The Internet Was Built on Bullying, so Let’s not Pretend this Is New
March 26, 2007 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
The portion of the blogosphere that I frequent is appalled at the recent death threats and demeaning comments aimed at Kathy Sierra.
It’s hard to imagine a less likely target for a hate-fest than Sierra, who generally writes smart, helpful posts about website design and writing on Creating Passionate Users. The cheery retro style of her site is disarming, but obviously not to some anonymous antagonists.
Some of the comments made on a variety of blogs and websites are pretty creepy, and I don’t blame Sierra for being shaken by the experience. She cancelled a speaking engagement and told readers she was scared for her life, and staying at home with her children. In an emotional post, she pointed blame (for allowing some of the comments to appear) at a few well-known bloggers, and questioned whether she would ever blog again.
Among the gentle souls who inhabit Digg, not surprisingly, are a few hard-core twerps who say she’s overreacting, should expect death threats, and is a f*cking dumb bitch (scroll down to the bottom to see the offensive comments that have been moderated out by Digg users, or just take my word that they’re insensitive).
Yes, she is overreacting. But then, sometimes overreaction is appropriate.
A few nasty comments … some very specific comments about how she’d be better off dead … an image of her beside a noose … a Photoshopped picture of her with panties covering her mouth. If any blogger was the subject of one of these attacks, they would probably shrug it off. Maybe they’d reduce the amount of online personal information available, in case the anonymous harasser turned out to be a sick freak.
But lump a bunch of scattered insults and threats together in a month-long assault on her emotions and sense of security, and you have a pattern of harassment that is inexcusable.
Public intimidation and harassment of people online is nothing new. In the early days of the Internets, flaming noobs was considered appropriate behaviour, and there are still plenty of places where flaying someone online is the thing to do (Digg comes to mind).
Chris Pirillo points out that bullies have always been a factor in real life, so the shocked reaction of the blogosphere seems out of whack.
I have to agree. I see random acts of human unkindness all the time. Moreso online than in real life these days, but then, I’ve been out of high school for almost 30 years. The kind of abuse that gets hurled around in the comments section of some blogs is inexcusable, but we look the other way every day. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Just visit a popular political blog.
The sort of head-in-the-sand behaviour that allowed bullying to flourish in my high school, in Pirillo’s and probably in everybody else’s is the same as the bloggers who claim they can’t control the vitriole being exchanged in their comments sections. Everyone who participates in discussions that involve hurtful, hateful speech without calling people out, passively supports the nastiness.
Aggressive, nasty behaviour that’s intended to intimidate others is what the Internet (and bulletin boards, and Usenet) was built on. In our own small way, we each have a responsibility to either rebuild our own little portion of it, or we’re guilty of helping the harassment thrive.
Tags: kathy sierra, digg, harassment, bullying, death threats, etiquette, abuse, behavior
Flaming N00bs is generally associated in some sort of forum or bbs environment. Political blogs are heated partisan spaces. As a rule, those arenas of thought tend to foster more charged speech. How are those areas related to Kathy Sierra’s blog where the topics are about helping others?
That’s where the “overreaction” may be coming from. The sense that there’s no possible remote justification at all for the type of remarks that have been made towards Kathy.
The blogosphere is Ours. We need to police it before Our Elected Political Heroes try to do it for us.
I don’t read political blogs, gossip blogs or Mac vs. Windows war zones, but I still come across plenty of nastiness tarted up as “debate”.
I’m okay with the reaction by bloggers. It’s the long periods of silence beforehand that I’m questioning.
Eric,
From the post I read on Sierra’s site, detailing the threats and photo, those are more than being “nasty” or bullying or intimidation.
They are out right threats. Detailed, thought-out, persistent threats.
Whether done by a 15yo punk or a 38yo punk, they are still threats. Dangerous. And wrecking havoc in Sierra’s life.
The threats are criminal — or should be — and the people/person should be found and tried.
The comments go beyond bullying, as others have classified them.
Mike
Very well said. And there’s a persistent denial that such bullying occurs in certain parts of the blogosphere — like the “momosphere.” I have witnessed some vicious attacks that are more hateful than anything in high school (and spoke up because I thought it was appalling) but it’s hard to get anyone to own up to the fact that what’s happening is actually bullying. Given how rampant bullying has become in our society, maybe the line between vigorous debate and bullying has become so blurred for some people that they no longer know the difference between arguing a case and attacking a person. Or maybe mean is the latest flavor of cool.
I would just like to point out that even though I have a fine arts degree and spend some time looking at the photo I did not “process” the image visually as “panties over her head” That makes it sound like some jerk photocopied Hanes over her hair. When I saw it initially it looked like a bloody gash had been photo shopped over her full face with red. Then I tried to figure out what it really was an my first guess was a vulva – with the other comments that she had received I was horrified and avoided the image until reading your post – I forced myself to look again and you are right – it’s a sheer thong covering a woman’s mouth – with the yellow strap dissecting her skull and what would have to be the backside covering an open woman’s mouth in sher red. But please don’t think for a minute that those first two impressions were accidental on the part of the person who created it – it’s a violent picture and you are downplaying it because it’s not threatening to you. It’s sexually intimidating and violently imagined if it had been done in an art class it would have been interpreted that way. In the context of slit throats and oral rape from the previous threats there is nothing mild about that picture.
The police think it’s a threat for a reason. If you don’t understand how scary that image is think of it if it were your mother after someone had been threatening to shut her up permanently for a week.
Minimizing the picture or the threats plays into the “Just get over it” school of tolerating hatred and violence. If you’re willing to stick by the “panties over her head comment maybe you ought to post the pic with the threats.
Mike and Drinne: I mentioned in the first paragraph that Kathy had received death threats, so I don’t think I was downplaying the seriousness of the anonymous campaign against her.
I very specifically said that she overreacted, and that it is completely justified. Maybe I was being too subtle, but my point was that an overreaction is a logical response to the situation she found herself in.
If someone posted stuff like that on my site, I’m sure I would be filled with rage and a persistent fear of the unknown capabilities of whoever was stalking me. It’s an invasion of your sense of safety, both for you and your family.
The way she named names of those who might be involved in some way with the online harassment suggests to me that she was acting out of anger and fear, which, again, I think is justified in her situation. Under less stress, she would probably have been more measured in her description of who played what role in the websites involved.
By describing the instances of harassment as I did, I wasn’t trying to downplay their seriousness or the emotional damage they caused to Kathy and her family. I was trying to indicate that any one instance in isolation would not have caused the average blogger (Kathy included) to get too worried. It was the compounding effect of a series of threats, demeaning comments and visual images that caused such a strong emotional impact.
And again, I think her reaction is completely understandable and justified, given that she felt unsafe as a result of the pattern and nature of the harassment.
You said:
“Aggressive, nasty behaviour that’s intended to intimidate others is what the Internet (and bulletin boards, and Usenet) was built on”.
I’m not sure where in the online world you hung out to make such a statement.
(alt.syntax.tactical, maybe? :)
I was a Usenet participant during the early to mid nimeties, and also on one or two FidoNet echoes in the BBS world. Yes, I saw the behavior you are speaking of, but I was never in a forum where it dominated the mood. The Usenet *I* saw was the one where the most common single tagline was “Hope this helps”. And it was not sarcasm. The Internet and BBS comunities as I experienced them overwhelmingly consisted of people volunteering countless hours of time, expertise, skills and dedication in order to be helpful to others and make a contribution to the common good.
In some forums where I spent time I was a frequent poster of controversial and unpopular minority views. The worst I ever got in return was snide sarcastic putdowns. I also found a good bit of respect even among those who vigorusly disagreed with me. In many ways, it was a more civilized time.
Yes, flame wars existed, ast existed, and trolls existed. But they were widely regarded as aberations. In no way did they define or dominate the medium.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
Hope this helps,
-Steve
Steve:
I agree that on Usenet and Fidonet there was a lot of helping going on, a lot of encouragement, and a lot of respect for differences of opinion.
I also experienced some situations where the pack mentality kicked in, and people who could browbeat others were able to prevail.
I’ve been on a bulletin board where hurtful, threatening comments were made at one of the few women who let their gender be known on the site. The justification was that she was violating the sense of community by behaving differently than the old guard. It wasn’t a pretty site, and a couple of us reamed out the offenders, who were temporarily banned, and who apologized.
If no one had stood up to them, would they have understood the impact their behaviour was having on the woman involved? I doubt it.
There has been a certain amount of glorification of the rough and tumble verbal exchanges that have taken place over the years, and I don’t buy into the myth that it was a good thing.
If something’s justified, how can it be an overreaction? Just asking.
People who leave comments or make threats fall into two categories. The first, bullies, can hide behind their computers and say things they’re too cowardly to say to someone in person.
The second group are those who are just flat out warped, and don’t have the same values as everyone else. Some are only warped to a small degree, others are somewhere past Pluto.
Fortunately, both groups are small segments of those who frequent the net, sphere, or whatever. But, as in the real world, they can cause pain all out of proportion to their numbers.
Glenn:
If you were recently the victim of an assault, and someone 40 feet away stepped toward you while you were getting in your car, you might slam the door, lock it and peel out of the parking lot without checking to see if the person needed help.
An overreaction, but I think justified.
I totally agree with your comment about a small segment of sickos who have a disproportionate impact.