read/see what people really think.

"Porn is incredibly damaging to people's sense of other people as people. They become things."

Your blanket rule doesn't apply to everyone, if anyone. Got a source on that comment, pumpkin?

I think the importance of anonymity is measured not in what people say (freedom of speech), but in what information is kept about you (privacy).

Most people would agree that tracking unique identities for every person in the country, would not be a good idea, because then everything about you would be public, much like the cameras in his apartment, but on an unimaginable scale.

That would probably lead to more issues, since knowing all that information about everyone could push forward more prejudice.

And although mostly secrets are not good to have, it is nice to have a private conversation with someone you love, I know I certainly enjoy it.