Essay 3

William Covert

Professor Werry

Rws 200

4/15/15

Solutions to Online Incivility

A serious problem affecting our society today is the issue of cyber bullying and the general lack of civility people display when they participate in online discussion. Many people out there seem to lose their sense of ethics and morality when they sit behind a keyboard and computer screen and are not in a face to face interaction with another person. These people, also known as “trollers” or “spammers”, seem harmless and many people feel as if online incivility isn't a serious issue however these people would be wrong. Many people have written articles and done studies that show that trollers and spammers have the power to turn the tide of public opinion on important social, political and scientific topics. Cyber bullies have much more power over others then many people would normally think they would and often times they suppress the intelligence and creativity of the victim. Andrew Stafford said that these people who lack online civility “have the potential to drive some of our brightest voices out of the public life altogether” and this is unacceptable. In the articles we read there were some different approaches to solving the issue of online incivility and in this essay I will discuss some of the solutions I have read about as well as analyze their relative strengths and weaknesses.

The first solution, and most widely supported in the articles I have read, is to eliminate anonymity on the internet. The idea behind this solution is that people who are anonymous on the internet have no fear of consequences or effective retaliation. They remain hidden behind the cloak of anonymity and are able to say whatever they feel like saying because the victims of these people only know their aggressors by their handles (or usernames). Many philosophers including Plato believe that if human beings were able to be invisible or able to do things anonymously, then we would all do horrendous acts. In one of Plato's' parables called the ring of gyges, he wrote about a shepherd who found an invisibility ring deep in the earth which, when worn, turns the wearer invisible. The man put the ring on and over time began performing acts of incivility and at the culmination of the parable, the man rapes the queen, murders the king and takes the king as his wife. Plato believed that any man would have acted the same as the man from his parable if he were able to not be held accountable for his actions. Different journalists such as Julie Zhuo and Tim Adams believe that the anonymity is the problem that is causing incivility on the internet and want to abolish online anonymity. Tim Adams also talked about “deindividuation” which is the state people are in when anonymous. In this state of deindividuation, people fear no consequences and have no problem saying many things that they would never say if they were face to face with other people.

Another solution I have read about states that we need programmers to create better software and algorithms to help us filter out the comments and posts that are attacks. Many women are threatened online with rape and other physical acts of violence and these software programs would help to eliminate personal attacks such as these. It would be hard for algorithms like these to be put in place due to the free speech right that we are provided in the first amendment, however if these apps or websites put this into their terms and agreements then people would have no choice but to follow the rules or be kicked off the app. This seems like a very promising solution because although it may be hard to calibrate the algorithms and there may be bugs in the beginning that need to be worked out, it would stop a big part of the incivility happening online if the threats and derogatory comments or posts were able to be recognized and terminated before they ever reached their target. This seems like a promising solution to me but it isn’t the full answer to our problem. These algorithms and programs would only help to stop the reception of the hateful or useless messages but they would do nothing about curing online incivility. It would only force the trollers and spammers to find other ways to send their pointless and hateful messages.

            The final solution, which seems the most promising to me, is the solution of tummeling. Tummeling is where tummlers promote good discussion online but are able to take bad discussion, and people who practice it, down from the website. In other words, tummlers “are catalysts and bridge builders”. Their main priority is to promote good conversation. They will strike up conversations with people online and try and coerce people who either don’t often speak or who have a good response to the topic into speaking on the subject. Also one of their duties, besides promoting good discussion, would be to discourage and decrease less productive speech. Tummlers would have the power to take down nonproductive speech and block the trollers and spammers who propagate it. Having a team of tummlers to monitor and promote or demote the different discussions they see would improve the quality of online speech tremendously. This may seem very similar to having algorithms and programs take out hateful speech, but I find this solution to be much more promising for 2 reasons. First off, Tummlers are able understand what is and isn't acceptable whereas a program can only search for what it has been told to look for. Secondly, tummlers can promote healthy, positive discussion to the online community in addition to demoting harmful or pointless speech.

            In this essay I have talked about the different solutions to the issue of online incivility and I assessed their relative strengths and weaknesses. I believe that tummeling is the best solution for this problem because they are best equipped to not only handle the negative discussions, but encourage the positive ones as well. Online incivility is not a problem that will manage itself, and whatever the action may be, something needs to be done about it.

