Category: society

The polite victory

Even when you’re right, being rude can lose an argument

I’ve discussed before how manners matter online. A bizarre exchange illustrates this and how you can lose an argument by being rude online.

The exchange started with a New York Times article on the Qantas A380 emergency in Singapore. The final paragraph in the piece claimed the airliner’s Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) didn’t work properly;

“Even the cockpit voice recorder did not work right, according to a report by Australian investigators. It failed to halt when the plane landed, and because it operated in a two-hour loop, the critical periods were recorded over.”

That nugget of information lead me to tweet out the following;

A few hours later, the following tweets appear;

On protesting I wasn’t posting “deliberate & malicious misinformation”, I’m then told I’m a liar;

From there conversation doesn’t go far and I end up blocking the guy so I can no longer see his twitter posts.

The funny thing is the gentleman is correct in saying the A380’s CVR worked properly, as the Australian Transport Safety Board states on their website;

“The cockpit voice recorder was transported to the ATSB’s technical facilities in Canberra, Australia for download and analysis. Over 2 hours of cockpit audio was recovered. However, due to the failure of the No 1 engine to shutdown in Singapore, and therefore continuing power supply to the recorder, the audio at the time of the engine failure well over 2 hours before the No 1 engine could be shut down, was overwritten. That said, elements of the available audio are expected to be of assistance to the investigation.”

QF32’s Cockpit Voice Recorder didn’t fail, it’s designed to turn off when the engines shut down and as the crew couldn’t turn one of the engines off the CVR kept going and ultimately overwrote the critical parts of the flight. Which isn’t the fault of the recorder at all.

I was wrong.

Now, had the gentleman suggested something along the lines of “Paul, you’re misinformed. CVR worked fine. Read the ATSB report” I’d have read the correct report, apologised and moved on. However this gentleman chose to be rude and aggressive.

Thankfully the worst that can happen online is a flurry of rude words followed by one or both of the people blocking the other, in the real world behaving like this – say by barrelling up to someone in a bar and calling them liar – probably isn’t going to work out as well.

Which shows how in the online world, just as in the real, offline community, manners do matter.

Choose your words before disagreeing with someone, just as being aggressive at the school hall isn’t going to work out well, it probably won’t online either.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

The end of the troll

Is it time we stopped Internet anonymity?

Australian union leader Paul Howes today claimed in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph that New Media is denigrating politicians. His point being anonymous users on newspaper websites (such as the one he writes for) and online services like Twitter encourage abuse and slander which is degenerating politics and media discussion.

The rough and tumble of the Internet was raised during the Canberra Media140 conference last September where conversation turned around Liberal politician Joe Hockey’s comment that anonymous, banal tweets was causing him to lose faith in online services like Twitter.

Media140 provided more discussion about anonymity when The Australian decided to out the anonymous blogger Grogs Gamut, aka Greg Jericho. Greg wasn’t being abusive however his commentary had clearly found its way under the skin of some members of the Canberra political classes.

But does anonymity matter?  We are kidding ourselves if we believe we are truly anonymous on the Internet. Few of us have the skills or diligence to fully hide our tracks from people we offend or upset.

Anonymity also discredits much of a person’s statements – as both Paul and Joe have pointed out, if you aren’t prepared to put your name to your views then there is a good argument that your opinions are really worthless.

However that argument ignores the power imbalance between the ordinary citizen who may find their career at risk by stating their views, as Greg Jericho found, and politicians and those working for political parties or allied organisations, like Joe and Paul who are protected by powerful and often tribally loyal party structures, PR machines and compliant journalists.

Probably the part that’s most disingenuous though about Paul Howes’ article is that anonymous Internet commenters are dragging politicians down. Sadly our politicians did that job themselves long before social media or web2.0 based websites came on the scene.

