If you meet the Buddha on the 'Net, somone will have already killed him

One thing which was very interesting about attending WorldCon was the chance to see, encounter, and interact with so many authors and people who are 'names' in the field.

One such person was Craig Newmark, the "Craig" of Craigslist.org. After seeing him in action I would say that Craig is a true moderate: he can respect both extremes of a discussion, give them equal weight and still stay interested in both views, while providing or fostering the very forum which allows them to present their views. This is a very rare talent.

At WorldCon, I attended several panels where egos took precedence over viewpoints. (And it was very interesting to see authors whose work I respected and valued trot out their egos and yes it did to some small extent influence my perception of their works.) After a while of this sort of bluster and self-promotion (all in the guise of presenting points of discussion), Craig would interject with a calm and mild observation. It was always to the point, never harsh, and in contrast to the self-interest of the views earlier presented seemed almost detached and aloof. But I noticed that, each time that Craig spoke, even though it was quiet and measured, all of the interest in the room focussed upon him. And without trying, simply by being calm and reasonable, he slightly shamed the blusterers and brought the discussion back on track.

Craig is devoted to building community, which is the "secret" of his continuing success, whereas the others were striving to build self-image. Therein lies the difference. And I will state again that I think Craig is a very rare creature, on the Internet.

The Internet has the potential to be the biggest community-building and grassroots communication tool in our history. And it may yet become that. But at present it is a pale shadow of what it could be, largely because there is little respect for the middle path on the Internet. Typically, only extreme viewpoints draw attention on the 'Net.

And largely negative viewpoints, at that. Post a pleasant observation on a pleasant day, and you may receive one or two polite responses. (And likely, a sarcastic jab at your Pollyanna views.) Continue to be pleasant and upbeat, and you will hear only crickets. But post something negative, bitter, or outright unpleasant and you are virtually assured of many responses, whether it is someone trying to "one-down" you, someone offering sympathy, or someone offering an opposite view to your rant. Negativity assures response, and in the "ratings game", response is everything.

I have seen this effect many times - people, new to the self-revelatory aspect of posting on the 'Net, will try a variety of tacks to test the waters. They may post about their pets, their hobbies, their TV or sports interests... But responses will taper off. Then they will have a bad day and post about it, and suddenly they have more responses than for all of the other posts put together, ranging from "Me, too!" to "You think your life (job, day, relationship) is bad -- let me tell you about mine!" Everyone, it seems, wants sympathy from others, and the easiest way to get it is to complain about their lives. (And if you ever want to guarantee responses, simply post "My job sucks!!!!" and you will get more than you can handle. Everyone too, it seems, wants to complain about their jobs.)

I have concluded that the Internet is inherently polarizing. That is, people who state positions in posts may find themselves being put in the position of defending viewpoints extreme beyond what they actually believe and originally intended. Anyone who has hung out on Internet fora has seen it happen: a discussion is proceeding upon a subject (remember, a forum is a place to present and discuss ideas). Two or three top posters quickly sort out on the subject, and it quickly becomes clear that there are two who are "toe-to-toe" on the subject. To stay in the game, as it were, their positions rapidly escalate and become more polarized, as compared to their first statements of position. (The forum history provides a clear "paper trail" by which this may be estimated.) Other people quickly drop out of the discussion, simply lurking to watch these two now-opponents go at it, as the discussion takes on all the aspects of argument, then combat. All too often, the discussion devolves to namecalling and personal slurs, and one or both of them depart from the forum to sulk, lick their wounds, and resurface somewhere else.

The sad thing is that a careful analysis of their early arguments shows that they often had a large amount of common ground. After all, both of them had been drawn to the forum due to a common interest in the subject. But the nature of how they interacted caused these points of agreement to become buried in the increasing ire of their argument. It seems clear that a lack of skills in how to proceed in reasonable discussion lies at the heart of the problem.

The Middle Path through the Internet is narrow, shaky, and sometimes barely visible. As someone who honors the Buddha and who tries to live by many of his teachings, this saddens me. And, thinking of the Buddha, I try to control my annoyance at the endless carping, griping, moaning and groaning which comprises so much of the "conversation" on the 'Net.

I remind myself that Internet communications are only in their infancy, and people have not yet learned how to best utilize the medium. So, from that perspective, the complaining which irritates me may be viewed as what it strongly resembles: the crying of babies, unsure how to otherwise communicate their needs. As the Internet matures, so (I hope and believe) it shall mature its users, and a more community-based and less ego-driven protocol for communications will grow as well.

We need a recognition of the fact that most of the people who have suddenly been dropped into social intercourse on the Internet do not have the background, skills or training to take up the challenge of communicating their viewpoints without letting their egos intrude. It is no shame upon them - they have likely previously had little need for such skills (and the popular media, itself largely an exercise in extremes, has given them little support or respect for these skills). Folks are feeling their way, often getting their fingers burned, and sometimes having to completely withdraw and return in another place and time - a haphazard approach. We could smooth the path for everyone striving to use this medium, if only we had an agreed-upon understanding that Internet communications are not inherent or instinctive, and must be learned like any other social skills.

Even in a world with millions of people trying to be heard, extreme viewpoints are not the only way to draw attention. From The Middle Path one can see both poles of the matter at hand, and walking the path lets one see compromises as they may present themselves. And compromise is the first step toward community. Perhaps the Internet can become a community (or, at least, a series of communities), rather than just a place of mutually raised voices.