Cheerio-pissing take 2: Is it automatically okay because it was posted publicly on the internet?

[cimorene]

I posted here the other day that the meta debates going around about squee-harshing or "pissing in someone's cheerios", as well as other widespread opinions and practices in fandom, clearly demonstrate that there is in existence in fandom a norm (or etiquette rule, or expectation, if you prefer) which requires a certain level of polite reserve and social distance. Our community clearly does to a great degree limit the acceptability of stark argumentative replies to someone in their own journal.

I've seen counter-arguments in several posts, most recently in musesfool's[1] such as this and this, which hinge on the commenters' right to comment as they like in a public post. This argument isn't a sensible contribution to the debate, since recent posts (including the post which those comments reply to) have explicitly acknowledged that they do have that right, and focused instead on saying that they should exercise tact in determining whether to use it. When they say that everyone has the right to comment in public posts, what they really seem to be arguing, often, is that it is automatically socially acceptable to comment however one wishes either (a) because the post is public (and the poster has consciously chosen not to make it impossible to comment) or (b) because it is universally automatically socially acceptable to say whatever you want to on the internet.

In my first post linked above I discussed the fact that posts are public and some of the reasons (mainly practical) people make public posts even though they don't readily welcome any and all comments.

Now I want to touch on (b).

The logic here seems to be that the internet is by nature a public forum and that its whole point is discourse; and that in practice, everyone does say whatever they want to on the internet.  In short, the argument is that because the behaviour is expected (as possible, not as certain), it is socially acceptable.

This is barely a logical fallacy; it's more a case of one simply not following from the other. The issue is not whether the behaviour should be expected, but whether it is rude. It is true that it is possible to comment to a public lj post and that we all, on the internet, are aware of the possibility of receiving any sort of comment, including trolling. It is also true that we are aware of the possibility of people doing many other things which are fairly common, such as cutting others off in traffic, making a scene at a party, or borrowing a pen from someone and putting it in their mouths and then handing it back. Certainly I knew that when I offered to lend a pen to the girl who asked if anyone had one, it would be within her physical power to do whatever she wanted with it, and I have seen people chew absent-mindedly on borrowed writing instruments before, and I gave her my pen anyway. Does that mean that I was inviting her to chew on it? Arguably, perhaps. Does it mean that chewing on it is not rude? No.

The key term in the question "Is it universally and automatically socially acceptable to say whatever you want to on the internet?" is socially acceptable. I refer you again to the opening paragraph of this post: this meta debate and the countless fans coming forward and sharing their opinions on the issue (as well as many earlier incarnations of this debate; it's hardly a requirement that has sprung up overnight), as well as the behaviour and expectations of those fans, demonstrate that the norm does exist. If a norm exists, if large numbers of community numbers periodically rally to uphold and reinforce it, then breaking it is, by definition, not socially acceptable. Social norms do not have to be logical - they frequently are not, such as the ones about what you do with your knives and forks, or the one about showing nipples on American television, or the ones about which kinds of jokes are polite in which settings. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist, that communities do not demand obedience to them and punish breaking them, sometimes stringently.

Comments

[shotboxer.livejournal.com]

You are *such* a sociologist. (Says the deviance and social control nut turned anthropologist) I agree with all you've said, in the previous post and this, and I think your arguments are great - well thought out and presented in an easy to understand, straight-forward style. If all academic-type writing was like this, the world would be a much better place.

So, as we've agreed that social norms about who can/should comment when and where and to whom about what do exist on the internet, here's a follow-up question:
How do new members of various internet communities learn about these norms? Given that the public perception of the internet, and the way it's often portrayed in various other media can lead a first-time user to believe that 'you can say anything on the internet,' how do we socialize the newbies in cyberspace? What social cues can be given to lead them in the right direction, given the absense of 'traditional' social cues such as body language, tone of voice, etc.?

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Your follow-up question is an excellent one.

I do think that traditional methods of subculture socialisation do operate within fandom, though. When the subject of socialising people into fandom norms comes up, in those terms or others - such as what it's appropriate to post to communities, feedback, etc - what usually comes up is a kind of initial lurking period as the newbie struggles to acquire basic norms.

It seems to me, however, that that method is losing ground over time (although I could be wrong - I have no evidence to back that up, and I haven't been in the same fandom since the days of mailing lists, even though I did make the ML-to-LJ transition in 2002 with the main big wave, I think). It seems that the popularity of initial post disclaimers such as "Newbie here, so please excuse any mistakes" is growing instead into the new norm. That has been especially notable on fandom wank, for instance. I suspect the distribution of introduction posts was quite different in different fandoms in the ML days though, so that could just depend on where people are coming from.

