6--Online Forums

I read an interesting post by one member of an internet forum, but today the post just says “Edited.” I have found my Leviathan. The job of a forum moderator is to keep posts “appropriate, ethical, and without foul language.” As both a forum member and an active forum reader, I have come to know this leviathan in the online forum space. When I apply to be a forum member, I often have to be approved by the forum moderator as well. This may take hours to days, depending on the level of activity of the forum and the dedication of its members. The leviathan has several methods of enforcing social norms in the online forum space. Most of the time, they check their forum frequently and remove this information. Often, when someone tries to post something “against forum rules,” he or she edits the person’s post without their consent or even knowledge. Wallace has some applicable theory for forums, especially the “raised eyebrow” factor by which both the forum moderator and the forum members make sure each comment is related to the forum thread. For example, one cannot start a new discussion topic without first creating a new thread. If the member tries to sell something or promote himself, he also becomes “booted,” which Wallace would say encourages group dynamics such as maintaining a close team, even if one member tries to disrupt the group. In many forums designed for posting specific news-related information, there is even a post rubric, by which each member must make their post with specific information, in a specific format, and in the correct order or the comment is rejected.

Although the Leviathan, or forum moderator, may abuse his or her power, my experiences have usually been positive with them. When I am looking through a forum for an answer to a computer-related question or one about the best way to find something online, I have usually been quite successful looking through certain forum threads. They are mostly on topic and to the point, and many experienced “techies” make discussions interesting and non-tangential. I would disagree with Wallace’s portrayal of the Leviathan in this specific instance because they make forums much more manageable, and forums would have not been as popular without the moderators bringing “order to the chaos.”

Comments:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=5336526073368941060

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=8097945542175329826

Assignment #6- The Visual Stalker Leviathan

One major leviathan that is used by millions on Facebook is the photo application. It is a given that you will take pictures with your digital camera wherever you go and then soon after publish those pictures you have taken on Facebook, ensuring that you tag all those you know who were captured in the pictures. Don't let it happen that you go to a special event or an exotic vacation with your friends and not take the time out to post your pictures because everyone connected to you in your virtual realm of your Facebook profile will hate you. It has become not only the societal norm that Richard MacKinnon describes it as in which it is a " Leviathan on the Internet, one to which most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself" but it is a necessity in developing your profile. Adding photos of you friends and loved one in good times of your life enhances your profile, giving people a chance to learn more about you and understand you from a visual perspective. Furthermore, it is a tool used to keep contact with those who are physically away from you so that they can keep track of what you are doing, where you have been, and how you have changed. Millions of pictures are uploaded daily displaying everything from a picture timeline of study abroad adventures to new family additions.

The Facebook photo application has also become the most common way to share pictures between a group of friends. I, myself, was left in the predicament of experiencing the "eye brow raising" that Wallace states will occur if the norms of the Leviathan s not followed through with. He explains how this concept of punishment for breaking social standards is based on fundamentally the principals of conformity. Since I decided I did not have the time to conform to the Facebook craze of posting my pictures, many of my peers complained and were upset at me. It was not my purpose to intentionally defer for the norms, but I really never seemed to have the time. Despite my legitimate reason of having focus on school work over Facebook updating, the Leviathan effect was bestowed on me in large doses.

6 - 1 Solo'ers in DAOC

Dark Age of Camelot (DAOC) is a MMORPG akin to more popular titles like Everquest and World of Warcraft, but with a greater focus on player verse player (pvp) type interaction between three realms of opposing forces. The server on which I played (Bossiney) consisted of large player verse environment arenas (pve) unique to each realm and another large pvp map (the Frontiers) accessible by all realms. Within the player community and throughout the various servers certain groups of players with similar play styles would begin to crop up. There were the relaxed sets that prefered player verse environment (pve) affairs, the casual pvp gamers, the hardcore 8v8 pvp groups, and a community of solo pvp'ers. Each group of gamers with their particular playstyles held their unique views on how the game should be played and proper conduct between players both within their realm (their "allies") and in enemy realms. There were frequent clashes between playstyles within the shared space of the Frontiers.

Near the end of my playing days I most often frequented within the circle of solo pvp'ers. These were perhaps a set of the most "hardcore" gamers that played in DAOC and held the most stringent of conduct requirements for proper pvp encounters. Players frequently these circle and playstyle became known amongst the community through play and contact via various communication forms including game chat, public forms, Ventrilo, and IRC. By publicly acknowledging one another and being known by ones character name, players would become visually non-anonymous. Further, by conforming to the ruleset practiced and frequently interacting with players following the same playing patterns, strong and salient group identities would form. According to the SIDE theory, this would create an impetus for conformity amongst players. Primary to their beliefs were that all fights should be held on equal grounds. That is to say all fights were to occur one player verse one player, without adding into fights. There were additional rules delegating proper conduct upon "vulturing" or killing somebody just after they fought but before they had a chance to heal and or when to engage if additional hostile, non-solo players were in the area that would likely add onto the fight. Lastly, it was commonly established that if one's fight was added upon both members, if possible would turn on the adder to kill him/her or cease the fight to allow one player the chance to kill the add. Anyone violating these constructs were subject to Wallace's Leviathan-- the forces of social behavior that serve to keep everyone conforming to established standards of conduct. In the case of DAOC and the solo players community, the Leviathan came in various forms.

Within the game there were various levels of chat that players could communicate across. Local Area Chat, Private Messaging, Group Chat, Guild Chat, Battlegroup Chat, Alliance Chat, and Private Chat Groups. If a solo'er found another solo player to be violating the strict standard of no-adding, what Wallace would refer to as a "raised eyebrow" would come in the form of a private message or local area chat rebuke informing the adder he or she had done wrong. However, chat could only occur amongst members of the same realm, so other means of communication were used for cross-realm communication. Most commonly hostile posts made on the IGN Network forums dedicated to DAOC would occur when one player had been wronged by another of the same realm. These displays served as more public and permanent "raised eyebrows" and would be used to build a negative reputation for the player violating the solo gamers' rulesets.

However, the Leviathan came in forms beyond simple messaging and chatter; and, continued on into the realm of forcible action. A known "adder" would be ganged up on by other solo'ers to demonstrate their disdain. If a solo'er witnessed a fight 2 verse 1, they would join the fray to attempt to save the player being double teamed regardless if he was ally or enemy. Further, if somebody had a negative reputation as an adder, he or she would often be reserved to a "KOS" or "Kill on Sight" form of encountering. While solo players were often forced to violate their own rules, in order to act as the Leviathan to other players, they deemed the temporary forgoance of rules a necessary evil to "preserve a productive online group environment" for future use in solo fighting.

What was perhaps most appealing about the solo community in DAOC were the positive forms of appraisal for proper conduct. If a player was well known to be a solo'er and generally have what would be considered an honorable record of play, he or she would receive positive reinforcement from realmmates and even opposing players via game chat and on the IGN boards. It would not be uncommon for two players to seek refuge in the game after a solo encounter and wrote posts to one another on the IGN Boards complimenting them on good fights or for helping one another turn on an adding player. Additionally, when a solo'er was seen observing fights rather than adding onto fights in progress "thank you for not adding" messages would be common, as well. While the Leviathan was present to ensure players violating the rules were punished, a set of common positive reinforcements garnered a greater ability to keep players conforming to the ruleset.

6: Parental Controls: Pre-MTV Style

When I was in middle school, way before AIM came out (as far as I knew), I had a full America Online account that allowed me to surf the internet, get emails, and chat with friends via instant messaging. I thought it was the coolest thing. I picked my own screen name, had my own password, and could go on AOL without a parent present. As I was informed by classmates about various websites to explore (most of them sites like Freearcade.com), I stated to surf the internet. To my displeasure, some sites that my friends were going on I was denied access to. This puzzled me; I was supposed to be able to surf the internet on AOL. Why couldn’t I?

This question was answered when I saw my dad setting up an account for my younger brother. “Parental Controls” is certainly every preteen’s worst enemy. It is the Leviathan of AOL. Parental Controls can be set to restrict certain online activities, like not allowing emails that aren’t from AOL to appear in the user’s mailbox, not having the ability to IM people, and not being allowed to access certain websites. My dad set the Parental Controls on my account, so while the Parental Controls was the Leviathan online, he set the Leviathan according to what he perceived to be appropriate internet access for a preteen.

In Chapter 4 of Psychology of the Internet, Wallace discusses the ways that the Leviathan is implemented in cyberspace. She concludes that it is absolutely possible to have social norms on the internet due to people’s desire and willingness to conform and be part of a group. With this innate mentality, people want to preserve order and stability in all environments that they’re in, including the internet. The Leviathan is an invisible force online that monitors an area of cyberspace to make sure that people are following the rules. On AOL, preset Parental Controls regulate the online experience, acting as the Leviathan. The Parental Controls took the place of my parents constantly watching what I was doing online. If the rules set by the Parental Controls were not followed, then the user would be reprimanded by denied access to whatever he or she was trying to utilize. Eventually, the user would learn what they can and can not do online, and to avoid frustration, would stop trying to do things that they’re not supposed to do. The Leviathan here conditions users to follows the norms and regulations of the service.

6.1: Killing your own friends because everyone else is doing it

Would you ever consider walking around for hours, without a purpose, with a group of people that you do not even know? Apparently this became a social norm in a massive multiplayer on game Runescape. Players engage in this event, called a PK trip, and other similar events not because they are fun, but because they have become a social norm. (If any of you are more familiar with this online game, please correct me if I am wrong in some of these terms because I do not actually play this game, but my brother has described it to me throughout the 6 years he has been playing this game.) A PK trip is when a group of people, usually a clan, goes into the wilderness to kill people. These are not one-on-one battles, but instead, all 20-200 members of this clan attack one person. Obviously the one person dies immediately, and as a result all his/her belongings are dropped and shared among the clan members. The reason that I claim that this event has no purpose is because after walking around for hours you usually kill around 10 people, and most of the time you do not receive anything valuable because people do not carry valuable items into the wilderness. Also, you do not gain honor or pride because the one person is obviously outnumbered. Furthermore, this is not fun because most of the time there are no people in sight, and when you actually encounter a person you have only have to click the person once to kill him/her.

Strangely, this has become a norm in any clan that exists in Runescape. A clan is a group of people who play together at the same times, hold events and competitions, and fight with other clans. Any person who has played this game for over a week, and more certainly and any person who is in a clan is guaranteed to have participated in a PK trip. People have come to know this norm through other players. Because of this, players are the Leviathan. Friends are expected to go on these trips, even if it is not enjoyable for both parties. If people decide not to join this event for a good reason, they will probably be ignored and not accepted by others. According to Wallace, this can be referred to as the arched eyebrow effect.

Clans can also be seen to be the Leviathan for this norm. Every clan requires members to participate in one of these events at least once every week. This can be related to Wallace’s “psychological recipe for creating a cohesive group.” These events are required events reflect the heavy time demands portion of this recipe. (On another note, clans also have a group symbol and color; applications and initiations; and entrance requirements.) The Leviathan enforces this norm through one of the worst punishment—group exclusion. If a member fails to meet these events without a good reason, they are usually kicked out of the clan for being inactive.

The SIDE theory explains some of the actions that occur in one of these trips. In a required clan event, the main goal is to strengthen the relationship between the members in the clan. In other words, group identity is salient. For the most part, members are visually anonymous—anonymity can be seen in different aspects here. First of all, players do not see profile pictures of other players, so in this sense they are visually anonymous; however, individuals are identifiable to some extent: each player can be identified by username when you roll over them with the cursor, and each player’s name can be read when they type a message in the chatbox. In these events, individuals are more anonymous than in other actives because it is hard to keep track of who says what when there are over 200 people speaking at once, and when they walk together they have to follow 1 person, so every disappears into square. Because people are visually anonymous to each other and other players some unusually actions may occur in these events. When you actually find a person to kill, and you realize that this person is one of your other online friends, you will end up killing him/her anyway because everyone else is doing it, and your friend will not be able to identity that you did it because you are visually anonymous. It would be hard to control all of your clan members because once again you are visually anonymous. Clan members conform to the actions of the group. The SIDE can help explain these unusually situations. The Social Identity/Deindiviuation Theory states that if the group identity is salient and players a visually anonymous, then conformity and social influence is exhibited.

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/facebook-is-leviathan.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-1-craming-leave-me-alone.html

6.1 The Team Killer and the Leviathan

Oftentimes in online games, particularly in first-person shooters, players can harm their teammates by shooting at them or otherwise attacking them – a feature that can often be disabled, but is nonetheless usually implemented in order to increase the realism and difficulty of the game. It is generally understood that a player should apologize if they accidentally harm or kill one of their teammates in the frenzy of a gunfight. If a player neglects to offer an apology, the other players exhibit what Wallace calls the “arched eyebrow,” which is the pressure to conform to the group by looking down on the person (usually via chat) who committed the offense.

Sometimes, however, a rogue player will intentionally kill the other members of their team either for their own amusement, or because they enjoy the power that they can have over others. Most games, like the World War II shooter Day of Defeat, implement what Wallace described as a “sign on the door” technique – a set of established rules provided at the entrance of the game that each member of the group should be aware of in order to avoid punishment from the other members of the group. This warns that players can be kicked or banned if they are caught team-killing. In the early days of online first-person shooters, there was a serious problem with these kinds of games, because they were often plagued with gamers who would mercilessly team-kill one another because it was relatively easy to do so, and there were no real establishments in place to punish the offenders – in-game communication was often absent or very limited back in the early days, so it was difficult to effectively admonish rebel group members. However, as games evolved with more robust communication features, oftentimes including tools like voice chat, a Leviathan emerged. Wallace describes the Leviathan as the figure who enforces norms online in order to preserve the value and integrity of the medium. The Leviathan in this case consists of both intangible and tangible elements – the arched brow of the other players (transmitted through the in-game communication features), and the technologies that evolved in order to maintain conformity, such as a ranking system and the ability to kick or ban players (either through a moderator or by group vote). Wallace would describe the latter as a “mortal god” – the force that moderates online environments by removing, suspending, or blacklisting members that refuse to conform to group standards (a force that, inevitably, sometimes abuses its power).

Wallace refers to Richard Mackinnon’s suggestion that members of a group often willingly give up certain freedoms for the sake of orderliness, or to preserve the value of the medium. This is certainly true in many online gaming environments, where the Leviathan often emerges as a result of the “human willingness to conform and our eagerness to preserve a productive online group environment” (pg. 70). Most players understand that chaos will often occur if there is no Leviathan in place, and so they tend to conform to the group rules in order to keep the community and the online experience intact.

When members in an online community agree to conform to the rules of the group, the identity of the group become more salient – something exists to bind the group together; a sort of pact that they agree to that says something like “we can all have more fun together if we try to follow these rules.” The SIDE theory states that if the group identity is salient and members are visually anonymous, then partners relate on the basis of group membership, which creates an environment where members are more inclined to follow rules and implement a Leviathan, which is essential for the online gaming experience to remain enjoyable.

Comment 1
Comment 2

Youtube Leviathan

As an avid anime viewer (unfortunately), I frequently went on Youtube to watch anime episodes. A friend of mine once estimated that there are at least 90 shows on Youtube. And of course, they are rarely legal. I suppose the regulation that we shouldn’t upload anime episodes is already covered in the Agreement when we signed up, but, in my case, I truly recognized this social norm after Youtube and the companies took action.
To protect their products, the companies would sometimes coerce Youtube to delete the videos (e.g. “The video has been deleted per request of Funimation”). But Youtube would often delete the videos before the companies can knock on its door (e.g. “The video has been deleted due to term violations”). Youtube “raised its eyebrows” so that it can keep running without much lawsuits chasing after it, and so that the users can have a place to put up their original works and voice their opinions. I first noticed deletions at a much faster rate started a couple of months ago.
Other than “asking” Youtube to ban the videos, the companies/ organizations/ websites sometimes would ask the users directly. For example, according to Distant Horizon, an Avatar: the Last Airbender fansite, “ Nickelodeon has released a high-quality version of the Season 3 trailer shown at SDCC and have given it to AvatarSpirit.net. It's free to watch and download, and other fansites can host the video too, so long as NO ONE uploads it to YouTube or other file sharing sites. That's Nickelodeon's only request.”
*Avatar: the Last Airbender is a popular American-made anime, for those of you who don’t watch animes.
According to Wallace, on the internet, the Hobbian Leviathan is a figure of authority in which we give up some of our freedom in return for “the value and energy of the medium itself” (MacKinnon). In this case, the Leviathan takes the form of the Youtube people who hold the power to delete videos and ban users. If people are frustrated by getting kicked out or getting their favorite videos/episodes deleted, they would stop uploading/watching these videos – in other word, they would conform to the social norm. Though I doubt that the rule enforcement by the Youtube Leviathan would ever work completely since the not-so-legal videos are still pouring in despite their hard work. As far as I can tell, the “framework of trust” mentioned by Wallace has yet to be established on Youtube.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=2142833146769322470
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=2637186177228680264

6.1 Facebook is the Leviathan

Nowadays Facebook certainly is an online social norm for college-aged people. Prior to being opened to the general public, Facebook had nearly 20 million users with only college and high school members. Needless to say, it is hard to run into someone who does not have a Facebook profile.

The social tool gained popularity primarily through word of mouth. When I first joined Facebook, my reason was to be able to see my friends’ photos from our trip to the South Pacific (non-members cannot see any personal profiles). At that time the site was still gaining popularity and nobody was surprised that I was not already a member. However, since then the ways of the Internet(s) have changed and someone without a Facebook profile is virtually (and possibly literally) a social outcast.

I’ve had a few experiences with what I like to call “‘You’re not on Facebook’ shock.” The first examples concern friends of mine that either hadn’t heard of Facebook or had resisted joining for reasons of personal indifference. In one case, someone started a group on the premise that if the group reached a certain number of members, our friend Tim would agree to create a profile. In another instance, my roommate last year had not even heard of Facebook when our suitemates and I began ‘friending’ each other. After our initial shock, and subsequent prodding, he quickly agreed to join as if it were a graduation requirement.

My second example of ‘Facebook shock’ (for short) came when I decided to de-activate my profile last year. My reason was simply that I didn’t use it and felt it was somewhat unnecessary. Relatively soon after I de-activated however, friends who had known that I was a member inquired as to why I had left, and people who looked to ‘friend’ me thought I hadn’t ever had a profile and gave me the same reaction that my roommate got when we found out he wasn’t a member.

Wallace’s theory would categorize the quick adoption of Facebook and resulting expectation that someone is a member as a demonstration of ‘Conforming on the Net.’ As she says, “people are willing and sometimes even eager to conform.” The phenomenon of ‘Facebook shock’ is probably best explained by ‘The Arched Brow’ in Wallace’s theory. Most people are surprised to find out that a peer is not a member and they almost always will rebuke that person by insisting that they join.

6.1: A Leviathan in Counter Strike
6:1: Wikilaw

6 Big Brother Google

For this week’s assignment, I decided to search for the seemingly omniscient online entity known as the Leviathan. I began by typing in some keywords into a search engine and fielded some results, but little did I know that I had stumbled onto a very influential Leviathan – Google. Thomas Hobbes defined the Leviathan as an absolute authority that society relinquishes some “natural rights” to resolve disputes and/or ensure peace and common defense. Now I know what you’re probably thinking…how does Google fit into this definition? Well Richard MacKinnon said that online Leviathans are present because we want the Internet to “flourish” and that will occur once we build a “framework of trust” and have a means to guarantee compliance with “netiquette” (Wallace 69). In the case of Google, the Leviathan is not exactly an “unpaid volunteer” as Wallace suspects, because it receives payment from advertisements, although it does provide services free to users (like the engine itself and applications like Gmail). Now, on to how Google acts as a Leviathan.

First of all, Google is moderated. It chooses what information and which sites it wishes to provide to users. Users can request to add their URL to the Google database, however, Google states that they “do not add all submitted URLs to [their] index, and [they] cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.” So, Google is acting as an authority in deciding which sites are “useful” to users (by their own discretion). Now by allowing Google to sort out which sites are “worthy” we give Google the right to censor information provided to us as users. For example, Google has censored its services in China, France and Germany by limiting which sites are in the database to appear and responses to an inquiry. Google also has a sorting tool called PageRank^TM which analyzes sites and their votes (i.e. popularity and relevancy), then compiles a list in response to an inquiry. So in essence, we set the “norm” by visiting a particular site and the responses we get in the future are based on website hits and information quality…or so they say – recently, Google has been accused of selling rankings. This brings up the issue of trust that MacKinnon talked about. Google prides itself on having the world’s largest online information database, but how much are they really sharing with users and how accurate is their response? But without avail, we continue to trust that the information is valid, and continue to use the engine building a network of information.

If Google were “unmoderated”, there would be more annoying pop-ups and advertisements and the search engine will display sites with little to no relevancy to your inquiry. And this would not preserve the “productive online group environment” that Wallace describes in Chapter 4. We use Google to search for an inquiry and expect to find a very close match in a fraction of a second. Without the PageRank^TM system, you could scroll through literally a googol of site trying to find what you want. Searching will be ineffective and time consuming, and eventually, people would stop using it.

In all, Google is has a powerful influence on users (society) because, as their mission statement says, it “organize[s] the world’s information and make[s] is universally accessible and useful.” With such a loyal following, I believe the number of Internet users is going to grow and this Leviathan will live on until something comes along to take its place, another Big Brother.

-----------------------------

Comments

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-stay-on-topic.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/09/6-im-leviathan.html

Assignment 6: Option 1

Digg.com is a completely user based site. People post links of things they find on the internet that they think other people will be interested in. Anyone that joins the free site can post but you don’t need to register to view the sites. As the links are posted, people registered with the site can ‘Digg’ certain links that they find interesting. When a link has a lot of ‘diggs’ it moves towards the front page of the website. Most of the monitoring on the site is done by the large community of members. In addition to people ‘digging’ a story, they can also bury it and report it.

The creators of Digg managed to create a Leviathan that could be moderated democratically. It takes at least a few votes to bury a story and a few hundred diggs to bring a story to the front page. There is some moderation by the owners of the site. They will occasionally block comments and take down articles that they discover to be false.

In the digg community, there is a Leviathan in where the website is based on trusting the other members to post only articles that are true and to not fix the voting by registering multiple accounts and voting multiple times. People with multiple postings that trying to spread false news have their accounts suspended.

A criticism of Digg.com is that it could be used to cause large problems if it is unmonitored. It can be used to spread false rumors about a stock or company or to criticize a competitors company. Also, there is the ability for companies to pay people to digg them hundreds of times and move their site to the front page.

The social norm is to try to keep a powerful and useful tool going by posting only links that others should see and would benefit from seeing. People come to know and recognize this norm as they use the site. If people appreciate the site, they would not want to abuse it and would only try to add to it. If someone does try to do something that is not in the interest of the site, the large community realizes soon enough and buries the story fast. According to Wallace, “MacKinnon believes the Leviathan is there anyway because we want the Internet to flourish, and sense it will not unless we build a framework of trust … (69)” The willingness of the larger group to conform to what Digg.com stands for is what makes it work.

6.1 - Giving credit where credit is due

A few years ago I came across the site slickdeals.net while looking for a good price for a new monitor I was planning to buy. I quickly became wrapped up in the forums on the site and became a part of the community. I started to recognize regular posters and learn about each member’s personality. I also learned the norms of the forums over time. The most important norm I learned, which I later found out applied to many other online communities, is the norm to give credit where credit is due.

