There are 27,000-some subscribers to
MR, reflecting the presence an affinity group, and a rather large one
at that. Members tend to adhere to a relatively structured beliefs
system that is reflected in the community's front-page description,
and also in the general behavior of the participants. Based on the
submission titles, participants' comments, and the frequency of
anti-feminist discussions, a viewer can deduce that MR takes on a
very strong anti-feminist and radical-leaning approach to the issues
regarding men's social and legal rights.
The unique structure to Reddit as an entity is different than other social networking sites. It is what would be considered a "user-generated content" site (Novelli & Peterson), where discussions and posts are all initiated by registered users, and is rife with these various affinity groups that have "people of like minds, experiences, and concerns can find others to connect with" (Novelli & Peterson). There are thousands of subreddits, covering any and every sort of interest. Each has its own goal and description that signals to potential subscribers what their discussions will entail.
It is also a different sort of "representational form" (Knobel & Lankshear, 250) than sites like MySpace or Facebook. Users are not as easily identifiable; there are no personal profiles to create, and unless a user gives identifying information in previous discussions (detectable if someone looks through the user's posting history), it would be nearly impossible to determine who the user is. This provides a security blanket, where people are more comfortable to converse freely and without as many self-imposed boundaries or acts of self-censuring.
Naturally, this sort of no-holds-barred environment can cultivate a certain type of interaction that wouldn't be as considered as acting within the "universality of the social contract" (Herring, et all, 380). Uslaner offers that the Internet itself "is not a threat" (62), but certainly those who participant within it can use it to their advantage, good intentions or not.
The baseline idea of MR is to provide a place where people can discuss social issues relating to men's rights. However, that is not how it is perceived by outsiders. MR encapsulates a group mentality that aligns within their specific affinity group, and they traditionally are not receptive to any discussion that deviates from their standards. Gallivan had investigated a feminist forum that was besieged with trolls, and one of the webmasters quipped that the Internet "has a dark underbelly. It provides a superhighway for bigots." Indeed, this is how many outsiders to MR see MR's participants. Outsiders find it difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the interests and mindsets of MR. MR, to them, is one of the dark corners of the Internet where bigotry and misogyny is MR's greatest community ideals.
Traditionally, affinity groups were started as small, activist organizations determined to make direct action on social issues, but the Internet has vastly altered this approach. With MR's thousands of subscribers through a website, it allows like-minded individuals around the world to actively participate and learn about men's rights from their computers. The Internet removes the boundary of being constricted to one's local geography, but also takes away the personal effect and grand sense of ambition. People convening "in real life" are more likely to actually initiate movements; posting on an online forum seems to detract from the genuine movement of an affinity group. Instead, subreddits like MR end up with discussions that rarely meet any social action, and turn into an argumentative forum. This acts as the "affinity space" that James Gee addresses, wherein a community comes together to interact in this space (1). The MR subreddit captures Gee's idea that "[m]odern technologies allow the creation of more and more spaces where people can enter and interact with others [...] at a distance" (6).
Typically, the way MR participants will negatively respond to outsiders consist of "downvoting" the comments, and responding to the poster in a condescending fashion, oftentimes attempting to contradict everything said. When retorts aren't as effective, or if the respondent is particularly angry, they tend to resort to strawman arguments or various other techniques that intend to belittle or otherwise discredit the poster. Other MR participants will usually upvote or respond positively to their cohort's retaliation. For the most part, MR seems to be actively engaged in trolling, or being trolled, and turning the subreddit into an antagonistic battlefield. There always is a fight, between MR and outsiders. There is rarely any internal conflict; however, if a subscriber to MR suggests a conversation or idea that is not normative, he (purposeful use of the pronoun here; females are always outsiders) is labeled a feminist sympathizer, or any other terminology MR uses to determine those outside of the affinity group.
Overall, MR participants are very comfortable in their zone, and only engage positively with outsiders if the outsiders corroborate the ideology and agenda of MR. There is a very stringent system at play within MR, and little is accomplished by outsiders trying to undermine their belief system.
References
Gallivan, J. (2001). Now shut up or put up: To fight flames, organization charges for bulletin board use. The New York Post, 64.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Affinity Spaces: From Age of Mythology to Today’s Schools. Retrieved from http://www.jamespaulgee.com/sites/default/files/pub/AffinitySpaces.pdf
Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. Information Society, 18(5), 371-384.
