More Drabble

Since I got nothing, I'm going to puke up something that I read somewhere else. I don't know to whom it should be attributed - for all I know, I might have blended together other sources. This is the fate of building ideas. There are few original ideas; most are stolen from somewhere else.

The idea was based on which message boards are more vulnerable to trolling - or, if not trolling, to having conversation generally derailed. The agreement was that the vulnerability was based on three ideas:

1. Ease of entry: if it's easy to join a message board or online community, it's easy to troll it - trolling, in effect, becomes cost-free. For example, my wife belongs to Metafilter, and you can't post on Metafilter unless you're willing to pay $5 for a membership. The five dollar cost is so low that just about anyone could pay it, but high enough to repel people who want to make hit-and-run posts. Likewise, if you have to fill out some sort of application to join, or if you have to be approved to join, or whatever. It's just a simple law - the harder it is to join the board, the more resistant it will be. Trolls are much like lazy theives - if there's anyone watching, they move on.

2. Amount of moderation: There are various levels of moderation, from Moderation What Moderation? to Fascist Groupthink. Most boards seek some sort of golden middle amount, based on two general rules:

a. Everyone has the right to be heard, and
b. No one has the right to derail a thread - when you've had your say, shut up.

Both extremes are bad - if the mods are wishy-washy, the trolls drive everyone out. If the mods are fascist bully-boys, the mods drive everyone out. This is a sort of high-intensity version of #1.

3. Anonymity: The Penny Arcade Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory was first written in 2004.



On the other hand, if you're required to post in your real name, or if you have to fill out some identification that specifically indicates who you are - even if the admins are the only ones who know about it - the chain is broken. It's hard to say nasty crap when a potential employer might read your mean-spirited rant five years later.

(* * *)

Okay. We have an interesting theory. But here's the crux of the nub: let's assume that these places exist that either have a) barriers to entry, b) good moderation, or c) a lack of anonymity. They are relatively free of trolls. But the big question is do these places have the kind of smart, intelligent conversation we've been hoping for since Day One of the internet?

The answer is "not always". For each of the above, I can give an example. Metafilter has some useful comments, but it also has really stupid ones as well, and most Metafilter comments are contests along the lines of "who can be the snarkiest?" As for b) we've all seen PPMB and know well of its excesses. Friendly, yes? Intelligent? Not always. I know about The Well, which exemplifies c) above. I've not read it, but someone I've talked to who was once (?) a member said that the conversation was ofttimes no better than that on a message board where everyone used anonymous handles.

Getting rid of the trolls is great, but it won't make your message board smarter. After all, you can bring peace to a rowdy town but there are a lot of quiet, peaceful places in America - and some are so dull as to be barely worth living in. There is, however, a lot to be said for not getting shot.

(* * *)

Some other useful social laws:

Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

Poe's Corollary: It is impossible for an act of Fundamentalism to be made that someone won't mistake for a parody.

Poe's Paradox: In any fundamentalist group where Poe's Law applies, a paradox exists where any new person (or idea) sufficiently fundamentalist to be accepted by the group is likely to be so ridiculous that they risk being rejected as a parodist (or parody).

Bechdel Test: In order for a movie to pass the test it has to have,

a) two women, who
b) have a conversation with each other, a conversation which is not about
c) men.

Bechdel's Measure: d) the women actually have to have names.

Campbell's Law: The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Pareto Principle: Roughly 80 percent of the effects come fro 20 percent of the causes.

Postel's Law: Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you allow.