Today’s politicians are only reaping what they have sown themselves. Paul and Joe’s mentors – people like Graham Richardson, John Howard and Bob Carr – went out of their way to pander to and encourage the shrill, anonymous harridans of talkback radio.

Unfortunately for today’s politicians, the Internet doesn’t have the same gatekeepers in the form of friendly announcers, producers and editors to save them from the public’s genuine, unfiltered opinions.

The fact many of those anonymous comments – whether online or in more traditional media channels – may be true is another thing to consider; that people genuinely believe these politicians are doing the wrong thing. Rightly or wrongly, is that the fault of the Internet, or the fault of those politicians and their advisors who claim to have wonderful communication skills?

Internet anonymity is not perfect, and often not right, but the privilege of being able to make an anonymous statement is a fundamental part of a working democracy.

It’s not surprising our current generation of spin-doctored, on-message politicians feel threatened by a medium they struggle to understand or control, but that isn’t the fault of the anonymous online troll who could turn out to be what ultimately saves our democracy.

Similar posts:

Learning from the past

Armistice Day reminds us of why we need to learn and adapt

Today being Remembrance Day, the anniversary of the First World War’s end, it’s fitting to not just to remember those who fell in that costly war but also learn the lessons from the mistakes that ended up wasting so many lives.

Undoubtedly the biggest tragedy of the war was the sheer cost in soldiers’ lives which was due to the commanding generals’ refusal to accept the era of the cavalryman was over as the machine gun, supported by heavy artillery and the airplane, became the main battlefield weapon.

This wilful blindness to technology is even more galling when one considers the machine gun was an invention of the US civil war fifty years earlier and had been extensively used by the European powers in conquering and subduing native populations in their colonies.

Those commanders such as Haig, Gough, Ludendorff and Kaiser Whilhelm — the “donkeys leading lions” — ignored the technological changes that had changed their industry.

Worse, they wouldn’t listen; Haig rarely visited the front or spoke to his junior officers and men and the Kaiser was forced to abdicate and live out his days in exile because he ignored the discontent in his own country.

In times of great change, we need to listen, learn and adapt. As we saw in the 1914-18 war, the costs of not doing so can be great.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

The new Pantopticon

Are we entering a new age of conformity?

There’s a rule in broadcasting that any microphone should be treated as loaded. Regardless of whether you think it’s on or not, you shouldn’t say anything untoward near a microphone that you wouldn’t want to go to air.

It’s a lesson many politicians have learned, sometimes to their great embarrassment and sometimes with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Today, in an age where almost everyone has a recording device in their pocket, we all have to be careful. The travails of an Australian Rugby League player, photographed by a friend doing something obscene while drunk on an end of season party, illustrates just how pervasive this surveillance can be.

In one respect this is good, as we saw with the Qantas A380 mishap in Singapore, a connected public allows the truth to get out despite the hysterical headlines of the media and the spin obsessed control of modern governments or big business. The fact almost everyone has a camera makes officials more accountable for their actions.

But there is a darker side, this constant monitoring can also be tool for conformity. Should you decide to dissent from the corporate, government or society norm, there is now plenty of material to discredit you – be it a drunken stunt with a dog, a silly Facebook post when you were 17 or a photo of you picking your nose while waiting at a traffic light.

There’s no shortage of ‘concerned citizens’ who will photograph or record us carrying out actions they believe don’t conform with their ideas what is normal and acceptable.

Our definition of ‘normal and acceptable’ is becoming more narrowed as well, as a myriad of communications channels allows us to watch only what fits into our view of the world and the rise of social media that lets us filter out those voices we don’t like.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the connected society develops over the next few year, will we become more insular and conformist or will we use these tools to broaden our horizons?

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

The beast in the machine: Protecting your online profile

The people you meet online can affect you in the real world. We look at some ways to protect yourself online.

Every village has an idiot and there’s a particular brand of idiot who’s attracted to the perceived anonymity of the Internet.

