mysophobia 潔癖

Nastiness Diagnosis. Anthropology. Religion. Gender. Justice. A Personal Notepad For the General Public.

[惡言天堂]社群網路公司對新聞的殖民Diatribe Haven: SocialMedia’s Colonization of Online Comments

 
有沒有想過臉書怎麼這麼好康,都不用付費就可以使用?有沒有覺得臉書上愈來愈多的廣告真是厭煩,不過好險你可以開始選擇你喜歡的廣告?這不過是「真實身份社群網絡」的一體兩面而已,而裡頭存在著極大的新自由主義陷阱(而我說的並不只是侵犯隱私權,隱私權被過度讚揚了)。social media的交易:你發言,她賺錢[content-generating Web 2.0]。她幫你維持一個ID讓你跟朋友維持聯絡,你給她你的照片、資料甚至信用卡號與你的喜好credit card # and your tastes。你給她很短很短的最白癡與不負責任的想法與建議,她給妳發聲權、表演權與自我滿足感。

網絡發言的陷阱不只是自戀與自我創作狂,而是可以在三秒鐘就創造出一個頭腦簡單、手指發達的惡言天堂。線上惡言就跟酒吧裡喝醉酒大吵大鬧的人一樣,只差在對方可以一直鬧,而你根本不能報警。


當然各國目前都已經有告上法庭的例子,不過在絕大多數的情況,大家都是默默忍受着這些品質極差的網路新聞留言。「不能認真,認真就輸了」這種精神,不知不覺一直讓網路資訊品質大打折扣。一篇危思康辛大學最近的研究甚至指出,網路留言會影響讀者吸收新聞資訊的品質,讓惡意的評論直接造成讀者對於新聞本身可信度的質疑。

許多新聞網站,如USAToday 或NPR,可以透過額外登記或臉書來發言,而降低完全不記名的風險。必須要使用真實姓名是為了要社群媒體公司可以透過對使用者的掌握而更快速確實地獲得利潤,同時也讓新聞評論比較不會受到太多無謂的攻擊。然而,這樣的使用真的可以增加公民素養嗎?或者這些評論充其量只是復述意識形態,甚至更慘,在社群網路連結的真實生活中複製,成為各種形式的歧視的加強?

Diatribe is winning over dialogue.

十幾年前,我就一直認為小叮噹[八年級生以降:哆啦A夢]最恐怖的武器是任意門,因為軍隊與武器可以源源不絕地送到另外一個地方,病毒與化學武器也可以任意穿梭。想不到,現實比小叮噹恐怖多了。小布希的伊拉克戰爭根本不用任意門一下子就摧毀了巴格達,而二十一世紀的電子郵件與網際網路已經擔任起任意門的功能,三秒鐘就能將筆者變成郵差然後讀信者,散播愛也噴發傷害。

新聞論壇中常見的惡言發表讓美國國家公共廣播編輯大嘆,惡言者並不想要進行溝通,而只是想毀謗、惡作劇與搗亂。

NPR Editor Alicia Shepard:
"If people were talking with me on the phone or in person or they’d written me a letter, our communication might have been more productive. Instead, with only a click needed to transform writer into sender, dozens of messages arrived in my digital mailbox each day. During especially challenging times, the number has reached into the thousands."

部落格擁有者說,為了一兩個有趣的評論,你得讀八個惡毒腫瘤。
Trolling.

因為social media的大紅大紫,台灣盛極一時的BBS文化正在衰退中。這其實是個蠻可惜的現象。雖然說IT大部份或許仍是台清交所把持,但其本質畢竟是非營利組織。批踢踢實業坊代表著一種具有相當民主素養的、近乎Habermas式的civil society與public sphere. PTT裡面有版主,而板主是專業人士,對一個主題有長期關注與深度知識,其工作是自願性的voluntary、榮譽的、而不準人家來亂的,製定版規的。所以,就可以維持讓一手資料之間進行有意義的大批意見交換。這種和平交換還是technical的論壇比較成功,比如美容版。凡是ideological的論壇,比如政治板,還是很難長期維持和平的大批意見交換。就這部分而言,美容的霸權比起統獨論述的霸權來得還要徹底多了,因為沒有使用者會在上面討論美容保養的本體論問題。

當然,筆戰還是常常都有的。可以說,網路介面利用Bruno Latour所提到的Actor裡面的built-in moral inclinations 可以解釋地很清楚:因為太快速方便,非面對面接觸、又有某種程度的隱私,使得評論者有強烈動機可以快速發文。BBS至少有一整個界面可以寫文章,但推文就把論點的範圍縮減了,漏洞多了,更多可以挑剔的,就更多空間可以筆戰。

當然,也有像八卦版這種特別歡迎人來亂的,一種儀式性的反轉,政治不正確的鄉民集散地。不過,就這個現象而言,她仍然是一種centralized的管理,就好像吸煙區或酒吧一樣,要抽煙喝酒的請到那邊去,別的地方想亂還是不行。

