Westminster Skeptics: Anonymity on the internet, dealing with "trolls", and meeting one of my favorite bloggers

At the start of this month I finished my MSc. dissertation. This meant two things: firstly I get my weekends back and secondly that I moved to London to work.

For the first time in two years this meant I could go to Westminster Skeptics in the Pub on Monday. Today's post is largely based on some thoughts and reactions to the discussions there. The theme was vaguely defined as "social media" and several topics were covered.

Oh, and one of my favourite bloggers, Helen Lewis from the New Statesman Blogs, was there.

Helen Lewis's blogging at New Statesman has really helped me shape myself as a feminist. I'm a white, well-educated, British, upper-middle class man. All societal discrimination works in my favour. Without Helen writing about what online harassment actually looks like I'd never have actually believed it was happening to the scale it was happening.

Also, and maybe more importantly, she highlights the little bits of sexism that usually pass unnoticed by WWEBUMCM's like me.

And if all that sounds too serious for you, or I've made her sound like a one trick pony try reading something more lighthearted or on a different topic altogether.

Between these two things Helen opened my eyes to the realities of modern feminism, and to how society still has a long way to go. But, what is more, I also had my eyes opened to the small assumptions we make in everyday life and this is where I as a WWEBUCMCM can actually do something by catching myself whenever I start to make one of these assumptions.

I realise that's a lot of links to a lot of reading. I don't care. They're worth the read.

Onto some of the stuff discussed at the meet:

Anonymity on the internet

There was some very interesting discussion around anonymity on the internet: is it moral to be anonymous on the internet? Is it moral to 'out' those who choose to be anonymous and, if not, do they deserve protection against outing? The panel included outers and the outed as well as some people who'd faced the anonymous "trolls" of the internet.

All parties agreed that those committing illegal acts forfeit their right to anonymity. Two of the panel had written very worthwhile blogs that they could only have written with the protection of anonymity.

John Gabriel's "Greater Internet Dickwad Theory" is commonly used as an argument against anonymity. It is a little simplistic, however. One major thing that the theory doesn't account for is the mob mentality it is so easy to build up. The internet has made it very easy to find like minded people and to have your viewpoints amplified by not meeting anyone who opposes you. In this environment it's easy for flippant thoughts to become full blown action. Anonymity may be empowering to dickwadery but nothing stirs it up quite like a mob mentality.

Ultimately we need to treat anonymity as a privilege, rather than a right. Those who abuse that privilege should absolutely be exposed. The question then becomes "what counts as abusing anonymity?" 

(Full disclosure: I don't use my real name on this blog, but make no secret over who I am in real life - it is more to differentiate between the real life me who enjoys terrible puns and playing the fool, and the more intellectual face I wear writing here. I tend to use my real name in other parts of the internet, thought.)

Dealing with "trolls"

Or "bullies" as they should really be called.

Actually, that would be a good first step. In internet parlance a troll is a practical joker. Mischievous, but rarely malicious and with a long history. By referring to the horrible abuse some people throw about as "trolling" the media actually make it sound acceptable.

Taking away anonymity wouldn't help much here either? Would people still do some of the vicious things they do if we knew their real name? Well... yes. Some of these are on Facebook groups where you are required to use your real name, and some groups even are happy to go and "troll" in person. Removing anonymity is not a panacea. The truth is that some humans are assholes.

But there is a solution.

It's all about signal to noise ratios. Increase signal, remove noise. Moderators work to delete inappropriate or unhelpful comments, and the community doesn't respond to them. Bullies are less likely to try to work where they won't have an audience.

If a place is being inundated, add to the signal. Ignore the noise. Noise is zombie like. The moment you engage with it you become part of the noise. It doesn't matter how offensive anything is, how harshly you want to take the bully down by attacking the problem like that you become part of the problem.

Staunchly ignoring bullying and effective active moderation will do wonders for a site by attracting more people you want and putting off the ones you don't.

Why you should try acting (and some tips to get you started)

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. 

One of my favourite hobbies is amateur theatre and in two weeks time I'm going to be starting rehearsal for a production of Titus Andronicus: The Comedy.

I believe that every person, at some point in their life, should do a theatre production - especially amateur dramatics, and here's why:

1. Self confidence

Putting yourself out there on stage is always difficult. If you're going to do it, theatre is great when you have people around you who can smooth over any mistakes you make. As you ease into it, and get more familiar with the role you also get more confident with the role and that leads to confidence in yourself.

A process I've seen happen with several people is that they join our society, shy, but willing to give it a go. Although they may find the role difficult at first, rehearsals get them more and more familiar with the role, until they can do it easily, confidently. They soon find that they are familiar enough to just slip at will into this character they've been given and will start to do socially when they want to be more confident. "It's fine," they say, "it's not me, it's this character." And they typically find people like this confident character they're playing.

Over time, this process becomes more and more natural, and character traits and mannerisms that work for the character get incorporated into their "real" personality, and vice versa. As time goes on, people realise that there isn't actually a difference between the "real" them and a character they play in social settings, or where they need to be confident - the difference is entirely a construct they created to allow them to do this, where the truth is that they've just learnt to be confident.

It's not always as bald as this. Some people, through their involvement, are taught the mannerisms of someone confident so they can replicate them onstage. They then more purposefully fake confidence, until they've gained enough experience faking confidence that the real thing has overtaken it.

2. Getting used to an audience

At the top of the page, I quote William Shakespeare's As You Like It (Jaques, in act II, scene vii if you need to look it up). Throughout life we often find ourselves in front of an audience. This can be anything as simple as telling a joke around a water cooler to explaining why you should be first in line for promotion at your annual review. By doing theatre you learn how to play to the audience, how to play with the audience, how to make the point you want to make. You learn how to prepare for it and how not to overstay your welcome. How to accentuate your strengths, and how to mask your weaknesses. These are not just useful for entertaining an audience at £4 per ticket, these are life skills.

3. The people you meet

We are a diverse bunch of people. Our interests outside theatre cover almost everything under the sun, some of us are shy and others need the spotlight. We have people with disabilities, people covering the entire LGBT spectrum, all thrown together and... it works. It's very difficult to join us - even for one show - and not make fast friends. And who doesn't like friends?

Have I convinced you?

If I have, look up your nearest Light Entertainment Society, or amateur dramatics group and just show up. Several may even be able to cast you into a minor role partway through rehearsals (though, obviously, not all). When you go to audition, here's some tips:

• When playing a character, really overdo it. Anyone can read the lines, but by taking the character to the point of parody is how you get the role, as directors prefer to mould what's already there, then to get it out of somebody.
• Learn your lines early. It makes getting the character in your head far easier.
• Don't expect major roles - there's always more actors than major roles, but you can make the minor roles memorable.

My favourite things: Order of the Stick

Medium: Webcomic

Author: Richard Burlew

Updates: Irregular

Style: Stickmen, plot heavy.

Link to first.

Order of the Stick a stickman comic about a party of six adventurers in the D&D Universe. It starts out as a basic gag-a-day, mostly parodying Dungeons and Dragons. However, beneath the humour there is a very finely woven plot backed up

by excellent writing. The main characters all get developed adding to the depth of the jokes. The plot gains more urgency around strips 10

0-200 and drives the comic compellingly along.

Order of the Stick doesn't just to funny very well. The comedy is an excellent foil to the occasional tragedy, and named character deaths are always beautifully played. Near the end of the "Don't Split The Party" arc, an superb look at the nature of good and evil gets thrown in. These breaks aren't jarring, though, since they are worked so well into the plot.

Cast:

Order of the Stick:

Roy Greenhilt: Leader. A master fighter but stereotypically intelligent. He has taken on his father's oath to avenge himself on Xykon, the evil sorcerer. He is brave and pragmatic. Although he doesn't always make the best choices initially, he usually gets it right in the end.

Haley Starshine: Second in command. A feisty rogue who's very very

introvert. Expert at stealth and marksmanship, but tends to get overpowered in a straight fight.

Elan: A bard who mostly plays the incompetent buffoon for comic relief. He is very genre aware and able to use storytelling conventions to his advantage. He is extremely child-like, and it takes some time before the whole party accepts him.

Durkon Thundershield: Dwarf and cleric to Thor. While playing on many Dwarf stereotypes, Durkon is also the most morally upstanding and aware. He is pious, but not in an annoying, preachy way (to the reader anyway). He shows very great wisdom, and often opts for the diplomatic solution. Durkon has been exiled from his homelands.

Vaarsuvius: An androgynous elven wizard. The lack of known gender for V is a running joke (I tend to use the feminine pronouns, but masculine seems more common). V is powerful and skilled, but somewhat arrogant about it. She tries to view the world as an inherently ordered place and can be very frustrated. She is very close to Haley in the backstory. V and Belkar sniping each other is also the source of many many many moments of brilliance.

Belkar Bitterleaf: Omnicidal maniac. Oh, and a hobbit. Crazily powerful with his twin daggers, Belkar is happiest eating something, or killing something, although the party keep him in check. Thus far, Belkar is the least developed character.

Villains:

Xykon: A sorcerer who, in death, bound his soul to a phylactery and lives on as a lich. He seeks to dominate the world by taking control of one of five mystical gates (his attempts have so far mostly resulted in the destruction of said gate...if too many gates get destroyed, the Universe ends, though. So that's quite bad). Xykon thinks nothing of the lives of others, gets bored easily and is viciously powerful in combat. He is so stylish about being evil, though.

Redcloak: Guardian of Xykon's phylactery. Redcloak is a goblic cleric who seeks to destroy all humans. He is subervient to Xykon, but uses his better organised nature and longer attention span to maintain some control over him.

Monster in the Dark: Unknown monster enshrouded at all times in a magical darkness. We only ever see his yellow eyes. Very child-like, really powerful, easily distracted. I'm not totally convinced of the evilness of this beast though. We wait and see.

Check OotS out. You won't regret it!