I feel that there's a simple solution to the recent pie fight about "sock puppets" (not the correct term, imho), which is for DK community members to practice civility and respect. That's definitely dominates most of the interactions that I experience at DK. But I've gotten good at avoiding most of the pie fights. I did get involved in this one, and so I figured I'd speak my mind.
To the extent that there are "sides" on this "issue", I'm on the "side" of civil and rational discussion/debate. I personally was not comfortable with Ray's diary, because I'd previously had what I felt was an unconstructive interaction with him in a previous diary that I'd written. I followed and participated in the comments in his diary, and followed the discussion in Adam B's response diary.
Ground Rules: I'm posting this diary because I believe that it's possible to discuss this issue without attacking, mocking, insulting, or devaluing the perspectives of others. If you feel that I have done so in this diary, please inform me so I can make corrections as needed. I ask that commenters in this diary not attack, insult, or devalue the perspectives of others here.
My main observation was how quickly interactions in the comments developed into an Us vs Them dynamic, and how little actual constructive discussion there was (from my perspective). In both diaries.
Ray's original diary, Are "Sock Puppets" Disrupting Daily Kos Discussions? included links and quotes to support his claim of
a well-documented history of government partnering with private corporations to not only spread propaganda and misinformation, but to suppress constitutionally-protected rights, such as the right of freedom of assembly, and of course, the Fourth Amendment right, among many others.
I don't have an opinion on whether the documentation actually does support that claim, because I don't want to spend the time researching it. From my perspective, I consider it very likely that gov't agencies, private corporations, and NGOs (eg 501c4s and other entities) are participating in various ways in online communities, including in ways that I would consider deceptive or manipulative.
Ray then raised the question of whether there is "a way to accurately identify those who's sole purpose is to derail discussions in order to mute the potential impact of the content of those discussions? And if so, if there a way to neutralize their effect?"
Interestingly, there is no direct mention or discussion of whether this is an issue on Dailykos in the diary, just in the diary title, which was framed as a question. It is left to the audience to connect the dots. Ray concluded with what I feel is a reasonable approach to addressing the (possible) issue:
From now on when I write a diary, if I notice that there is reply that immediately uses the tactic of character assassination, I will ignore those replies, and I will politely ask those interested in robust and intelligent debate to do the same.
I don't mind people taking me on head, on anything I write; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who engage in personal insults or (first person) demeaning language right off the bat.
And so from now on, I'll add a little P.S. at the end of my diaries asking people to try to follow this approach, and then see if there is an improvement in the discussion threads.
If others have different ideas or suggestions about how to improve the level of discussions overall, it would be great to learn about them.
Ray's diary definitely triggered me, because he'd recently commented in a diary I'd written "In the final analysis, I see it (the diary) as a blatantly dishonest attempt to manipulate.". I felt that I was among those who were being implicitly "targeted" in Ray's diary, and so I responded. From reading the comments in Ray's diary, it seemed to me that many were responding because of past experiences of being "targeted", either by other commenters that questioned their motives, or by other commenters whose motives they felt were questionable.
There was a lot of acrimony, a lot of questioning of motives, and a lot of mockery and insults. Reading through the comments, I realized that I sympathized with commenters on both "sides", not necessarily because of what they were saying, but because I perceived them to be putting their time, energy, intelligence, and passion into standing up for what they felt was right. Regardless of what "side" they were on, these were people who I would appreciate working together with.
There was something of a consensus that the core problem was "disruptive" behavior, but it seemed to me that the nature of how many participants were engaging each other was unconstructive. Comments that mocked, devalued, or misinterpreted those on the "other side" of the discussion were viewed as adversarial, and responded to in kind, escalating the conflict.
The response diary, Are "Some People" Disrupting DailyKos Discussions? , where Ray Pensador was HR'd into a timeout, was also problematic for me, because it attributed to Ray's diary a rationale that was not explicitly present, namely:
My beliefs are truly progressive, pure, and correct.
Someone else here has beliefs which I believe are less progressive than mine.
No matter how awesome my explanation of my beliefs is, not everyone agrees with me.
But I'm so right, and any rational person can see that!
Therefore, the people with whom I'm arguing are not engaging in good faith.
And that means someone is paying them to be here and thwart my plans.
This diary effectively attacked what some (including myself) would feel was the implicit message of Ray's diary. I have felt that I was attacked by commenters who questioned my motives, and Ray's diary seemed to justify those kinds of attacks. However, that is not at all what Ray said in his diary.
Ironically, Adam B proposed a solution very similar to that which Ray proposed in his diary:
If you're frustrated because someone keeps disagreeing with you, stop engaging with that user. And if you find yourself regularly drawn into disagreements with diarists who are constantly wrong on the same issues, over and over again ... decide whether it's time to just let them have their little corner of the Internet in which they can just stand their in their wrongness and be wrong, rather than futilely try to persuade them of same. The "rox/sux" battle will never be "won" here—you do know that, right?
...
Whatever your causes are, consider ways to use your time on this site as a way of winning those fights, rather than just fighting them, or standing in the way of others whose priorities are different from yours. We all have a country (and world) that still needs a lot of fixing, and this site (and the Internet) is large enough to encompass all our causes.
There was a lot of acrimony, a lot of questioning of motives, and a lot of mockery and insults. Reading through the comments, I realized that I sympathized with commenters on both "sides", not necessarily because of what they were saying, but because I perceived them to be putting their time, energy, intelligence, and passion into standing up for what they felt was right. Regardless of what "side" they were on, these were people who I would appreciate working together with.
Ray got HR'd into a timeout. I feel that some of his comments in the diary were provocative, and others were attempts to call out the mischaracterization of what he'd actually said in his diary. Ray's diary was carefully written to not explicitly state what Adam B attributed to the diary.
It's definitely arguable what Ray was implicitly trying to communicate. Based on my interactions with him, I don't have trust or confidence. But I'm definitely capable of believing that he's acting with good intentions, and that he's trying to makig things better.
I think that a major factor in the negative response to Ray's diary and comments is based on experiences that DK members have had of having their motives questioned, when they were genuinely trying to engage in discussion. Similarly, I think that Ray and other DK members are influenced by their frustrating experiences of negative responses to their messages. I think it's entirely likely that some of those negative interactions have been caused by "intentional disrupters". But I expect that most of them are caused by caring committed members of DK just rubbing each other the wrong way.
So where does this leave us? How do we resolve this? With respect. The simplest way to identify those who are being intentionally disruptive is to be very careful not to practice unintentional disruption. Comments and responses that mock, devalue, distort, or manipulate the perspectives of others can be very satisfying ways to score a few points against the "other side". But speaking as someone who has been treated as being on the "other side", it's very tempting to respond in kind. Often it feels like the most effective response. Which usually triggers escalation and additional conflict.
FWIW, here's my approach:
1-Avoid conflict whenever possible. You're very rarely going to change someone's perspective by fighting them.
2-Write carefully. Think about how others will perceive what you write, and work to be inclusive. It's much easier to make enemies than friends.
3-When in conflict, stay civil and respectful. Maybe your opponent is having a rough day. Maybe their response is strongly influenced by something they have experienced in their life. Engaging in an honest and civil way can be a very effective way to come to an understanding. It also provides the secondary satisfaction of disempowering intentional disrupters through boredom.
4-Always leave the door open to understanding. Be willing to be vulnerable, and try to see things from your "opponent's" perspective.
5-Don't respond emotionally. Step back and take a breather if needed. Even when someone is trying to provoke you, you retain the ability to chose how you respond. Reacting emotionally to a provocation means that you've given the provoker the power to affect you.
6-Get out there and do something! DK is a small part of the world that we live in, and there are many other worthwhile ways to engage your passions and interests!
Ground Rules: I'm posting this diary because I believe that it's possible to discuss this issue without attacking, mocking, insulting, or devaluing the perspectives of others. If you feel that I have done so in this diary, please inform me so I can make corrections as needed. I ask that commenters in this diary not attack, insult, or devalue the perspectives of others here.