Who among us hasn't sent an impolitely-worded, sloppy email and then regretted having sent it moments later. I don't do it often, but I look over English soccer league chat sites every now and again (never at work, of course), and the banter can get heated and potentially offensive fairly quickly. Social networking and other forms of online interaction require a different set of emotional triggers than face-to-face discussion, and as evidenced by an assault last October involving two men who had been communicating in a chat room, a pickax, and a knife, not appreciating the rules of online engagement can be dangerous (read the NYT article). The absence of real-time responses such as change in tone and other social cues, makes it easier for us to fall victim to the "online disinhibition effect," or flaming. So, what does this mean for those of us who work in this largely self-policing, socially ambiguous landscape? Does this mean that we resign ourselves to being as impersonal as possible for fear of unleasing online rage? Or, maybe it simply means that we just deal with the human emotions behind the IP address, as we do in the real world, and try to be as decent as possible to each other.


It's all because people forget that there's a real person on the other site.
Posted by: internet marketing | May 25, 2010 at 03:09 AM