Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Small Town Gossip Moves from the Diner to the Web and Turns Vicious

Mountain Grove, MO Town Square

Before the days of the Internet, people in small town America gathered at the local diner for a diet of companionship, gossip and sustenance. Everybody knew everybody's business but in general the chatter would be friendly enough - idle chit-chat about their neighbors, the weather and politics. The party line telephone system offered neighbors another opportunity to listen, sometimes surreptitiously, to the latest gossip that was spreading around town, but again, it was all pretty innocent and low-key.

All that changed, however, as the Internet slowly made its way into rural America and small town residents started gravitating toward social media. Hiding behind anonymity the fangs came out, and there didn't even have to be a full moon or any moon at all for that matter. Day or night, what was once innocent gossip turned into vicious personal attacks. Most of it was libelous and all of it had a detrimental impact on the residents and their relationships with each other. 

In a revealing article for the New York Times, A. G. Sulzberger describes how Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous can destroy the heretofore peace and tranquility of small towns where "rumors stay forever."
. . . Web sites created as places for candid talk about local news and politics are also hubs of unsubstantiated gossip, stirring widespread resentment in communities where ties run deep, memories run long and anonymity is something of a novel concept.
Take the town of Mountain Grove, MO where residents have moved from gossiping around a table reserved for the "Old Farts Club" at Dee's Place to vicious rumors and personal attacks on Mountain Grove Forum, a social media Web site called Topix. A waitress, Phoebe Best, says the site has "provoked fights and caused divorces." The owner calls Topix a "cesspool of character assassination."

It's the cook's tale, however, that reveals just how sordid, ugly and vicious the gossip has become thanks to Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous. Shane James has every right in the world to be very angry and very tense. His wife, Jennifer, had been the target in a post titled "freak." Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous "described the mother of two as, among other things, a 'methed-out, doped-out whore with AIDS.' Not a word was true, Mr and Ms. James said but the consequences were real enough.'"
Friends and relatives stopped speaking to them. Trips to the grocery store brought a crushing barrage of knowing glances. She wept constantly and even considered suicide. Now the couple has resolved to move
.
"I'll never come back to this town again," Ms. James said in an interview at the diner. "I just want to get the hell away from here."
The abuse and bullying that bloggers and large city dwellers have become accustomed to, and unfortunately engage in, on the Internet seems to have a more profound impact on the residents of small towns where "everybody knows everybody's business." Sulzberger writes, ". . . it often grates like steel wool in a small town where insults are not easily forgotten."
The forums have provoked censure by local governments, a number of lawsuits and, in one case, criticism by relatives after a woman in Austin, Ind., killed herself and her three children this year. Hours earlier she wrote on the Web site where her divorce had been a topic of conversation, “Now it’s time to take the pain away.”
In Hyden, Ky. (population 365), the local forum had 107 visitors at the same time one afternoon this month. They encountered posts about the school system, a new restaurant and local arrests, as well as the news articles and political questions posted by Topix.
But more typical were the unsubstantiated posts that identified by name an employee at a dentist’s office as a home wrecker with herpes, accused a gas station attendant of being a drug dealer, and said a 13-year-old girl was “preggo by her mommy’s man.” Many allegations were followed with promises of retribution to whoever started the post. 
Topix's chief executive Chris Tolle acknowledged that the biggest problem they have is "keeping the conversation on the rails." Yet, while defending it on free-speech grounds, he said "the comments are funny to read, make private gossip public, provide a platform for 'people who have negative things to say and [get this] are better for business."
At one point, he said, the company tried to remove all negative posts, but it stopped after discovering that commenters had stopped visiting the site. “This is small-town America,” he said. “The voices these guys are hearing are of their friends and neighbors.”
Some friends, huh?

While Topix uses software to automatically screen out offensive content such as racial slurs, others such as "obvious libel" are removed only after people complain.
Despite the screening efforts, the site is full of posts that seem to cross lines. Topix, as an Internet forum, is immune from libel suits under federal law, but those who post could be sued, if they are found.
The company receives about one subpoena a day for the computer addresses of anonymous commenters as part of law enforcement investigations or civil suits, some of which have resulted in cash verdicts or settlements.
Sulzberger's article brings up a few thoughts I've been mulling over for quite awhile. If people were required to use their real names, would they be less likely to go into attack mode? Would it tone down the rhetoric? Would they be more civil and courteous? Would they be less likely to lie? Would bullies be deterred from abusing and harassing others?

I've always felt that Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous were cowards, that if they couldn't hide behind "Anonymous" or use screen names, most might behave more like members of a civilized society. Of course, there are those who simply don't know how to "do," regardless of the type of social gathering. They are the folks who arrive at parties already drunk and pee in the fireplace or vomit in the punch bowl or assault another guest.  

Tuesday, April 06, 2010

NET NEUTRALITY - PETITION



From: CREDO

One of Glenn Beck's latest conspiracies involves a "gang of communists" who want to turn the Internet into a "Marxist utopia." That dangerous gang of communists he's warning Fox News viewers against? They're net neutrality supporters.


Glenn Beck has it all wrong: Net neutrality protects — not threatens — free speech online. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

The FCC is accepting public comments until Thursday on a proposed regulation that would protect net neutrality. Will you say that you won't be fooled by scare tactics and that you support an open Internet?

We've made it easy to submit a public comment in support of net neutrality. Just click here for a sample comment and talking points. When the FCC initially took comments in January, pro-net neutrality submissions vastly outweighed comments from opponents of Internet freedom. As a result, big telecom companies are running scared. They're worried that the FCC might agree with us and prohibit them from inspecting and filtering the Internet content you access, blocking Web sites and applications they don't like, and overcharging you for using the Web. Out of the 120,000 comments submitted, 98,000 of them — a whopping 74 percent — were from CREDO Action members like you.

The FCC has opened a second round in the comment period. So we need to repeat that performance and beat back the media monopolists once again.

. . . The big telecom companies have deployed hundreds of lobbyists and pushed outrageous lies. Their goal? Overcome our voices by duping the public into believing their net neutrality myths.

We have only two days to debunk these lies and protect the free-flowing Web, as the FCC is only accepting the second round of comments until April 8. We've made it easy for you to submit your comment on our site — but we'll need it by 10 a.m. Pacific time on April 8 in order to get it into the docket by the deadline.

Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications; AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert; and Verizon Wireless, which interfered with NARAL Pro-Choice America's ability to send text messages to its members.

Without net neutrality, the Internet would cease to be a public platform for free speech, political organizing, and equal opportunity.

Speak out against the corporate lies. Submit your public comment today. Thanks for speaking out for a free and open Internet.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager

CREDO Action from Working Assets