Works Cited

Thompson, Clive. “Smarter than You Think: How Technology Is Changing Our Minds for the Better.” 2013. 77-81. Print.

Lomas, Natasha. "#Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms." TechCrunch. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. <http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/18/gamergate-tactics/>.

Stafford, Andrew. "Who Are These Haters That Poison the Well of Our Discourse?" The Sydney Morning Herald. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. <http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/who-are-these-haters-that-poison-the-well-of-our-discourse-20120411-1ws5c.html>.

Homework 4/6

 A serious problem affecting our society today is the issue of cyber bullying and the general lack of civility people display when they participate in online discussion. Many people out there seem to lose their sense of ethics and morality when they sit behind a keyboard and computer screen and are not in a face to face interaction with another person. These people, also known as “trollers” or “spammers”, seem harmless and many people feel as if cyber bullying isnt a serious form of hate speech however these people would be wrong. Many people have written articles and done studies that show that trollers and spammers have the power to turn the tide of public opinion on important social, political and scientific topics. Cyber bullies have much more power over others then many people would normally think they would and often times they suppress the intelligence and creativity of the victim. Andrew Stafford said that these people who lack online civility “have the potential to drive some of our brightest voices out of the public life altogether”. In the articles we read there were some different approaches to solving the issue of online incivility and in this essay I will discuss some of the solutions I have read about as well as analyze their relative strengths and weaknesses.

The first solution, and most widely supported in the articles I have read, is to eliminate anonymity on the internet. The idea behind this solution is that people who are anonymous on the internet have no fear of consequences or effective retaliation. They remain hidden behind the cloak of anonymity and are able to say whatever they feel like saying because the victims of these people only know their aggressors by their handles (or usernames). Many philosophers including Plato believe that If human beings were able to be invisible or able to do things anonymously, then we would all do horrendous acts. In one of Platos' parables called the ring of gyges, he wrote about a shepherd who found an invisibility ring deep in the earth which, when worn, turns the wearer invisible. The man put the ring on and over time began performing acts of incivility and at the culmination of the parable, the man rapes the queen, murders the king and takes the king as his wife. Plato believed that any man would have acted the same as the man from his parable if he were able to not be held accountbale for his actions. Different journalists such as Julie Zhuo and Tim Adams believe that the anonymity is the problem that is causing incivility on the internet and want to abolish online anonymity. Tim Adams also talked about “deindividuation” which is the state people are in when anonymous. In this state of deindividuation, people fear no consequences and have no problem saying many things that they would never say if they were face to face with other people.

Another solution I have read about states that we need programmers to create better software and algorithms to help us filter out the comments and posts that are attacks. Many women are threatened online with rape and other physical acts of violenceand these software programs would help to eliminate personal attacks such as these. It would be hard for algorithms like these to be put in place due to the free speech right that we are provided in the first ammendment, however if these apps or websites put this into their terms and agreements then people would have no choice but to follow the rules or be kicked off the app. This seems like a very promising solution because although it may be hard to calibrate the algorithms and there may be bugs in the beginning that need to be worked out, it would stop a big part of the incivility happening online if the threats and derogatory comments or posts were able to be recognized and terminated before they ever reached their target.

Homework for 3/25

In the articles I read, there were 3 main solutions for the problem of online incivility. One solution is for people to learn how to be civil and act in a civil manner. This seems a bit far fetched to me because I don't believe that many people will all of a sudden just realize they are being uncivil and change their ways to act in a civil manner. Another solution that was presented stated that we need better software, or algorithms, that can catch the uncivil trolling comments or whatever it is and keep it hidden away from normal viewers. This problem seems unlikely to work due to the amount of people out there who would learn how to work around the system not to mention the fact that people would argue that it goes against our first amendment rights. The third solution i read was for online companies to create better algorithms that would stop personal attacks from hate groups like what went on in the #gamergate situation. This seems like a promising situation because if an algorithm can see that something is happening in mass, it will be easy to recognize and shut down. It would be a lot easier than noticing if 1, 2, or a few people would post something because they could easily find ways to work around bans. however if hundreds or even thousands of people were to do it, it would be quite easy to spot and catch. An idea that ive been toying around with in my head would be to have certain levels in the internet. Some cites could be blue for kid friendly then green for civil, yellow for moderately civil, and red for entirely unmonitored and could be civil or uncivil. see the green and blue coded sites would be strictly monitored for people who dont want to see anything that could be uncivil. The yellow sites would be less strictly monitored so you could find stuff that ranges from civil to mildly uncivil. the red sites would be completely unmonitored so everything found there is completely uncensored so you dont know if you will be getting civil, uncivil, or something in between.

