Online political chat is an insult to democracy. Can it be fixed?

The Boston Globe - Freedom to Flame! ^ | 10/13/2002 | By Nicholas Thompson

[vannrox]

Online political chat is an insult to democracy. Can it be fixed?

THE OTHER DAY, a group of Americans gathered together to deliberate the wisdom of a war with Iraq.

D. started it off with harsh words for President Bush, arguing that he just wants a war to distract the nation from other ills: ''Face it America, [Bush] is nuts, and is as dangerous as any outside terrorist we could possibly face.''

[vannrox]

From the liberal elite in Boston...

[Joe Bonforte]

Still, no one has really found the right formula for conducting a political discussion.

Untrue. Lightly moderated boards like FR and LibertyForum work pretty well. You can't stop the idiots from wandering in, but if you keep the signal-to-noise ratio high enough, they eventually wander away.

Blog board discussions seem to do pretty well also. Again, the board owner can stop the obvious slop.

[dighton]

What a bunch of sissies.

;-)

[Vidalia]

"Nicholas Thompson is a Markle Fellow at the New America Foundation."

No mention of FreeRepublic?

Nicholas Thompson also just fell off of a New England turnip truck...

[demlosers]

As a Markle Fellow with the New America Foundation, Mr. Thompson focuses on the Internet’s impact on innovation, from open-source software to cancer research — to democratic reform in Africa.

Mr. Thompson was previously an editor at The Washington Monthly and has also contributed to The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Slate and The Washington Post, among other publications.

He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Stanford University where he earned degrees in Earth Systems, Political Scienc, and Economics.
Recent contributions:

G8 Summit: Africa and the Information Age

AuthorBiography

[demlosers]

Mr. Thompson focuses on the Internet’s impact on innovation, from open-source software....

Explains why he put Slashdot on a pedestal.

[bfree]

Once again, leftwing censorship must be the answer. This article is rubbish.

[Billthedrill]

I don't honestly see a great deal of difference between the discourse quoted above and normal political bar conversation, which is all a chatroom is. It isn't, actually, so much the moderators on FR that maintain the level of discourse so much as it is the fact that it is a very well-established board with a population that tends to enforce its internal - sometimes unwritten internal - rules with a blowtorch and a sledgehammer.

I have been told that it is an intimidating board for new users, and rightfully so. One does occasionally get to enjoy the sight of a clueless chatroom warrior wandering in, throwing down a contentless vanity post after two days' membership, and wondering why the roof falls in. I liken it to a freshman attending a fraternity party with his own paddle and a large "Kick Me" sign stuck to his back - he's perfectly welcome and no harm is intended but he shouldn't be surprised if he takes a godawful shellacking. There are times and places where one should not tempt fate.

That aside, I've been very pleased with the general cordiality here on FR despite heated differences of opinion on nearly everything. It's about the last place remaining where you hear the equivalent of "hush, child, the adults are talking."

You moron. My butt itches.

[cornelis]

Lightly moderated boards like FR and LibertyForum work pretty well

It's as good as good is. Lightly moderated, but by whom? And that will make or break it, as far as excellence is concerned. If you have a group of 1200 people, and they all get to have their say, that's nice arithmetic, but no mark of excellence.

[cornelis]

I don't honestly see a great deal of difference between the discourse quoted above and normal political bar conversation

Perhaps another comparison would be more beneficial then?

[swarthyguy]

A limited article. If he had read about some of the invective and prose hurled around in some campaigns in the nineteenth century, he's wouldn't judge so glibly. And even some of the Hamilton and Burr election shenanigans.

And I think more journalists would be well served by following certain threads on current events.

[Aric2000]

That was perfect, nothing more needs to be said. ;)

[cornelis]

The ability to flame is found to be generally distributed among all. Perhaps we should give Descartes a call.

[Billthedrill]

Oh, no, I think it's fairly close, just that the author seems to have his expectations set a little high for what is essentially anonymous conversation between strangers. That's not much of a recipe for politesse. At FR is isn't, exactly, strangers, which is one clue to why the level of discourse seems (to me, anyhow) higher here than your average IRC. You don't get "that's below your usual standard" at an IRC; you do, here.

[cornelis]

And even some of the Hamilton and Burr election shenanigans

Perhaps they lowered to pitch a bit--to a fault. But here's a point: the "equal opportunity employment" of the most assinine ideas is detrimental. Legitimacy of the lowest common denominator is democracy's Achille's heel.

[cornelis]

his expectations set a little high

Democrats, true to their name, set their expectations to the LCD.

[cornelis]

FYI

[irv]

Political Internet boards tend to attract people with unusually shaky conversational skills.

This one's funny. I suspect he may have done as much as ten minutes research for this article.

... popular computer programmer and hacker site slashdot.org - break(s) into far fewer shouting matches

No. I may have overestimated the amount of research. By about a factor of 10.

Slate staff members remove irrelevant posts from their boards

Oh! His research was done at Slate! All is explained.

But I'm sure he would ignore this neanderthal, contentless response from an armchair commando with poor conversational skills.

[swarthyguy]

Agreed. But the LCD is a perennial feature of the political condition - otherwise it moves into an elitism.

People decried TV ads, focus groups etc. How is a "high minded" strategy based on focus groups better?

Plus, back to the boards - lightly moderated and selfpolicing with interested individuals lead to better discourses. But the flaming, trolling and disrupting can be entertaining, too.

Methinks he doth protest too much. Perhaps he doesn't like it that the most active boards don't support his types of ideas too much.

[IronJack]

I would bet dollars to dingoes that if the Net were owned by LIBERAL political sites, this same writer would be touting cyberspace as the next social phenomenon. It is only because the Right commands the Internet that this effete is waving it off so cavalierly.

But this tidal wave will inexorably swamp him and his complacent cronies. They are dinosaurs, and we are the comet.