但是新聞網站的評論空間沒有這種板主與公民的責任感,新聞的讀者也可能是故意來亂的、與新聞持反方意見卻無法發表理性言談的種種浮游的可能。

NPR編輯艾麗莎雪帕說一個惡言者首先用了boulder dude的帳號辱罵她,被禁了以後又註冊了boulder dude1與boulder dude2繼續來騷擾她。NPR最後引進了一套新的使用者註冊方式,所以boulder dude就不能來亂了。可是這些惡言對於新聞工作者或文字創作者的傷害是很大的。她們害怕不能自由地輸寫,害怕大膽的言論會被攻擊,因為不管你再怎麼有自信有憑有據地說話,惡言者還是可以找到你把你評得一無是處。除非她們可以像大明星一樣找一個公關幫他們處理這些垃圾訊息,否則她們就是該訓練自己變成刀槍不入的情緒殘障。或者放棄創作。

惡言者當然還有一個很好的優勢,尤其是在他們的惡言根本不被當為是惡言的脈絡中。比如德國納粹期間的反猶太主義、美國長期的種族歧視、新生代的歐洲文化種族歧視、新生代的美國伊斯蘭歧視。這種歧視可以被正常化、正當化,甚至量化作為民粹基礎。我指的就是「按讚」文化。因為惡言內容反映出某種霸權所以不被視為是惡言,又受到許多的「讚」可以直接讀取,此歧視將可以快速複製擴大。當然,反歧視也可能同時存在,同時也快速複製擴大。不過問題就變成,這裡並沒有真正的討論,而只有宣稱。

Use your real names.

所以,雖然說大眾匿名制度鐵定保證惡言天堂的誕生,真實姓名的採用並無法保證和平理性溝通,尤其是在惡言作為霸權的脈絡中。一個人的真實姓名可能暴露出其性別、種族甚至宗教認同,而這些都可能引發惡言者的攻擊。一個人甚至在還沒有發言以前,就已經被大眾歸類而決定其發言價值了。固然真實姓名提高發言者的責任,但也同時將發言者暴露在更多傷害之中。當傷害是不平均地分配在社會之中,而傷害是可以快速傳播的,我不得不覺得有點心寒,而懷念起非營利網站、無酬勞板主的年代。

Racism or all forms of discrimnation is not something inherent and changeless. Racism can be enhanced, facilitated, and rewarded. Like to be like-d.

Ethical Implications of Anonymous Comments Posted to Online News Stories

[excpert]

DOI:10.1080/08900523.2011.525190

by Laura Hlavach & William H. Freivogel
The incivility of some of these comments unfortunately is not an isolated event. The ethical codes of most news organizations would decry such speculation and insensitive commentary if it had been written by staff members. Many, if not all, editorial page editors would reject such commentary if submitted in letters to the editor, particularly if the letter writer wished to remain anonymous and use a pseudonym. How, then, do news organizations ethically justify enabling such running commentary after posted news stories? How can news organizations stay true to their ethical guidelines yet offer readers and audience members the opportunity to comment, even anonymously, on the news? These two inquiries are the focus of this article.

seem to quickly write a f
ew sentences of speculation and punch the send button without contemplating such ethical concerns.

Often, the short comments are unsupported by facts. Sometimes, the posters make allusions to information found elsewhere. As a result, comments often are incomplete snippets of argument, oblique and sometimes confusing opinions that vent but do not truly inform.

seeking truth, minimizing harm, and being accountable. These three relevant duties outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists’ (SPJ) Code of Ethics relate to the broader ethical framework posited by contemporary American philosopher Tom (Thomas V.) Morris.

thus removing accountability. In addition, the success of an Internet site often is judged by the number of comments and “hits” it attracts.

if the posted comments instead develop into an uncivil, disconnected series of mini-monologues, then the discourse divides rather than unites.

“We suffer from what Baudrillard called an obscenity of information, an information overload” an “orgy” of questionable information.

some use the Internet to close themselves off from the public sphere by seeking only views that reinforce their beliefs and biases. Harsh and uncivil online comments to news stories would seem to add to this divisive information orgy.

非面對面的物質情況
Anonymity may enable a poster to freely write angry and harmful comments without having to face the social opprobrium normally attached to such behavior.

其實是一種雙重標準

新聞工作者對於真實某種的要求、不可靠來源的警惕與負責任的理想,完全都在匿名評論新聞制度下完全被顛覆了。

當然匿名來源有時候是必須的,且在許多政治新聞中與保護當事人名單情形中也是常態。Nevertheless, most journalism organizations’ codes of ethics or newsroom policies contain stern admonitions against use of anonymous sources in all but the most pressing circumstances. “Few policies are as universally affirmed as the need to attribute news sources.… [because the] source of the information is critical to understanding the meaning and significance of the message” (Boeyink, 1990, p. 233).

社群網路公司對新聞的殖民,還需要中介者當成中間人提供管道,就好像在東非的印度人、在西非的黎巴嫩人、在東南亞的漢人、以及歐洲的猶太人。Commenting system.

老字號Disqus提供CNN、NPR與其他大小網站整合臉書與其他社群網路的功能。2012年產值超過一億美元。(which allow users to carry their identity from site to site.)減低匿名度。

新黑馬Livefyre. The New York Times and NBC.( can combine FB and Twitter and others by creating a second-screen experience, management of using different identities on different site )WSJ、FOX、CBS又增加匿名度。

to simplify the process and enhance the conversation that takes place in our comment sections. Barrier removed. 不用再登入,比之前更快速。

solipsism:it wasn’t true for them, therefore it wasn’t true at all.

At the end of the day, people commenting on a page means longer active time spent on a site, and the potential of driving up click rates on adjacent ads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on April 5, 2013 by in 【Moldy Room of Sketchism】.
%d bloggers like this: