Login
Password

Forgot your password?

Internet Commentary Anonymity: Are We Really All Lunatics?

By Edited Jun 18, 2015 4 12

Man at Protest
Credit: wikipedia commons public domain - City of Anthrax/Raphael!

Many of us who read political commentary on the internet also scroll down into the comments section at the end of an article.  The comments are cluttered with a litany of vociferous barbs for and against the columnist.  Some of the comments are quite harsh, particularly when those leaving comments start to attack each other.  This type of give and take differs from political debate when face to face, except in limited circumstances.  What is going on?  I’ll give some thoughts and theories.

Social Filters

Nearly all of us have social filters of differing degrees.  Very few of us give our unvarnished truthfulness  when we answer questions posed by our loved ones or our close coworkers.  “Do I look fat in this?  Can you see my love handles?  How was my presentation?  Do you think I’m smart?”  Depending on your relationship with the person asking the question, you may or may not say what you actually think.  Alternatively, you might say what you think yet give your opinion in the most diplomatic way possible.  “You look good, but I’d suggest you wear this instead.  Your presentation needs some work, but the basic premise is good.”  You shade the answer to preserve your relationship.[1]

You may even hold back in giving your opinion to people who aren’t your friends or those whom you view as competitors or rivals.  In this instance, you are wary of repercussions.  Why start a fight when it’s unnecessary?  Why let a rival know you are not supportive of them until the time is right for you?  If you are completely honest and show your hand, you could create a difficult situation for yourself.

Anonymity

What if you could give your opinions without someone knowing the source?  What if you could give your answer without threat of recrimination even if your actual thoughts are somewhat harsh and negative?  Enter the internet.  Although someone with a modicum of training and some time on their hands could figure out your identity, for practical purposes, most commentary relating to online political commentary is anonymous.  Folks can set up a user name and go at it.

Although not entirely anonymous, most folks feel anonymous enough to give their own unvarnished truth on the internet.  They don’t feel as if they have to hold back.  If they think someone with an opposing viewpoint is an idiot, many are comfortable saying so, even if they might hold back if face to face.  Are they chicken?  Not really, they are practical.

Saliency of Opinion

What can we glean from shouting in text form at one another?  One benefit is actually hearing

1909 Tyree Debate and Oratory
the other guys’ opinions.  We are increasingly stratified into red states and blue states, living among concentrations of like minded individuals.  We may not hear the other side of things in our normal day to day existence.  Further, we tend to listen to news sources to confirm our existing opinions instead of challenging them.  How many liberals get their political discussion from MSNBC?  How many conservatives get their politics fix from Fox?  Watching TV networks with a significant amount of commentary from the other side of the opinion ledger can be upsetting and annoying;however, your thought processes should benefit from listening to the other guys.  

Seeing comments from real live people who believe differently from us can challenge us to sharpen our thinking and flesh out our reasoning.   While they may not make us change our minds, others can certainly make us use our minds to more fully understand why we think we’re correct. 

Perhaps the most helpful aspect of seeing strong internet commentary among us is to understand the saliency of opinions.  How strongly do folks with a given viewpoint believe in  their opinion on a given matter?  How important is it to them?  A minority with a strongly held belief can hold off a majority of folks who believe otherwise if the matter under discussion isn't all that important to the majority.  While internet back and forth commentary certainly is not any kind of scientific polling, it does give one some idea of whether a given point of view is important to a segment of the population.  If someone is ranting on the internet, then you can likely believe the ranting is derived from a strongly held opinion.

One good example of this phenomenon is the subject of gun control.  While the proposition that a majority favor more control is arguable, and perhaps untrue, what is unarguable is the gun owners opposing further gun controls have much more salient and strong opinions against gun control than most proponents.[2]  Each gun owner sees themselves as being directly impacted by additional controls or potentially impacted if one type of regulation leads to more, while most gun control advocates view the issue more in the abstract as something that would help society as a whole.  The gun control advocates, in general, will not go to the mat on the issue while those opposing more control will push hard against it.  The only way additional regulatory laws are adopted in this sort of scenario is when an overwhelming majority are in support, with a greater majority being necessary with low issue saliency among the supporters.

