Vladimir Antropov

Recently I read an article in SMH in which the author told about the feedback he received from readers. Richard, the author, was concerned about misinterpretation of his previous article on climate change. Well, as a journalist, he should be worried if readers don’t get his point. However, my attention was attracted by the utmost aggressiveness of the responses – they ranged from insults to death threats. In real life, if we don’t agree with another person’s opinion, we might call him an idiot, but I can’t imagine anyone saying “I will cut off your testicles, because I don’t agree with your point of view on climate change.” Nevertheless, it happens all the time in cyberspace. I have experienced that on Internet forums, Richard has got it in his email.

For the most part, such messages are anonymous and this is the very reason why they are so bold. As it is the case with groups of men who behave more aggressively than they would on their own because they feel protected by the group, electronic communication emboldens people by giving them an illusion of safety in anonymity. Each person becomes a crowd of one – he doesn’t need others to hide among them, but still can safely throw insults without revealing his identity.

Although annoying and intimidating, anonymous hate messages are cheap and should not be taken seriously. A journalist might use them as a measure of “soreness” of the topic he covered – the greater the divide between opponents, the more hate he gets for taking one side. For all other purposes they are just a background noise. Firstly, if someone is serious about killing you and getting away with it, he will hardly give you a benefit of warning. Sending an anonymous message is a sign of cowardice, not determination. Sending a signed death threat might be considered a brave thing, but it is also a stupid one as it gives you a good starting point for a quick police action against the sender.

Secondly, people who send insults, anonymous or signed, are not smart. They disagree with your view and want to hurt you, because they are not clever enough to persuade you. They are not even able to hurt you properly. Anyone who survived primary school has a certain degree of immunity to name calling and will be rather amused, just as Richard was, than insulted. Word is a sharp weapon and there are rules about using it. Internet hecklers use it in the bluntest possible way which is barred too.

Internet has made communication easier for better and for worse. What previously took buying an envelope, hand-writing a letter and going to a mailbox, now takes a few minutes to type a reply on a website. It has changed the rules of engagement and a web author may expect much more dirt thrown at him than a conventional paper-book writer or journalist. But market forces work in human communication too – the greater the supply, the cheaper the goods. Internet will lower the ethic standards, but we will get used to the new norm and what was considered a reason for a duel will be ignored as a minor nuisance. In the meantime we need to start growing a thicker skin.