In the slickdeals community, when a user finds a good deal for a product, he/she will make a new thread in the forum informing other members of the deal. If other members find this information helpful, they have the ability to give the original poster “rep points” (short for “representation points”) and also grade the thread with either a thumbs up or thumbs down. Overtime, certain members stand out because of the amount of rep points they have. These members are the resident experts on finding good deals. Rep points also provide an incentive for members to find good deals and post them, which keeps the community alive.

This example also applies to other online communities such as digg and stumbleupon. In these communities, a user can mark a webpage as interesting and then other users can see the webpage. If another user also enjoys a site, they can increase its score by “digging” it for digg or clicking “I like it!” for stumbleupon.

The Leviathan in these situations is often ridicule. If members of the community don’t give credit to those who help, then there is no incentive for anyone to contribute anymore. Also, on slickdeals, people who use the site without contributing or giving credit to others are sometimes known as “leechers" and are often made fun of. In stricter forums, administrators play the role of the Leviathan because they can offer punishments such as temporary banning a user.

Users will also feel the need to give credit to other members because they will feel the need to conform to other members in the community. Wallace discusses we give up certain freedoms to live in a safe world. In the online community, we may make changes to the way we act just to fit in. Generally people like to feel accepted and that often means conforming to the group’s norms.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=5359480450557650782
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=8263179206262171688

6.1 - A Facebook Leviathan

Online communication would not be so popular or effective if it weren’t for conformity. Everyday, people from all over the world check their Facebook wall and edit their profile. It has become the norm to have a certain Facebook profile. For example, most Facebook users do have a profile picture of some sort. Why do most people even have Facebook pictures? And why not put inappropriate pictures as your display? Facebook would not run as smoothly if complaints were constantly being sent in to Facebook about inappropriate images. It is the norm to put a picture of yourself, of you among friends, or of a something that reflects you in some way. Furthermore, most of us conform to other aspects of our Facebook profile. It is the norm to put your first and last name on your profile. Why don’t people put nicknames? Or lie about who they are? Facebook would not function properly if people kept changing their names or lying about who they were. How could you know who posted on your wall? Or tagged you in 8 pictures from last weekend? Why do people join networks? Without conformity, Facebook simply wouldn’t be Facebook.

The Leviathan originated from Thomas Hobbes and is a figure of authority in which we give up our rights in return for a fair and safe world. “Richard C. MacKinnon insightfully argued that there is indeed a Leviathan on the Internet, one to which most people willingly give up freedoms in order to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself” (MacKinnon). In other words, we all conform to various aspects of the Internet for the benefit of our society. By putting up appropriate profile pictures, identifying yourself correctly, and joining specific networks, we are preserving Facebook and the site itself. If the Leviathan did not exist online, the Internet would not be what it is today. Facebook is but a small example of how conforming online allows the Internet to be such a success today.

6:1: Wikilaw

Wikipedia has a number of methods of making the standards of writing and editing known to its authors. Wikipedia.org contains an extensive section delineating the norms that should be followed to create a comprehensive and accurate online resource. Wikipedia uses its encyclopedic character to its advantage, and lists countless articles on its bylaws. Wallace would compare these articles to a “no-smoking” sign in a restaurant. If the rule is broken, one suffers the consequences.

Over time, Wikipedia has woven a cohesive group of users who correct and regulate its content for accuracy. The elements of a cohesive group are: initiation, massive time commitment, icebreakers and group symbols. Each user who registers (initiation) a name on Wikipedia has the power to edit and create articles. But with increased experience and time commitment, comes credibility, and a rewarding promotion. Eventually one’s role may become administrator, which gives the user the power to delete articles and ban vandal IP addresses. Cognitive dissonance, a direct relationship between beliefs and actions, comes into play here. Those who write articles on Wikipedia invest an incredible amount of time on the site, and their articles become part of their precious personal repertoire. This is a vicious cycle in that the more time a person spends creating and editing Wikipedia, the more important it becomes to them. The ice-breakers can be classified as the common ground of responsibility which these administrators share. They operate proudly as a truth taskforce. The group of individuals that is devoted to enforcing the norm has been dubbed the CounterVandlism Unit. The CVU is complete with a group symbol and a special name as well. To quote the article on the CVU, “’Unit’ is simply a little snappier than ‘WikiProject’”.

See the IP block list. Hit refresh after waiting a minute and watch a number of new entries appear. The “conforming” Wikipedia users have “raised their eyebrows” at the vandals on the IP block list. They are deprived of their right to edit articles, a right that everyone else inherently has. This action is meant to deter repeat-vandalism and enforce the norms of article writing.

Starting off, Wikipedia had a shaky foundation, since the group identity and number of administrators was limited. Now the turnaround time for correction of inaccurate articles is incredibly fast. As a joke, my friend once made a Wikipedia entry for his girlfriend of their relationship. The page did not even survive long enough for him to show his girlfriend. However, my friend’s post did stay online for a certain period of time, very slightly tainting the reputation of Wikipedia. In his book “The Long Tail,” Chris Anderson states that “the mean repair time for damage in high–profile Wikipedia entries such as “Islam” is less than four minutes.” Anderson contrasts Wikipedia and Britannica. He states that Wikipedia has 10 times more entries, creating a comprehensive and accurate whole, but no single article should be taken without a grain of salt. Chances are that you will find an accurate article on Wikipedia, whereas in Britannica you run the risk of not even finding what you are looking for. Wikipedia operates on a principle that he calls “probabilistic statistics,” the idea that the service is never 100% flawless, but is programmed to evolve in accuracy and breadth over time. He cites Kevin Kelly’s examples of probabilistic statistics, where order arises from what appears to be chaos. His examples include democracy and bird-flocking, two phenomena which we can see elements of a cohesive group and the concept that many individuals can create an expandable larger entity and for the greater good.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=8050569150949175298

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5400576841210402935&postID=794471671520627739

6.1: A Leviathan in Counter Strike

In any society, there is a conflict between freedom and order. The Leviathan is the person or entity to whom we give up certain parts of our freedom to ensure order. In our regular life, the government is the Leviathan. We give up the right to do things that are against the law in order to keep our society peaceful and predictable. In the context of our class, the search for the Leviathan refers to finding what, if any, Leviathan-type force exists in online communities.

A lot of times when I am bored, I find myself entering one of these online communities in the form of the game Counter Strike. Counter Strike is an old online shoot em up game. There are plenty of newer games with better graphics, cooler guns and all that jazz, but I am good at Counter Strike, and still enjoy it, so I basically just stick to it. I always play on the same server as well; it’s fast, reliable, and I know what to expect.

Now when you enter the server, a little windowed description of the server pops up that says its name and the server rules: no hacking, no taking advantage of glitches, keep teams even, respect the admins and players, etc. So the server rules are fairly simple and laid out for you (if you read them). When you play, about 50% of the time there is an administrator present. In this situation, they are clearly the Leviathan of this miniature community. If people are blatantly breaking any of the stipulated rules of the server, the admin has a multitude of ways to punish him or her. These range from things like instantly killing that player (in the game), to kicking them from the server, or even permanently banning them. In most cases, however, a simple “Hey, cut that out” works and prevents people from doing what they shouldn’t. People know that the admins basically have godlike powers within the context of the game, so if an admin tells you to stop doing something you know that you’re options are basically limited to stopping or leaving the server.

Of course, there is also that other 50% of the time when there are no admins present. Surprisingly, in this situation there isn’t really much abuse from players breaking the rules either. Even when they know that there isn’t anyone there who can punish them, other players will still tell the rule-breaker to stop doing whatever they’re doing, and for the most part they stop. What does this mean for the Leviathan? Without an administrator, the only punishment someone can get is basically just getting complained to from other players. But this generally still works. I think that this phenomenon has to do with the fact that Counter Strike is a pretty outdated game. Like I said, there are all sorts of other, newer, and probably better games people could be playing. The people still playing this old game are the ones who truly enjoy it, and probably to some degree respect it. I think it is this respect for the game that keeps everyone relatively well behaved. People want things to run smoothly, so the game stays fun for everyone. In this respect, everyone playing becomes the Leviathan. Everyone keeps an eye on everyone to ensure smooth gameplay.

comment one

comment two

6: Digg that groovy Leviathan

Digg.com is a site where users submit stories, web pages, videos, or pictures to share with everyone else on the net. The catch of Digg is that users can digg or bury a story based on whether they like or dislike it. There is also a commenting system similar to those on youtube or blogs. As is common on many sites like these, some users enjoy writing stupid or inappropriate things in their comments, defeating the purpose of the site, for whatever reason. Maybe it makes them feel important. Not only do the users digg/bury the articles themselves, they can digg/bury other users comments. When a user's comment becomes buried (has more votes to bury than digg) it is no longer displayed by default in the comments section. You would have to click on a "show comment" button for the buried comment to view it. This is a good example of Wallace's "Raised Eyebrow". This is the process of members of the community showing the offender that they are not following the "netiquitte" with some kind of act. In this case, burying them.

When you join Digg, I'm sure that there is some disclaimer saying that you aren't allowed to write certain things, probably including racism and threats. I frequented this site for a while before I joined and did what most people do, which is fly through the signup process without reading anything. I'm fairly certain that everyone learns about this system of keeping users in check by seeing it firsthand. There is not much evidence of Wallace's "Sign on the Door" theory on Digg. This theory says that the rules about comments should be made very aware to me before anyone has to tell me with buries. At the time I signed up, I didn't even know for sure if there were any kinds of penalties for repeatedly violating the rules and posting bury worthy comments.

On Digg, the Leviathan is the enforcement from the users. They not only fuel the site by picking which posts are the coolest and worthiest of being on the front page, but show disruptive users that they are violating the commonly accepted ground rules of Digg.

6-1: We are the Leviathan

I thought I would look at an online social norm dealing with something that directly affects all of us: blog comments. Comments made on blogs are supposed to convey a particular message to the writer of the blog and any other reader of that blog. In many cases, these responses can be very passionate and exaggerated. With people on the Internet from so many different walks of life, a set-up like this with no Leviathan would be a disaster. Not to take a completely cynical view on human beings, but there would be far fewer qualms in ripping anonymous bloggers apart, leaving spam comments, and littering messages with vulgar language. However, depending on the blogging community, there is a social standard of decency and respectfulness in blog comments.

In the COMM 245 blog community, Professor Hancock sets this standard. He explicitly informed us that all comments must be positive and constructive, and if these criteria were not met, we would lose points or even be expelled from the course. Professor Hancock is an obvious form of a Leviathan in this course. However, he is not the only one. We are Leviathan’s to each other. Anyone who posted a comment that is out of line would get “the arched brow” from other members of the blog. They would be reprimanded by other members of the class, as well as the teacher, and forced to rescind their comment or apologize for it. This is magnified because all of our user names are our full names so there is no hiding from anything we post on the blog site. No one wants to post a mean comment on someone’s assignment and have to deal with them the next day. We are bound to conform to these standards by how we want our classmates to view us in person. This also fits into the hyperpersonal model as we are selectively self-presenting to enhance our image.

Our blog is a special case because we all know there is at least a possibly of knowing each other in person. This isn’t the case in most online blogs. However, the peer-to-peer Leviathan still exists even though there is no potential Face-to-Face interaction governing it. A recent example I saw was on a blog posting on chicagotribune.com about the Cubs playoff game times. Many fans complained about the inconvenient start times, but anytime someone would use profanity or “shout” by using capital letters, the next few people who commented would arch the brow and ask them to tone it down or stop littering the cite with useless comments. Another interesting dynamic was every once in a while a White Sox fans would post on the blog about how the playoff games didn’t matter because the Cubs were going to lose anyway and then a number of commenters would immediately jump on that person and tell them to go to their own blog or taunt them for not even making the playoffs. This is an instance when group members remind the offender in a not so gentle way, as Wallace put it. They were protecting their group identity as Cubs fans. Either way, commenters want the blog to succeed and for many commenters to keep posting; therefore they voluntarily agree to conform to certain norms and fight to enforce those norms. As Wallace says, “We can relinquish certain freedoms for orderliness.” Plus, you can never underestimate the solidarity of Cubs fans.

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-parental-controls-pre-mtv-style.html#comment-8318950019817202440
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/truth-v-truthiness.html#comment-6473926203918181473

Assignment #6: Hunting the Leviathan

Online forums are generally given set of rules and conventions in order for individuals to participate, and they are expected to adhere to them. If individuals are found to break the conventions specified, they are corrected and warned, either by the other members of the forum or the Leviathan. This is demonstrated more explicitly on smaller forums/websites run by a webmaster, which will be described with the following example.

Officetally.com is a popular fansite of NBC's show The Office which is run by a fan herself. It serves as an information site where fans can get the latest information on the show and its cast as well as a forum where fans can discuss episodes and respond to information posts. The webmaster, the Leviathan in this case, made a strict comment policy concerning the website, and people who do not conform to this standard are warned or censored (i.e. the webmaster deletes their comment). The Comment policy is as follows:

All comments are initially held in a moderation queue.

A comment, or portions of a comment, may be DELETED WITHOUT NOTICE if:

• It’s bad English. Please use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Comments are deleted for this reason more than any other.
• It’s derogatory. No comments against someone’s race, religion, politics, sex, sexual orientation, etc. will be tolerated.
• It’s a personal attack. Don’t type: “All you JAMmers suck.”
• It’s excessively profane or sexually explicit.
• It disses other websites, chat rooms, etc.
• It describes or encourages illegal activity.
• It’s off-topic. If it has nothing to do with the post being commented on, it will be deleted. If you have a news tip or a question about the site, please email me.
• It discusses the personal and private lives of the show’s staff.
• It shouts or squees. Shouting is using all caps, like: “JIM AND PAM MUST BE TOGETHER!” Squeeing is “I want to see Jim without a shirt!!!!!! Yes!!!!!”
• It’s a duplicate of a comment that was already made.
• It responds to or encourages other offensive comments.
• It’s a spoiler. You can post spoilers in the spoiler post or any other post that has the orange spoiler tag. Otherwise, it will be deleted.
• It’s more than 200 words. I moderate each comment myself, and it’s a bit trying to get through comments that are blog-length!
• NEW: It “hijacks” the post. This includes multiple comments on the same post, usually to reiterate a viewpoint that may be off-topic.
• NEW: You aren’t who you say you are. You are impersonating someone else, or posting under multiple identities.
• NEW: You post multiple comments on the same post. If you do this, your first comment will be accepted; all others will be deleted.
• It’s inappropriate in a way not covered by any of the points above. I know this is a judgment call on my part. Use your common sense, folks, and just be polite. Let’s act like Pam’s mom is reading these comments. :)

As Wallace explains, "as you enter each niche in which you can interact with others in some way, you will often find (or be directed to find) specialty signs that apply to the virtual habitats of specific groups," or the "sign on the door," as shown by the comment policy (65). The "arched eyebrow" given to violators is given by the Leviathan in this case, because she moderates the comments herself. And because the Leviathan is the giver of the "arched eyebrow" as opposed to other members, convention is more strictly enforced.

People come to know the norm by examples made of violators and the Leviathan's notice to the general community. In this example, the webmaster edits questionable comments and indications the violation, such as "proofread and edit," or deletes the comment entirely. In one event, the webmaster posted an entry to remind users of the comment policy. She also indicated that the regulars have always been adherent to the policy, referring them as "Tallyheads"; this term of solidarity further discourages violation of the policy and strengthens the Leviathan's power of enforcing it. This way, violators are pushed out, and those who want to join the community conform to the convention.

The Leviathan in this case, though a form of control of the forum, allows the site to serve its purpose as a fansite in informing fans and facilitating discussion in support of the show.

6 Everything2's Leviathan

The summer before my junior year of high school, I began writing for an online “collaboratively filtered database” called Everything2. My friend had recently discovered the site and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon, having written about 20 “nodes” (articles on various subjects) before convincing me to contribute. He had painstakingly researched information for each article and spent a fair amount of time editing his work. Initially, I was perplexed by his dedication to an endeavor which seemed to offer very few tangible rewards for completely voluntary hard work. However, as I spent more time trying to understand what drove the website and its contributors, I realized that, more than an online encyclopedia, Everything2 was a community. This online space, replete with a well-defined social hierarchy, had its own code of ethics, cultural norms, and inside jokes, all of which contributed to a nontrivial sense of “groupness.”

Wallace recognizes that, compared to face-to-face environments, online communities often need to more overtly stipulate the norms they wish to inculcate. The “sign on the door” is one efficient way of outlining rules and Everything2 has taken this tactic to heart. Links to “Everything FAQ” and “Everything University,” which are easily accessible from the homepage, offer guidelines for submitting nodes, outline stylistic expectations, and explain the norms associated with users’ personal “homenodes” (profiles). If these guidelines were not presented explicitly, it would take much longer for users to figure out the rules and new recruits might be discouraged from joining.

Standards of style and quality, explicitly stated in “Everything FAQ,” are firmly upheld in Everything2. If a user deviates from the specified guidelines regarding linking to other nodes, for example, they can expect to receive “downvotes,” which serve as the primary method of censure. The founders of Everything2 created a system in which users could earn points and move to higher levels by writing nodes that were well-received by the community, hence garnering “upvotes” from other users. If nodes fail to meet style or quality requirements, they receive downvotes. Voting allows members to reproach and reward their peers unambiguously and swiftly, thus providing a tangible way for the Leviathan to exert its influence on users.

Wallace has stated that online groups demonstrating trust between members are more productive and successful than groups who show less inclination toward interdependence. Everything2 has amassed a loyal group of users who rely on each other for feedback and intellectual stimulation. The trust that exists between them seems to foster a thriving creative community where hard work is rewarded.

6 | Here's an oxymoron for you: the Libertarian Leviathan

(Option 1) When stepping into any online discussion forum, a precocious reader would notice that each forum has its own flavors and “house rules.” While some are arbitrarily strict and heavily regulated, others practically encourage inflammatory comments. Online politic forums in particular are inherently contradictory – on one hand they feed on intense, usually academic discussions that edge on controversy, but as soon as one poster crosses “the line,” the thread is usually followed by a torrent of irreverent flames, bans, and post-deletions. Take a heavily libertarian discussion forum for example. One may start a topic on religious tolerance and why some perceive it as difficult to achieve in America, as well as the approaches that individuals can take to make changes. The thread is quickly supported by sympathetic responses and speculations regarding organizations that can help fight against religious discrimination and persecution. However, one poster drops the obvious “bomb” and mentions, (gasp), the government and the entire discussion spirals into the seventh level of hell. In this particular cyberspace, the norms are being libertarian – against government involvement and minimize the power of the establishment. The conventions follows that one should stick to ideas that do not involve government intervention and the standard are, well, all the general traits of liberalism and individualism.

How do people learn those norms? Well, here we can implement a fun little “nature vs. nurture” analogy. Those who come and actually visit the libertarian forums are very likely to be predisposed, by “nature,” to be libertarians and quickly fit in with the older posters. After all, if you are a conservative Republican you are not likely to be inclined, or have the technical knowledge (I jest) to access such forums. You may, however, engage in other activities such as shooting harmless animals, preaching Intelligent Design and general Bible thumping (again, for the sake of humor). The “nurture” aspect is almost akin to Skinner’s behaviorist explanation – you post something against the norms, get flamed, and perhaps change your stance so you may gain acceptance. Like a monkey reaching for the elusive banana, we adjust our behavior, through trial and error, to conform to the norms and standards in order to integrate ourselves into that particular community. To ease the process (and as a proof of our mental superiority over monkeys), many forums include “please read before you post” threads (typically in capitalized letters, bolded with red color for emphasis) that lists the rules of the forums to help “newbies” understand what is acceptable and what is not.

The Hobbian Leviathan, a metaphorical god-figure that arbitrates over human behavior and makes definitive resolutions – unchallenged, unchangeable, takes form in online forums under the title of Moderators. The moderators scour the forums to delete posts that are offended the rules or are perceived to be highly unacceptable to the norms of the community. Typically moderators have absolute jurisdiction over forum posts – they may delete or alter them at will. The absolute power bestowed upon them comes with temptations of abuse as well. However, as any avid reader of Hobbs would know, the occurrences of power abuse are a price that the society pays for the order and peace maintained thanks to the Leviathan. Anyone who actively opposes, or attempts to nullify/destroy the Leviathan usually ends up like Captain Ahab, harpooned with a permanent ban from the forums.

The virtual group dynamics described by Wallace describes quite well what goes on in an online discussion forum. The posters conform for social acceptance; they learn the standards through observations and experimentations. Non-conformists would receive the “arched brow” (albeit the online version tends to be far more vitriolic and expressive) from others, while those who conform well are rewarded with positive feedback from the community. All those qualities also neatly fit into the Social Identity/Deinvidualization, or SIDE theory. The libertarian discussion forums are clearly a salient group, with visual anonymity granted by virtual of being on the Internet, thus most members tend to conform, over-attribute certain qualities (e.g. being liberal, anti-establishment), and engage in heavy group influence via approvals or direct reproaches.

Comments:

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-online-forums.html#comment-115283207539319759

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-1-soloers-in-daoc.html#comment-3675788962507055801

6:2. Reproaches in Online Spaces

For this assignment, I purposely chose to analyze reproaches in two different online spaces: one in a chat-room and another on an online TV show message board.

The first reproach that I encountered came from a chat-room member, Gir, who was annoyed with another user, Mein Tie, for making several sexually explicit remarks, including “call 1800 spankme.” In response to this last remark, the annoyed user replied, “Mein Tie, keep the convo clean.” Mein Tie, however, appeared to be unphased by Gir’s reprimand. She replied by stating, “I is,” followed by more explicit language: “let’s call it a holiday, bitch slap day.”

Here, the unwritten norm was to keep the chat-room free of “dirty” language. When Gir felt that Mein Tie violated this norm and did not conform to the group dynamic, he reproached Mein Tie for her bad behavior. Here, the reprimand is equivalent to what Wallace calls "the arched brow." As she notes, reproaches are common on the Internet. While “the physical presence of others is generally enough to ensure conformity” in face-to-face situations, the Internet is unique in that it has relatively fewer ways to convey social cues, making stronger measures, such as reproaches necessary when people violate group rules (Wallace 66). This analysis falls in line with the CFO perspective, which notes that the decreased social cues that are available in mediated communication channels, such as the Internet, hamper effective communication.

This situation, however, does conform to Wallace’s finding that reproaches are generally effective. Here, the offender not only refused to correct his behavior, but escalated the “dirty” language, which Wallace concedes does happen in a minority of situations (68).

It was also easy to find a reproach on an online message board. On a TV show message board, I found a thread attacking racist comments that many users had been posting on the boards. In his thread entitled “attn: MODS, ABC, OR whomever runs this board,” the disgruntled user, udontnomeeither, wrote, “PLEASE pull all the racially motivated threads regarding the Philippines, there are several throughout this board - it's total nonsense. Thanks.” Message board members responded with a variety of comments. While some were extremely supportive of udontnomeeither’s appeal to have the posts removed, others thought that he simply was being overly sensitive or unreasonable. As of the last time I checked, udontnomeeither had not responded to any of the comments and the posts had not been removed.

This situation brings up the important concept of the Leviathan, which Wallace describes as either a tangible or intangible figure who enforces norms on the Internet in order “to preserve the value and energy of the medium itself” (69). Here, udontnomeeither appealed to the Leviathan (in this case a mediator or ABC) in order to address the fact that several posters breached the norm of establishing an orderly and respectful environment on the boards. Although in this case the posters felt free to post racist comments, Wallace notes that often time “the presence of some authority figure [such as a moderator] can have calming influence and ensures participants that a means is available to resolve disputes should they arrive” (70).

Comments:

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-digg-that-groovy-leviathan.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-youve-just-been-tagged.html

6-1:The Lurking Leviathan On Facebook

I believe that it is fair to assume that posting images with nudity on facebook or other social networking sites is deemed unacceptable. It is an understood social norm because like many other inappropriate, taboo, or illegal topics it is frowned down upon, or in the eloquent words of Wallace “an eyebrow is raised” at such conduct. We learn of social norms like this either through rules that are written down or sometimes through learned experience. In the case of facebook specifically, before posting any images to an album individuals have to check a box agreeing that the images are in no way pornographic or otherwise inappropriate. This is an example of how people using facebook come to know of the norm or social standard.

A Leviathan would be the instrumentation or entity that delivers punishment id you violates the established norm in some way. Punishment can range from the “raised eye brow,” like a warning or reprimand to something more severe like deletion of an account or being reported to authorities. Obviously it depends on the norms broken and the severity of the norm. In the case of facebook the Leviathan comes in different levels per se. First of all photos or even perhaps inappropriate comments have to be reported by a viewer which would be another facebook user. Secondly, once the report is made the Facebook administrators will handle the actions by the deletion or freezing of the perpetrators account. The administrators are the ultimate Leviathan but are aided by all the other facebook community users.

This concept of punishment for breaking social standards is based fundamentally on principals of conformity. In Chapter 4 Wallace discusses conformity first stating that it is the changing of behavior to fit into groups or those around you. Like she discusses and as evident here conformity is an example of how we give up individual freedoms for the greater good. By not posting offensive or illegal pictures or comments consequently there is the avoidance of harm done to others. Wallace then leads into the SIDE theory, which focuses on the social categories. The SIDE model concludes that when a group identity is salient and an individual is visually anonymous individuals are more likely to conform. In the case of facebook, the group itself is the facebook community as a whole, and the individual users (like you and me) are relatively anonymous in the scope of the medium. I feel this could be a possible explanation for why most people do conform to the social norm, which at minimum “raises and eyebrow” at distasteful postings.

Comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-parental-controls-pre-mtv-style.html#comments

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-facebook-leviathan.html#comments

6.1 The warning scare

When thinking about the different types of Leviathans on the Internet that I have encountered I remembered back to my first "warning" on AIM. It was in middle school when I looked at my AIM and noticed that I had a 10% warning level on my screen name. At the time I was confused and did not understand. I did not know about the Leviathan on AIM that allowed people to warn others because someone would be following up on that report. Further, after inquiring about this warning to one of my friends I had no idea how or why I was warned on AIM.

The fact that everyone could see that I had been bad and gotten warned made me feel terrible especially because I did not know of anything bad that I could have done. This feeling was definitely the "raised brow" because when some of my friends who saw my warning asked me about what I did I felt a horrible shame for something I didn't even understand.

This sense that there is someone looking over you, a god-like figure really rings true with my experience with warnings on AIM. If there was no meaning behind "warning" someone the Leviathan would have no presence. However, due to the strong social acceptance that it holds the "warning" held a great significance on my behavior. From then on, I felt the need to question what I did online and to be careful not to offend anyone, despite the fact that I had no recollection of doing so in the first place. This Leviathan has got a hold over the AIM psychological space and is enforced and respected by most and holds a strong "raised brow" against those who do not.

6:1 Colbert's Truth v. Truthiness

While doing a segment on Wikipedia, comedian Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness,” noting that with the online encyclopedia “if enough people say it, it must be true.” Although there is some truth in all humor, especially this bit, the Wikipedia norm is to maintain standards of being a valid and reliable information source. Its control mechanism, or “Leviathan,” which monitors and enforces social standards, is in place to facilitate a process in which individuals forego individual rights (such as freedom of speech) for the greater good (accuracy of information).

Wikipedia endorses user-generated content in which publications are reviewed and cleared by peers instead of by expert authority. This means anyone can publish an encyclopedia article if enough people affirm its validity. Wikipedia’s leviathan, however, ensures some level of quality by requiring that contributions be verifiable by legitimate publications. Users can achieve various levels of authority by gaining the trust of the Wikipedia community over time, eventually becoming a part of this leviathan. They may be awarded the statuses of “steward” “bureaucrat” or “administrator”. Administrators have the most privileges and are able to delete content, prevent changes in articles, and discourage users from further editing.

Since the online social norm is to strive for accurate content, online offenses on Wikipedia include vandalism (adding false or unconfirmed content), poor quality, bias, and contradictory information. Contributing users are informed of such a norm through a “sign on the door” tactic in which users are notified of the terms of use before editing. Therefore, abnormal behavior is reproached by the leviathan in that if users don’t adhere to these standards, editors can delete pages and block users from providing content. For example, after Stephen Colbert tried to demonstrate his point that Wikipedia is mere “truthiness” by adding false statements about his show, administrators locked his account and prevented him from adding more fallacious content. To defend this action, Wikipedia cofounder Jim Wales explained, “We try as hard as we can to make sure every piece of information on the site is backed up by verifiable sources, and if something is under dispute, we remove it until people can provide us with sources” (http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1537865/20060803/index.jhtml?headlines=true

).

Furthermore, anyone can attain editorial status, and thus the leviathan is actually not one “mortal god,” as Wallace puts it, but a collaboration of all experienced users who tag questionable articles for review, report vandalization, and value the quality of posted content. Thus, the online encyclopedia will not fall apart if this “mortal god” goes away, but rather has many layers of defense: it will take more than one malignant contributor to wreak chaos by changing “facts” and the perceptions of those users who rely on them.

Wikipedia is also experimenting with creating “stable versions” of web pages in which reviewed articles are locked from further editing.

So while Wikipedia may not be a reliable citation in a research paper, due to its collaborative leviathan, it isn’t completely unreliable, or as Colbert mockingly put it, “Wikiality: a reality we can all agree on.”
____________________________________________________________________

Comments:

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-big-brother-google.html

http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-parental-controls-pre-mtv-style.html

6.2 -- Reproaches and Levels of The Facebook Offense

Interestingly, this assignment was a little more difficult for me than I expected, because so many of the online behaviors that we have come to see as societal norms are now almost second nature to us. Well, maybe second nature is going a little far, but I definitely had to think to come up with two examples of reproaches. This fact in and of itself goes to show how quickly we adapt to our surroundings, and expect certain similar actions from others.

The two reproaches I will use both took place on Facebook (What can I say, I'm addicted). I'll start with the one involving my roommate L's profile picture. A few months ago, she put up a picture of Eva Longoria as her profile picture. This went against the norm of putting up a clear picture of oneself, and people immediately noticed her deviant behavior. People posted things on her wall like "hey, that's not you!" and "nice picture". After about a week, someone even poseted "what's with the pic?". While the posts at first were more of a humorous nature, people expected that she would change the picture after a day or so, and when she didn't, the posts became less humorous and more accusator. She ended up putting her real picture back up. Thus, the reproach was successful, possibly because of the number of people that reacted to the breach of the norm in a similar way. When people seemed no longer amused (and conveyed their lack of amusement through their posts), L changed her picture back to the societal norm: a picture of herself. This relates to Wallace's theoretical issues if we consider facebook users as a group, and recognize that in that group, it is going against the norm to put up a picture that is not oneself. The reproach was somewhat more vocal than just a 'raised eyebrow', in response to a somewhat more obvious type of offense; what Wallace would most likely call a factual error. Because the other group members assume that the profile picture is of you, it is similar to a lie to put up a picture of someone else.

The second example I am going to reference deals with a more subtle breach of facebook norms. In this particular case, D, a boy I know, would message me constantly on facebook. The messages weren't unsuitable to be read by the other members of the facebook group, as a message would normall indicate, or even necessarily personal in nature. It seemed that he simply didn't want to post on my wall. While it didn't bother me, per say, it was just a strange way to act, and I began to feel like maybe he was trying to keep our relationship secret from someone, perhaps my brother. Instead of asking him about why he messaged me instead of posting on my wall, I simply continued to post on his wall every now and then the way I posted on other people's walls. I didn't want to bring up the possibility that he was trying to hide our friendship in case that really wasn't the case, because then I would have put that idea into his head. This is representative of my own desire not to stray from the norm, because bringing it up to him would make it an even bigger deal than it was in the first place, and the offense simply wasn't bad enough in my opinion to escalate it to a higher level. According to Wallace, I am holding up the societal norm because I continue to post on his wall whenever I have something to say, but because the rule is unwritten, I am hesitant to change the nature of the rule. Wallace would also relate my reproach to that of the "raised eyebrow" because I did not come out and state his offense, but simply kept posting on his wall in hopes that he would catch on. He didn't. I still don't really know why he doesn't post, because I'm sure he understands the logistics of facebook. Even though my reproach was unsuccessful though, it wasn't exactly a big deal. A more successful reproach would have to be constituted by a more severe facebook offense.

6.1: Stay On Topic

The Leviathan refers to the enforcement mechanisms that bound our collective behaviors to create social norms. Many of these social norms are closely guarded by powerful social institutions, such as the law, policies, and political rights of citizenship; but, most others are less obvious, existing mostly as social "expectations" - not necessarily requirements. Examples would include a collective tradition or ritual, common language and conversational formats, and group specific etiquette or ethics.

One example of a social norm are the posting procedures that are included in almost every formal or semi-formal Listserv application. A Listserv is an asynchronous mailing list program that allows a user to communicate a message to other users who have subscribed to the same list. Most Listservs operate under a set of posting guidelines, that are usually outlined during the user subscription process via an initial welcome message, a user policy confirmation page, or a FAQ page available on the originating site. Common guidelines include: respecting other posters, a word count minimum/maximum, guidelines regarding foul language, the acceptability of solicitation, rules against double posting, spam control, and the acceptable subjects for posting. In instances where the Listserv guidelines are not immediately available, a user can request information via a number of commands that elicit an automated response from the Listserv program, email others users requesting help, or simply wait for a message from the administrator notifying them of their misuse of the service.

The Leviathan effect comes into play when a user misuses the service, especially on a formal Listserv, where the messages are expected to conform to a certain protocol in both composition and content. A user's first breach of protocol usually warrants a warning; further abuses result in suspension or a cancellation of the user's subscription. The Leviathan is especially harsh in Listserv's since messages sent to the list are irreversible. There is no way to delete a message - once it's sent, it's in every subscriber's mailbox. An instance of the Leviathan recently occurred at my job. I work for a nonprofit organization that runs a county wide Listserv application. In the interests of the greater nonprofit community, we closely monitor the Listserv to make sure that posts relate to subjects that are relevant to the mission and purpose of the service. A few weeks ago, a new user began posting personal appeals to the Listserv, asking for donations and aid for a family member with a terminal illness. Although it was a very touching message and certainly deserving of attention, we were obligated to chastise the user for misuse of the Listserv - it did not relate to the subject matter set forth by the Listserv's guidelines and to deviate from those guidelines would only encourage similar activity from other posters who know someone with a terminal illness. A norm of the Listserv was violated and the Leviathan (in this case, the administrators of the Listserv, operating under the guidelines of the service) acted to preserve the integrity of the social agreement.

Wallace would call the guidelines of the Listserv, which are concrete definitions of the social norms, examples of "signs on the wall" - indicators of acceptable behavior within a certain online space and the blueprint for conformity within that space. When these rules are violated, as in the case of the user posting on a subject inappropriate to the Listserv's purpose (Wallace calls this a "violation of network wide conventions", then they are met with what Wallace calls "the Arched Brow," wherein members of the online space (sometimes administrators) put pressure on the user to conform their behavior to what is socially expected.

Comment 1
Comment 2

6.1: Wall-to-Wall vs. Sent Message: Rules & Boundaries

The concept of the 'Leviathan' refers to the power that enforces our adherence to society’s norms and standards. According to Wallace, it is a "system of government that we empower to resolve disputes." And however elusive it may be, such a force does in fact exist on the Internet. For the greater good of the medium, most people willingly give up certain rights and freedoms when using the Internet, resulting in the formation of a type of "netiquette."

This online-etiquette can be observed in several forums, especially Facebook. Within the wonderful, scary world of Facebook, there are various ways in which we can communicate one-on-one with another user. When posting on someone's wall, we are cognizant of the fact that whatever is written can be read by anyone viewing our profiles. On the other hand, when sending someone a message, we know that whatever is written will most likely only be viewed by the recipient, that the message will not be publicly displayed on their profile. Naturally, the inherent differences between wall-posts and sending messages on Facebook oftentimes results in dramatic differences in message content. Since both forms of communication are a) facilitated by the same website and b)between two Facebook users, why don't we ever interchange the two? Why don't we answer private message inquiries with wall-posts? Well, because of Internet etiquette, and The Leviathan.

In this case, Facebook users take the role of The Leviathan. Since we understand the nature of sending messages versus posting on someones wall, we know that there are serious differences between two, and mixing these forms of communication could result in serious consequences. For example, I have been invited to somewhere around 5000 groups created by people with lost cell phones. Rather than post my cell phone number for all the world to see, I usually send this message to the creator of the group, for his or her eyes only. Lets say, for the sake of the example, this person wishes to verify my phone number not by calling it, but by asking me via wall-post if it is correct. Now, while this scenario is a bit contrived, the principle of the matter is displayed: messages are meant to be private, wall-posts are not. We do not mix the two for a reason.

Facebook users are essentially the governing body with this norm, because we are the ones who could be potentially hurt by this Facebook malpractice. For someone who acts outside the rules of Facebook, in these terms, the victimized party would undoubtedly "raise an eyebrow" resulting in the potential end of friendship, and the undoubtedly damaging reputation of being a bad Facebook friend.

Wallace explains that we give up certain freedoms in order to live in a better and safe world. Indeed, in the case of Facebook, we give up the freedom to say anything we want in any forum for the sake of the people we may embarass, the gossip we may reveal, and the reputations we may taint. Long live the private message!


This Week's Comments:
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-youve-just-been-tagged.html
&
http://comm245brown.blogspot.com/2007/10/lenny-kravitzs-personal-leviathan.html

6- 1 "Craming..." (Leave me alone!)

One subtle social convention that I thought would be interesting to analyze is the practice of posting an Away message when logged into AIM and the expected “buddy” responses to this message. It has become a generally accepted social norm to put up a message letting your buddies know that you aren’t around, and often what exactly you are up to. This way, they don’t expect to talk to you at this time and feel foolish or let down when they don’t receive any response. Also it is understood that you should not disturb someone if their away message says they are busy. In this context, the away message acts as sort of a “sign on the door” as Wallace explains in Chapter 4. Away messages, in keeping with the ‘signs’ Wallace describes, are often a blunt statement about the person’s whereabouts, similar to a “Do not disturb” sign on a hotel door.

AIM users realize and adapt to this norm quite quickly—noticing the message, reading it and then being hesitant to pester someone who appears busy. Additionally, most people adopt the norm of posting a message with information about what they are doing to keep their friends updated/ to avoid unwanted chatter when you should be devoting all your attention to your latest prelim. After someone is inactive on their computer for about 20 minutes or so, AIM usually informs us that they are Idle. This can also help us to gauge our friends’ availability, but it is not as informative as the away message since someone could be active on their computer but not available to chat.

The Leviathan helps enforce this set of norms through the reactions and reproaches of the community of experienced AIM users. If you were to break this social norm and repeatedly message a buddy who’s away message says something like “writing a paper” or “watching a movie” your friend may not respond. If you are persistent they may reply with ‘The Arched Brow’, perhaps in the form of an annoyed request to talk later or may sign off entirely if pestered too much with unimportant chatting. Wallace points out that, “If a group participant fails to read the sign or ignores the rules, group members will escalate their pressure to ensure conformity by simply raising a virtual eyebrow, reminding the offender gently—or not so gently—that certain behavior is not acceptable.” Another more extreme mode of reproach could be to ‘warn’ or ‘block’ a particularly annoying person on AIM. This would probably apply more in situations where the ‘buddies’ do not know each other very well so their bond is weaker and more easily broken by one person’s resistance to social norms.

Comments: Big brother Google

Team Killer Leviathan