Although it may be difficult to be the target of someone hitting you hard in online discussion, at least understanding the context is helpful.  The person taking a tough swipe at you feels strongly about an issue and wants you to know they feel strongly.  In  many ways, the online reaction to you is not personal in that the other guy doesn't know you and won't have any other contact with you.  They have very robust feelings against your point of view and want you to know it.

Even if trying to advance your own point of view, knowing that the other guys have strong opinions the other way can or should change your approach.  Engaging in name calling is never beneficial.  Trying to understand what the other guy is saying is helpful and realizing that name calling could be evidence of a firmly and staunchly held belief should color your response.  Maybe they are saying things under a cloak of internet anonymity.  They still believe the underlying premise of what they are saying and have strongly held beliefs.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Feb 21, 2014 3:16am
Educateurself
For me if someone replies my comments with harsh words it does feel like somebody had punched me on the face 26it doesn 19t feel good.
Feb 25, 2014 9:03am
BoomerBill
You're correct.
Mar 20, 2014 6:57pm
dogman007
It makes for good entertainment but I wish people would actually offer suggestions and ideas despite their political view. Most of the comments are quick to criticize but offer little in the way of new ways to solve the problem.
Mar 21, 2014 5:06am
BoomerBill
Yeah, I think we would all be better off if we actually could converse with each other instead of rant. Most TV networks offering opinion and analysis will get proponents of two competing sides of an issue to talk over each other. Thanks for reading!
Mar 20, 2014 10:58pm
DionSmith
Another great article BB. You make a good point about many people's unwillingness to watch programs or read articles that run contrary to their own beliefs. I guess sometimes there may be an innate fear that they will see discover something that will shake their belief. This is flawed thinking in my opinion. What better way to reinforce your belief in your stance than to fully understand the counter arguments? Know thy enemy.
Mar 21, 2014 5:09am
BoomerBill
I agree, we should always attempt to understand what the other guy is saying even if we don't agree. I think there's too much labeling of the folks on the other side of an issue as "bad." Thank you for the compliment!
Mar 21, 2014 2:13am
slimjim270
Hi BB,

Funny you mention that people jump to the end to read comments before reading a piece.
I found myself doing the same on this article… then chuckled as I read your intro sentence knowing I had done exactly that before reading your piece.

I wonder if it is human nature to “look ahead” for that feeling of knowing where you might be going and hoping some else might give you a sense of that in the comments section before you start.

Or is it simply that we are more cowardly when online (or offline)?

This was an interesting article about situational and environmental behavior. I think someone once called it Situation Ethics (one individual with different behavior in different environments).

-Jim
Mar 21, 2014 5:13am
BoomerBill
Thanks for reading Jim! I'm not sure about people being cowardly, there is probably some of that. Could be that some of the online vitriol is stress relief. Someone is having a bad day and a good rant makes them feel better!
Mar 21, 2014 1:54pm
slimjim270
I agree.

Cowardly is probably the wrong word... replacing "cowardly" with "more confident" might be a better way to describe their actions online.

Have a great weekend Bill.

-Jim
Mar 21, 2014 2:00pm
BoomerBill
Thanks!!
Mar 21, 2014 6:32am
RoseWrites
I agree that reading commentary that opposes my view causes me to challenge myself - and flesh out my own reasoning. Sometimes I come away with a renewed empathy - yet (on the internet) often I feel, as Bertrand Russell noted: "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." What I DO appreciate about Google plus posting is that you can simply "flag" a troll and a response "thanks, your report has been sent" appears (no need to copy, nor explain, just click on the flag). I wish more of us would do that (no use in arguing with some types). Good read, thumbs and pinning.
Mar 21, 2014 6:58am
BoomerBill
Thanks for reading! Yes, some of the people on the less intelligent side of things "don't know what they don't know."
Add a new comment - No HTML
You must be logged in and verified to post a comment. Please log in or sign up to comment.

Bibliography

  1. Jill D. Kuzma "Our Social Filter." jillkuzma.files.wordpress.com/. n/a/10/2008. 4/03/2014 <Web >
  2. Franklin E. Zimring "The politics of gun control." sfgate.com. 27/7/2012. 4/03/2014 <Web >

Explore InfoBarrel

Auto Business & Money Entertainment Environment Health History Home & Garden InfoBarrel University Lifestyle Sports Technology Travel & Places
© Copyright 2008 - 2016 by Hinzie Media Inc. Terms of Service Privacy Policy XML Sitemap

Follow IB Lifestyle