The Original Sin of Internet Culture

[Independent voter]

Guy says the big mistake everyone made at the beginning of the internet was that your online self was different from your real life self. People took a lot of liberties with their online selves that they never would've done with their real life self.

If our online selves were the same as our offline selves, the internet would be a better place.

At least I think that's what he's saying.

Is your online self the same as your offline self?





https://thefrailestthing.com/2018/10...ernet-culture/

OCTOBER 28, 2018 ~ MICHAEL SACASAS
I recently encountered the claim that “the foundational sin of internet culture was pretending like online wasn’t real life.” A familiar claim to anyone who has kept up with what I once dubbed the Cyborgology school of digital criticism, whose enduring contribution was the introduction of the term digital dualism. Digital dualism, according to the the scholars associated with the website Cyborgology, is a fallacy that misconstrues the digital world as a “virtual” world in opposition to the offline world, which is understood to be the “real” world. The usefulness of the term occasioned some spirited debates in which I played a minor role.

I wonder, though, about the idea that “pretending like online life wasn’t real life” is somehow that original sin of Internet culture. At the very least it seems to me that the claim can be variously understood. The sort of pretending the author had in mind probably involves the mistaken belief that online words and deeds do not have offline consequences. We could, however, also take the claim to mean something like this: the original sin of internet culture was the mistaken belief that our online experience could somehow transcend our offline faults, flaws, and frailties. Or, to put it otherwise, the original sin of Internet culture was its peculiar brand of gnostic utopianism: the belief that digital media could usher us into a period of quasi-mystic and disembodied harmony and unity.

Of course, as we now know all too well, this was a deeply destructive myth: we are no different online than we are offline. Indeed, a credible and compelling case could be made for the proposition that we are, in fact, a far worse version of ourselves online. In any event, we bring to the digital realm exactly the same propensity for vice that we exhibit in the so-called real world although with fewer of the “real world” constraints that might have curbed our vicious behavior. And, of course, because the boundaries between the digital realm and the analog realm are indeed porous if not exactly fictive, these vices then spill back over into the “real world.” Who we are offline is who we are online, and who we become through our online experience is who we will be offline.

This original sin, then, this digital utopianism encouraged us to uncritically cede to our digital tools, devices, and platforms ever expanding swaths of our experience in the mistaken hope that down this path lay our salvation and our liberation. We burdened the internet with messianic hopes—of course we were bound to be disappointed.

[XDurionX]

At the "beginning" of the internet everyone was decent and behaving. Until people started noticing they could get away with everything that wouldn't fly in real life.

[Kathandira]

Guy says the big mistake everyone made at the beginning of the internet was that your online self was different from your real life self. People took a lot of liberties with their online selves that they never would've done with their real life self.

If our online selves were the same as our offline selves, the internet would be a better place.

I agree. I've said that before. But the path to correcting this would be hard fought against. The only way to do it as far as I can see, is to require an ID to access the internet that is tied to you. This has so many things wrong with it, that it just wouldn't be agreed on though.

[Erwarth]

Guy says the big mistake everyone made at the beginning of the internet was that your online self was different from your real life self. People took a lot of liberties with their online selves that they never would've done with their real life self.

I'll say that it's your online self that is your real self. It's when your actions have no consequences that someone will show his true color.

In short : People are dicks

[The Stormbringer]

Why would I want my online self to be the same as my offline self? The internet gives you the chance to be a different person, for better or worse. And, for one thing, it's a different medium from interacting with people face-to-face or on the phone. I have time to consider what I'm saying, look up sources or information, go back through the conversation, and so on. I'm definitely more confident online than I am offline, I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[klogaroth]

Maybe it'd be good, maybe it'd come with a whole other host of problems that are worse than what we have now.

What I'm not seeing is any ideas as to how this would've been workable. At all. Maybe we're getting there now (maybe not), but accurately verifying identity on early 2000's internet across the whole internet? Please, people couldn't even store passwords properly. Sure, places like your bank could do it, but the entire internet was not as secure as a banking website. That is assuming your banking website was actually secure......

[Ryme]

Disagree, part of what makes the internet so great is that you're not constrained in the same way that you are in real life.

[Kapadons]

No, my online and offline self are not the same. I talk way more shit about politics online than in real life. And while many would say it’s down to cowardice, the truth is I simply do not give a shit about them in real life.

[Martymark]

I like freedom, and am adult enough to handle the consequences of it. The ability to be free of your IRL troubles is one of the things that makes the internet great.

[LiiLoSNK]

My mmoc self is the exact same as my IRL self.

I travel the lands punishing retarded basement dwelling goblin people for saying stupid things by lashing them with my golden whip of logic and reason. Then they follow me around, stuck in a state of permanent anger from their butts hurting due to all the whippings, and throw weak cringey insults at me from afar.

It's a tough and thankless job, but it has to be done.

[Zigzee]

I would argue you are never your true self till you wear a mask. It is why I think people are threatened by anonymity. It exposes them to the concept that deep down people really are different behind closed doors.

[Deleted]

Right...

The truth is people who hate Internet anonymity just love control over the masses.

[Kathandira]

This thread is depressing. I should keep a list of people who I should not engage in conversation with as it is going to be dishonest, or the worst of themselves.

For the record, I am exactly the same online, and off. I don't believe in being two faced.

[Daedius]

Anonymity is a thing long before the internet where people would do things via proxy or a mask that they wouldn't have the guts of doing in full view of the public.

[Tiwack]

With great power comes great responsibility.

[Deleted]

If our online selves were the same as our offline selves, the internet would be a better place.

Most of the problems came when people did that with facebook and twitter.

[Paperfox]

Lol, how you are online is how you are.

[oleander89]

Your online persona gives you the freedom to act in ways that you wouldn't in other situations, for better or for worse. You act differently at work than you do with your family, and you act differently with your friends as well, usually with more freedom than at work or with your family. I don't think taking away that freedom online is a net positive, even if it does have some negative consequences.

[Endus]

I'm pretty much exactly the same way in the real world as I am here. I don't have time to try and manage a fake "persona" online, or in reality. I'm perfectly capable of tempering myself; you can dig back into my time as a moderator and see that I posted a little differently during that time, because I was doing exactly that, since I didn't just speak for myself at that time. But tempering things a bit based on audience isn't the same thing as behaving like a shitcock because nobody can tell who you are.

Anonymity isn't all that useful. It should be achievable, if you make an effort at it, but people should also be questioning anyone who wants to remain anonymous in that kind of environment; if someone posted a Letter to the Editor back when newspapers mattered but wasn't willing to put their name to it, people took it with three grains of salt as a result, unless it was blatantly apparent why they were doing so (like calling out a powerful and vengeful city council member, say).

If you're an Iranian protester, anonymity has value and I agree you should be able to make yourself anonymous, if you make the effort. If you're shitposting on game forums, maybe it shouldn't be automatic and maybe you should have to make an effort to do so. The Iranian protesters will make that effort, because the alternative is serious consequences. Shitposters likely wouldn't, at least not nearly as often.

And yeah; I don't have any reason to worry about my online conduct being "exposed", before anyone asks. I'd have more reason to be concerned about "you're a member of a video game forum?" than anything about the contents of anything I post here.

[Grimbold21]

I'm gonna have to disagree.

At the "beginning", for me that was, what, late 90s, the internet was smaller. To compare early internet with today's seems like a mistake. Back the then it was less accessible thus the online community was significantly smaller.
Today it was considerably more accessible and the number of people vastly superior, not to mention there are more means now that allows one to see this behavior regularly than before.