Homework for monday 3/23

What are some of the main differences in the way these texts define The Problem?

1. In the first text Andrew Stafford, a reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald, says that the problem with cyber bullying is that cyber bullies endeavor to poison and ruin online debates and they encounter little to no resistance and always win. Cyber bullies revel in anonymity, according to Stafford, and they will censor themselves much more if they will be recognized.
2. The second text, written by Jason Wilson, counters Staffords article, says that cyber bullying is just another form of argument or “conflict” which is a pillar of democracy. He believes that the problem is anonymity which can cause people to lose inhibitions.
3. In the third article, author Julie Zhuo determines that the problem is internet trollers who are cloaked in anonymity because they are not held accountable for any of their libelous statements.
4. Dana Boyd said in her article that the problem is the attempted limitation of pseudonyms and internet handles. Anonymity is a massive boon to many people and it would be damaging in many ways to these people to be saying the things they do under their own names.
5. In article #5, Cornell Clayton said that the problem in our online society is the lack of civility. atrocious things are being said with little thought of the acceptability of their statement. Most people wouldnt do something completely uncivilized in person but on the internet, most people will go much farther than they normally would. Civility is the foundation of a Civilized culture and it seems that it is slowly slipping away from people typing on a keyboard.
6. Tim Adams, author of the 6th article, said that deindividuation is the problem with the internet. Deindividuation is the state you are in once you are anonymous and feel as if social norms don't apply to you anymore.

What are some of the main differences in their claims about what causes the problem?

In the first and fifth articles, the authors say that the people are the problem because they can do whatever they want with no repercussions and they have lost their sense of civility whilst online. In the second, third, fourth, and sixth articles, the authors believe that the problem is is caused by the anonymity that the internet provides. People can hide behind a pseudonym or a handle and do whatever they want.

What are some of the main differences in their claims about what should be done to solve the problem?

The first, third, and sixth articles say that the solution to the problem is to take away anonymity on the internet. This would lead to much more polite discussions because people would be accountable for their own actions. However Jason Wilson says that the solution to the problem is to stop trying to get people to censor their voices. He says that this is a new frontier of democracy in which people can speak freely without fear of harm. In the fourth text, roberts says that anonymity is vital to many people on the internet and should be kept no matter what. The fifth text, by Clayton, says that we really need to just evaluate our words before we type them. Instead of the old saying think before you speak, he is basically saying think before you write online.

Essay 2

Demagoguery is a particular type of argument that is very popular in the United States. Demagoguery is an underhanded way of garnering support for a specific cause such as an election and it relies heavily on in-group and out-group differences, polarization, scapegoating, and leading questions. Author Patricia Roberts Miller describes demagoguery and the different rules of discourse which are needed in order to have a successful argument in her article “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric”. Miller explains that demagoguery is “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an in-group to hate and scapegoat some outgroup, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called ‘an escape from freedom’”(Miller 462). Wayne La’Pierre is the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association and he gave this speech which outlines some steps he believes should be taken in order to protect the children of America. In this essay I will analyze La’Pierre’s argument and his demagogic discourse in order to determine the effectiveness of his speech. I will do this with help from Roberts-Miller’s article.  

La Pierre’s speech takes place in the wake of the Sandy Hook School Shooting where a young man, Adam Lanza, shot 20 children and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. When Lanza was confronted by police, he committed suicide. This is one of the greatest tragedies to happen to this country in years. La’Pierre is speaking towards people who are filled with fear at the abhorrent actions of Adam Lanza and he is trying to dissuade people from the idea that stricter gun control is the answer. La’Pierre’s main claim in his speech is that Americans must protect their children at their schools with armed guards. “I call on congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school”(La’Pierre, 3).  He says that Americans protect the most important things in their lives such as their money and their president with armed men and women so why not the future of America, the children.  Another claim that La’Pierre makes is that “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people” (2). La’Pierre is referring to the entertainment industry. The industry that creates such things as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty or “ blood soaked slasher films like ‘American Psycho’ and ‘Natural Born Killers’” (La’Pierre, 2). La’Pierre states that these massive “media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes” (2) and all these deaths and acts of violence that people witness must have some psychological effect. La’Pierre has decided that the best defense is a strong offense. We need to post well trained, armed guards at all schools because, as La’Pierre states, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (2).

            In her article, Patricia Roberts-Miller describes many of the fallacies that demagogues often commit. After reading her article, it is obvious that La’Pierre has committed some of these fallacies, leading to a flawed speech. Polarization is where someone presents two different options to a problem. One option is the option that the speaker or writer wants you to choose while the other option is obviously a much worse solution or is seriously flawed in some way. An example of polarization in La’Pierre’s speech occurs when he asks “Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away . . . or a minute away” (2). Obviously any person in their right mind would rather have a well-trained good guy with a gun come as soon as possible however the idea is not nearly as simple as La’Pierre makes it sound. He presents his listeners with a way oversimplified, easy solution of guns, and an obviously worse solution of no guns. Another type of demagogic fallacy, according to Roberts Miller, is scapegoating which La’Pierre uses multiple times. Remember the “callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry” (2) that La’Pierre mentions? Well he is making the entertainment industry a scapegoat. A scapegoat is someone who “bears the blame” (Roberts-Miller, 464) and La’Pierre is implying that the entertainment industry is the culprit behind the corruption of people such as Adam Lanza. Another example scapegoating in La’Pierres speech is when he said that the political class and the press in Washington were so afraid of and angry at the NRA that they wouldn’t allow any real resistance to monsters such as Adam Lanza. La’Pierre blames politicians and press for these atrocious actions because they might have been prevented if the NRA’s advice was heeded after the Virginia Tech massacre when they advocated for armed security in schools. La’Pierre gives a very convincing speech that is impossible to refute because nobody in their right minds can say that they would rather not protect America’s children.

            Through analyzing both La’Pierre’s and Roberts-Miller’s text I learned a lot about demagoguery, and more specifically, I learned about scapegoating, polarization, and the other types of fallacies used by demagogues. La’Pierre’s makes an initially convincing argument but when his speech is analyzed with help from Roberts-Miller’s article, we see that it is actually heavily flawed. After analyzing La’Pierres speech, I feel confident that I can now recognize and evaluate the different types of demagogic discourse.

Intro

The Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, addressed the media following the Sandy Hook Massacre and gave his opinion on what needs to be done now in order to keep this unspeakable crime from being repeated. Author Patricia Roberts Miller Explains the different rules of discourse which are needed in order to have a successful argument. Miller explains that demagoguery is “polarizing propaganda that motivates members of an ingroup to hate and scapegoat some outgroup, largely by promising certainty, stability, and what Erich Fromm famously called ‘an escape from freedom’”(Miller 462). In this essay I will use Millers text to help me analyze LaPierre’s speech. La Pierre’s speech takes place in the wake of the Sandy Hook School Shooting. The Sandy Hook shooting is where a young man, Adam Lanza, shot 20 children and 6 staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut. When he was confronted by police, he committed suicide and this is one of the greatest tragedies to happen to this country in years. LaPierre is speaking towards those people who are calling for greater restrictions on gun ownership. LaPierres main claim in his speech is that Americans must oprotect their children at their schools with armed guards. He says that we protect the most important things in our lives with armed men and women so why not the future of America, the children. Another claim that LaPierre has is that the blame for acts of violence such as these should be placed partially on the media. Americans witness such atrocious acts of crime in movies, shows and games ranging from minor crimes to major crimes such as rape and murder. Obviously this must have some psychological impact on some people.

11. One of La pierres claims is that American children are unprotected from gun violence at school and other childrens areas. . Another claim he has is that although guns have an almost taboo quality nowadays, they are not bad. We love for soldiers, government and police to have guns, so why not lawful citizens. Another claim he makes is that it would be easy to accomkplish the goal of having armed guards protecting children because there are millions of retired police or soldiers who would gladly stand up and help.

22.  One of the major strategies pierre uses to connect with are his appeals to pathos. Of course we all want to protect our children.

33.  Pierre is writing in response to the sandy hook massacre at a time when many people were either very pro guns or very against guns and his writing could appeal to the fear many people felt at the thought of losing their families.

44. He doesn’t use many statistics whioch would really help out his cause. He also over simplifies things greatly.