You do also see a fair number of "newbie guides" floating around LJ fandom, but usually not centralised in a way easy for the newbie to find. You can expect a newcomer to fandom/lj fandom to have basic knowledge of the internet many times - say, to be able to use basic google-type search functions - but not to be well-versed in the art of finding things in LJ, which mainly blocks spiders.

There is still a practise of older fans taking newbies under their wings, as well as responses to introductory posts and inquiry posts (of the "searching for recs" or "how do I post fic" or "where do I get icons" sort, I mean) and gentle corrections to unacceptable things like community spam. But there's also a reluctance to make those necessary corrections sometimes - or one might say, a faction who resist them - which can result in fandom schisms with "newbie" vs "oldbie" communities such as in fandom wank or good omens.

Personally, I advocate gentle correction, as well as centralised fandom presences on lj (such as main newsletters, I mean, or noticeboard communities), with those central communities offering some resources to the newbie - other communities, resource posts. I don't think I know of any newsletters linking to newbie guides, but perhaps they should.

I was reflecting yesterday that part of the problem with clearly articulating these norms for the group is that fandom descends from a particular subculture which has always been fairly resistant to a clear articulation of those. On the one hand, fandom (all the way back to science fiction fandom) celebrates its inclusivity - embracing all geeks and nonconformity in general. In principle, all you have to do to be a part of it is to seek it out and go, so many fans don't wish to acknowledge that it does have unwritten rules. On the other hand, like all subcultures/ social groups, it depends on those unwritten norms as a means of distinguishing insiders from outsiders, and will automatically resist any attempts to make them wholly explicit.

[mirabella]

I have never understood the "If it's posted publically then anyone can respond any way they want, and if you don't want strangers responding you shouldn't post publically" argument. It's tantamount to saying that you can't have a conversation in any public place, ever, without expecting everyone around you - people at the next table, people walking by on the street, people in the next apartment over if your walls are thin enough - to stop and join the conversation. So theoretically, if any of us ever want to have a conversation that we don't want the whole world joining in on, we have to have it in whispers in the corner of someone's basement at midnight, or in a soundproof room.

That's nonsense. Joining in the conversation of random strangers on the street is not, and has never been, acceptable social behavior. In terms of electronic conversation, when phones used to be on party lines and ten houses in a neighborhood shared one phone number, it was understood that people might listen in on conversations that they weren't involved in, but that doesn't mean that (a) they had some sort of moral right to do it, (b) the people they were listening in on had to be happy about it, or (c) that it wasn't rude, creepy behavior.

People often confuse having the power to do something with having the right to do it. Yes, anyone has the power to respond to a public post. I have the power to some random person walking by me in the hall at work that pink makes her look like a drunken elephant. Do I have the right to do it, or to join in other people's conversations in the restaurant, or to walk up to people in the street and give them my thoughts on yaoi? Not under any social contract I am now or have ever been aware of, no.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

This is where the people who don't actually understand what "free speech" means speak up in favour of it, usually.

And again, it's probably mainly due to the high percentage of people with impaired social skills in fandom. They have a problem with unwritten rules in general and take things very literally, so they equate "right" with "power" or with "legal right".

[norah.livejournal.com]

This is such a lame fucking debate. Every time it comes up, I have a big EYEROLL. Yes, you have the "right" to say what you want in public. But you don't have any basis for complaining if people react poorly to what you say. Similarly, if you are in public, people can say things to you - you can't take away their "right" to do that - but you don't have to react with grace or kindness if they do so. I mean, people get their feelings hurt, they get angry, they get upset. You can't mock them for that just because you have the "right" to free speech.

GAH.

But essentially, YES, and I love the way you are couching this in terms of social norms and acceptance.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

So much depends on WHAT you say in those public spaces, too, because social norms DO govern how acceptable different levels of, say, intimacy and confrontational behaviour are. People who expect you to say something to them in public, even if they don't actually know what you're going to say, have certain expectations about it, and that is going to govern their response - whether it's their surprise at you claiming everyone who likes their OTP is a pedophile leading to them making a more confrontational response than is usually socially acceptable, or their astonishment at receiving what they find to be a disproportionately confrontational response to an expression of innocent joy and goodwill.

If people stopped trying to make the debate about "rights", it would be at least a little more productive.