The unique structure to Reddit as an entity is different than other social networking sites. It is what would be considered a "user-generated content" site (Novelli & Peterson), where discussions and posts are all initiated by registered users, and is rife with these various affinity groups that have "people of like minds, experiences, and concerns can find others to connect with" (Novelli & Peterson). There are thousands of subreddits, covering any and every sort of interest. Each has its own goal and description that signals to potential subscribers what their discussions will entail.
It is also a different sort of "representational form" (Knobel & Lankshear, 250) than sites like MySpace or Facebook. Users are not as easily identifiable; there are no personal profiles to create, and unless a user gives identifying information in previous discussions (detectable if someone looks through the user's posting history), it would be nearly impossible to determine who the user is. This provides a security blanket, where people are more comfortable to converse freely and without as many self-imposed boundaries or acts of self-censuring.
Naturally, this sort of no-holds-barred environment can cultivate a certain type of interaction that wouldn't be as considered as acting within the "universality of the social contract" (Herring, et all, 380). Uslaner offers that the Internet itself "is not a threat" (62), but certainly those who participant within it can use it to their advantage, good intentions or not.
The baseline idea of MR is to provide a place where people can discuss social issues relating to men's rights. However, that is not how it is perceived by outsiders. MR encapsulates a group mentality that aligns within their specific affinity group, and they traditionally are not receptive to any discussion that deviates from their standards. Gallivan had investigated a feminist forum that was besieged with trolls, and one of the webmasters quipped that the Internet "has a dark underbelly. It provides a superhighway for bigots." Indeed, this is how many outsiders to MR see MR's participants. Outsiders find it difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the interests and mindsets of MR. MR, to them, is one of the dark corners of the Internet where bigotry and misogyny is MR's greatest community ideals.
Traditionally, affinity groups were started as small, activist organizations determined to make direct action on social issues, but the Internet has vastly altered this approach. With MR's thousands of subscribers through a website, it allows like-minded individuals around the world to actively participate and learn about men's rights from their computers. The Internet removes the boundary of being constricted to one's local geography, but also takes away the personal effect and grand sense of ambition. People convening "in real life" are more likely to actually initiate movements; posting on an online forum seems to detract from the genuine movement of an affinity group. Instead, subreddits like MR end up with discussions that rarely meet any social action, and turn into an argumentative forum. This acts as the "affinity space" that James Gee addresses, wherein a community comes together to interact in this space (1). The MR subreddit captures Gee's idea that "[m]odern technologies allow the creation of more and more spaces where people can enter and interact with others [...] at a distance" (6).
Typically, the way MR participants will negatively respond to outsiders consist of "downvoting" the comments, and responding to the poster in a condescending fashion, oftentimes attempting to contradict everything said. When retorts aren't as effective, or if the respondent is particularly angry, they tend to resort to strawman arguments or various other techniques that intend to belittle or otherwise discredit the poster. Other MR participants will usually upvote or respond positively to their cohort's retaliation. For the most part, MR seems to be actively engaged in trolling, or being trolled, and turning the subreddit into an antagonistic battlefield. There always is a fight, between MR and outsiders. There is rarely any internal conflict; however, if a subscriber to MR suggests a conversation or idea that is not normative, he (purposeful use of the pronoun here; females are always outsiders) is labeled a feminist sympathizer, or any other terminology MR uses to determine those outside of the affinity group.
Overall, MR participants are very comfortable in their zone, and only engage positively with outsiders if the outsiders corroborate the ideology and agenda of MR. There is a very stringent system at play within MR, and little is accomplished by outsiders trying to undermine their belief system.
References
Gallivan, J. (2001). Now shut up or put up: To fight flames, organization charges for bulletin board use. The New York Post, 64.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Affinity Spaces: From Age of Mythology to Today’s Schools. Retrieved from http://www.jamespaulgee.com/sites/default/files/pub/AffinitySpaces.pdf
Herring, S., Job-Sluder, K., Scheckler, R., & Barab, S. (2002). Searching for safety online: Managing "trolling" in a feminist forum. Information Society, 18(5), 371-384.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C.
(2008). Digital literacies – concepts policies and practices.
Novelli, P. & Peterson, L. (2008) Business Wire.
Uslaner, E. (2000). Social capital and the net. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 60-64.
Novelli, P. & Peterson, L. (2008) Business Wire.
Uslaner, E. (2000). Social capital and the net. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 60-64.
No comments:
Post a Comment