Lost in cyber-flaming hell : "What Howard had entered — directly for the first time, although his name and image have been used in vain on the internet for years — was a world dominated by what Campbell terms 'unaccountability'."
Dr. Campbell calls it "online loss of inhibition" and it's actually good to know we have cyber psychologists because they will help us determine what we are prepared to accept.The article takes a good, long look at some of the implications of posting online and the sorts of behaviours likely to be encountered. Flaming has been around for a very long time. The media has just found out about it. Most forums and community sites manage flaming and the rules are spelled out quite clearly about respect for others. Some people think freedom of speech is saying what they like , when they like, how they like and with no regard for implications and responsibility. That is a very post modern approach which has its place, I suppose, but the impact of negative is negative. No surprises there. I do not personally believe that John Howard should not have posted on YouTube. I think our politicians need to understand how social networking operates in cyberspace and the only way to do that is to try it. There is a lot of good stuff on YouTube and similar sites but it hasn't really yet reached the stage of growth where the posts tend to find their own communities. Allowing destructive elements airplay helps destroy icons and who will benefit from that? That's why we need psychologists because there is a protocol and it is about power. This is why other sites put in very clear guidelines. By participating in cyberspace, our politicians will learn how it works and there are a lot of connections to be made there. It's not foolish to test new ground. Experience is a great teacher and sites like YouTube teach you very quickly what you are prepared to accept and what you want to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment