The Silent Majority: How it Interferes With Personal Accountability & Responsibility

One thing that I find interesting on the internet are the multi-faceted ideas of personal accountability. I will not make this a political critique. Instead I am looking at the ways in which individuals chose to either accept or reject responsibility for what they do and say while online.

Those of you who have read my views on snark might see how this line of thought relates. To my mind personal accountability is a hard road to take while engaging in the online environment. I'm not sure what this avoidant tendency is a function of, perhaps either socio-political self-identification or self-actualization though shared language.

The basic distinction can be understood as cause spokes-person versus cause-supporter. The context of the internet often voids this distinction. Under normal circumstances (ie protest settings or TV/Video interaction) the person "with the mike" is often either introduced or else obviously in a position of leadership.

Most "introductions" to causes online involve a google search by the would-be supporter. This very fact as innocuous as it seems is the crux of the matter.

The need to search for the inflammatory information that motivates one to a "cause" has a number of pitfalls.

One, the information may be there but the readers relationship to that information is not part of the context, for example, a college student is motivated by a video that a working tradesman is apathetic towards.

Two, the viewer's relationship context to that information is what drives the supporters of a "cause" to insist that "visibility" itself is all that is required.

Three, lack of personal accountability in the the online environment washes away individual attempts engage others in that cause in a manner of leveling.

Four, The attempt at leveling, if acknowledged by both parties, breaks down the language between self-identification and self-actualization to the extent that the spokes-person is now in the position of "just a supporter."

Five, Communication during the leveling process involves the exchange of links and other information that itself often starts the process over again at One. Either way this is a systemic way for those involved in the leveling process to pass off any personal responsibility or stake they have to the illegible "group".

In fact my own experiences and attempts to level with those of differing views online has had a dismal record. This is true even amongst those who seemingly listen to what I say, either way we all seem to dig our heals in.

In the end the inability to accept that someone holds views (and dare share then on "your" turf) on information differing from ones position is the hallmark of internet culture as it exists today. It is the unwritten rule of the Silent Majority.

As it is practiced any engagement on any website seems to come with the caveat that the commenter accept a certain baseline position, or else they risk being censored, snarked, or ignored by the prevailing group. This is all the while as the prevailing position remains unspoken (or "read between the lines") and thus illegible.

Now I am at a loss as to how address this abhorrent cultural norm. The only angle that I can think of is through that of the individual and his or her own willingness to acknowledge that they do not have patent rights to the moral high ground. Anything past these observations quickly degrades into debates over political morality, and I wish to avoid such a discussion altogether.

Alas, I too am just one opinion.  



        

Radical Empathy

I had a sort of epiphany last night. While mulling over the ideas that I often blog about I stumbled down a tangent relating to radical transparency. Technarians in this day and age love to point out that the Internet and social media naturally entail more accountability and transparency.

What then is entailed culturally by such radical transparency? I imagine a great amount of dirty laundry set out in plain sight. In such an environment we all receive the same scrutiny that is traditionally reserved for our politicians, and civil servants.

Now this new level of knowledge summarily entails a decision by the learning party. What do you do with that knowledge? This lesson is portrayed in a classic comic series,  somehow  seemingly overlooked or ignored by the self-same geek audience on the Internet. With new found power we find ourselves in a position of new responsability. Thus, the learning party can take one of two very fundamentally different positions either empathy, or scorn.

Scorn is the easiest path and it is also the one that is most apparent on the Internet. There is no shortage of snark, vitriol, or anger on the Internet, In fact it seems that such path is the norm, and it is expected.

Empathy is the true high road that no one takes. Such a path becomes radical when we are forced to engage it even as we feel the force of our own ego demanding a defense of its face. Both website owners, moderators and commenters can improve upon this path, and we all should practice it more while online.

Just because we can hold our neighbor accountable for their character flaws, and admitted mistakes doesn't mean we should, or that doing so is good for society as a whole. Everyone who engages with contextually vapid communications like the Internet should practice radical empathy as a default and be very mindful of how and when they make use of their scorn.    

A Common Man's Perspective on Information Overload

The topic of information overload is incisive. It is much, either bandied or jeered, and at times it seems that most of those chattering about the issue seemingly try to leverage socio-political force in favor of one thesis or another. Like most other academic discussions over the rules of moral football these debates grate the common man.

Yet even we as common citizens cannot enter such a dialectic environment unscathed. We too carry bounties of or own. So out of this I wish to pose a few questions, is anyone interested in studying and measuring the multitude of factors surrounding the interplay of socio-economics and information?

It is a very broad and generalized question, and should I myself be of more sure economic footing then I might pursue this question full time. However, as a common man I cannot afford such an undertaking, not at the present moment at least. So here I write and blog, not as an expert, but as a voice of inquiry.

Yet my own experience with the Internet and its web of relations has truly shown just how divisive even one man of lowly status can be. Words may be cheap, but such cost has no bearing on their sharpness. And in such a way rather then enjoying the commons' plowshares we walk amongst a battlefield of swords.

I have been told that I am a good communicator, and as such feel a stab whenever I fail to connect. Even after a year of constant communication and dialectic I feel that I have no more communicated to people online then I have become their ideological nemesis.

It is with this experience in mind that I ask, does the vast network of information provide the "right" information? Is the information that is provided prudent? Too often I am left to wonder whether others share my experience. That time when you know exactly what you are looking for, but due to the popularity algorithms with google such a search is constantly hampered. I have had these discussions with people I know offline, I just wonder if anyone online might also share such thoughts.

Has anyone else had similar experiences and if so how did you work around? Also if this has happened has it caused anyone to be subsequently more skeptical of politically charged information, or "breaking" news on social media?