Being big communities, online networking sites like Facebook and MySpace combine the problem of having a lot of idiots who think they can’t be held responsible for what they do in cyberspace.

Last week we saw this with the shameful behaviour on Facebook where posters defaced memorial pages to a murdered girl. That disgraceful episode shows why it’s important to take precautions against idiots online. Here’s some ideas on protecting your online profile;

Take responsibility

You are responsible for what you post so if you create a Facebook fan page, LinkedIn group or blog then you need to maintain it, particularly the comments. If the posters become unwieldy then you need to moderate them or turn off visitor comments. Remember too that you are responsible for comments you make and the messages left on your site.

Be careful with joining groups

In life you are judged by the company you keep and the same applies online. If you join a group full of idiots you’ll be identified as one of them. Worse, those fools will be attracted to people they consider to be like minded. Think twice before accepting invitations.

Choose friends wisely

It’s tempting with Internet networking sites to try and get as many friends as possible. That misses the point of these tools and it increases the likelihood idiots will become part of your circle. Only allow people you know to connect. Using Facebook for family and friends while referring business colleagues to LinkedIn is a common way of separate work and social life online.

Avoid strangers

We tell our kids not to accept lollies from strangers yet many otherwise sensible adults link up with people they don’t know. Avoid doing this unless you are absolutely sure of who they are. The famous cartoon of “on the Internet nobody knows you’re dog” is true of thieves, stalkers and all manner of knaves.

Hide your details

Don’t go overboard spilling out your personal life to strangers. The more details you give out, the easier it is for troublemakers to find you or steal your identity. Keep the musings about your cats and your children to your close friends.

Used well, Internet networking tools are a fantastic feature of the Internet which can enrich your life and the lives of those around you. however all tools can be misused so be aware of the risks of these tools and act responsibly.

Remember if things get uncomfortable you can hit the delete button and turn the computer off. It’s best to do that at the first sign of trouble.

Similar posts:

The real digital divide

We’re often told that there’s a divide between the “digital natives”, those who grown up with computers, and the “digital immigrants”, those who’ve had to learn about computers. In reality this isn’t true, the real digital divide is about being prepared to learn and explore the possibilities being opened up every day by the Internet and computers.

The real digital divide isn’t between the young and the old; it’s between those who are prepared to explore new technologies and those who hide from change.

We’re often told that there’s a divide between the “digital natives”, those who grown up with computers, and the “digital immigrants”, those who’ve had to learn about computers.

In reality this isn’t true, the real digital divide is about being prepared to learn and explore the possibilities being opened up every day by the Internet and computers.

I was reminded of this shortly before Christmas when talking to a group of forty year old business owners who dismissed Internet tools like Twitter and LinkedIn out of hand – “a waste of time” “just for kids” and “I tried and received Chinese spam” being a few of the objections.

The contrast is the Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association who prove you’re only as young as the computers you tinker with. These seniors, some of whom were retired well before computers became commonplace, are prepared to explore and discover possibilities that change their lives and the lives those around them.

The forty somethings all had successful businesses and they were the first to admit mobile phones, email and websites had changed the way they work. Yet nearly half of them didn’t have a website for their own business; a statistic consistent with business surveys that find almost 50% of small enterprises don’t have a website.

In many respects these businesses and their owners are reminiscent of the handloom weavers of the early 19th Century. At first technology worked in their favour and pushed wages up but as industrialisation continued they found their skills redundant and incomes falling. Eventually their trades and businesses disappeared; which is what will happen to complacent companies and industries in today’s industrial revolution.

A similar thing is happening to society and individuals. While you won’t disappear if you aren’t using the net, those who won’t will find it harder to do pay bills, communicate and simply get things done. Eventually they’ll find themselves marginalised as not being connected will make it harder for family and friends to keep in touch.

All of this is unnecessary, it’s just a matter of being prepared to try and to give something a go. The real digital divide is between those who choose to give things a go and those who don’t.

Similar posts: