Internet Etiquette

[lupestripe]

Over the last few days I have been thinking about the nature of etiquette on the Internet. There have been studies conducted that suggest that the Internet is making children more demanding by fostering a culture of instant gratification. IMs, Facebook and Twitter all contributed to this body of research.

There is no doubt that the Internet does enable people to be less appreciative of people's feelings. Unlike social discourse "in the real world" or over the phone, the anonymity provided by the Internet, coupled with the relative safety of being behind a computer screen, allows a lot of people to say things that they wouldn't say to your face. In some respects, speaking to someone over an Internet connection dehumanises them and this can lead to a lot of drama, as has been evident on many channels, particularly IRC.

Coupled with this is my own feelings towards etiquette. I consider myself a polite kind of fellow yet the rules of etiquette online are often completely different to those offline. On IMs, for example, a lot of people think it is okay not to respond to something I have written to them for up to half an hour. This would be considered downright rude if this occurred in a pub. Equally, I feel the need to reply to every poster on LJ and Twitter yet I notice that most others rarely do. When it comes to Twitter, sometimes I fear that the fact I reply to everyone pisses other people off because it floods their own Twitspace with messages.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I am probably wrong in trying to transplant normal social etiquette into the online world. Does anyone have any feelings on this?

Comments

[salith.livejournal.com]

I agree with all your observations on this subject, and thus is why I don't tend to make many posts but almost always take the time to respond to each comment I get.

[matt-lion.livejournal.com]

For the most part, I agree with you and I try to apply common ettiquette to my actions online as much as I do offline.

Regarding IMs, however, I am sometimes slow to reply to initial messages if I am away from my computer and have forgotten to set my away status. However I think that the initial "Heya" message of an IM conversation should be treated like shouting across a busy room - the person at the other end might not hear you.

Once a conversation has started though, I tend to reply quickly unless I fail to notice a message because the IM client didn't announce it properly.

I think the main problem with people not replying online is that you don't know whether they simply haven't noticed your message or are actually ignoring it - whereas with someone next to you it's more obvious.

[coolbeans.livejournal.com]

I actually assume people are ignoring me unless they say something.
Maybe that's because I do apply a sense of etiquette online as I do off but it's SO easy just to tell someone "Hey, I'm a tad bogged down at the moment and may be slow to respond."
And saying "heya" is not even close to shouting in a busy room O_O
Text will pop up, windows will blink at you, and sometimes even make a loud and obnoxious noise.
I have never understood why people "don't notice" all that.

[matt-lion.livejournal.com]

I've often missed messages because I usually have my sound on mute, and the windows only flash on the task-bar a couple of times and then go back to normal - If I look away for 2 minutes, I've missed it.

99% of the time, I have an auto-reply if I'm busy and might not reply, but sometimes get called away urgently and forget to set it.

[coolbeans.livejournal.com]

fair nuff =)
But I think that still proves the point that people online lose some etiquette due to the anonymity it provides.
In real life, even if you were pulled away for an emergency, you wouldn't just run off from someone you were talking to.
You'd still stop and go "Oh gees, there's an emergency I have to attend to. Sorry, we can chat later." or whatever you'd say ;P

[matt-lion.livejournal.com]

That's true, and I think mostly because you can speak to someone a lot faster than you can type the same message.

[marston.livejournal.com]

I've let my old standards lapse rather a lot, I must admit. If it appears important and somebody is in need of help I'll always do my best, however.

[marston.livejournal.com]

I should elaborate a little... I'm always conscious that I'm talking to real people and really try my best but having dealt with people in the past who didn't feel the same way and viewed IM conversations as throwaway flippancy I have lowered my expectations. In turn I'm worried this has led to the slip in my own behaviour.

[shadowdwolf]

I generally try to apply the same standards to my behavior online as I do offline, though I admit I am sometimes guilty of not responding to an IM in a timely manner.

With regard to the (mis)treatment of others online in general, I frequently refer people to Civility and Schadenfreude:

The anonymity of the Internet provides a test of almost spiritual potence; a test of the human psyche, if not soul. Utterly free of consequence, devoid of any fear of repercussion, hidden, under the potentiality of a false name and a false identity, the test asks "Are you kind and mature and loving, or are you cruel and childish and mean?"

[haunter-uk.livejournal.com]

..Most of the time, if I don't respond to IMs quickly it means I'm in the middle of something (either on the computer or elsewhere... About a third of the time said thing is 'sleeping') rather than that I'm ignoring it. Other than that, responding to things when I have nothing to say on a topic rarely seems useful.

As for the internet versus the real world for communication... I'm rather neutral. Less bizarre, impenetratable, rituals involving meaningless small talk seemingly designed to annoy autistic folk versus significantly less hugs.

[coolbeans.livejournal.com]

but etiquette would probably indicate the need to let people know you may get busy instead of leaving them hanging.
A simple "hey I'm in the middle of something, I may be slow to respond" would at least let people know you're not ignoring them.

[haunter-uk.livejournal.com]

Because I can tell I'm going to be in the middle of something before I wind up in the middle of it. Or that people are going to try and talk to me while I'm doing stuff. If things come up while I'm talking to someone, yeah, I let them know, otherwise, no way for me to.

[haunter-uk.livejournal.com]

I think the other issue is the considering of IM software as the internet equivilent of meeting someone down the pub, where to me it's closer to phone calls.

Thumbs Up

[coolbeans.livejournal.com]

I've been saying this for YEARS O_O
Definitely agree with everything you say and I do NOT think it's wrong to try and transplant etiquette into the online world.
The problem people don't realize is our actions shape who we are and people who break etiquette online and do terrible things in the guise of anonymity don't realize they are really hurting their personality/mind.

I have to admit I cut lose with my words more than in real life but only to those who I felt really deserved it... because I have a high sense of justice >_>

But I can't tell you how many times someone has been just an out right asshole and they would say "OMG it's the internet, it isn't REAL. Get over it!"

[dark-raven-wolf.livejournal.com]

I'm with you

I treat my VL like I do my RL... and that includes all the rules of etiquette

I think it's general decline in general through out the western world
not just over the comp

[jackalesque.livejournal.com]

I think you pretty much summed it up, to be honest. It's hard to apply a set of social rules where physical presence/body language/eye contact is involved to a world where none of that occurs, and maybe not even in real time.

It seems to be okay to create drama, after all if you get pissed off with someone or something goes wrong, there's always the ability to block them or go offline. The way you treat and speak to someone online though, I think, depends on how involved you are with them irl. If you've never met them in person, then it makes for a larger feeling of detachment as you described. I could go on, but I'd just be repeating what you've already said. :P

[balto-mike.livejournal.com]

I am mixed, the internet does de-humananise people...heh for us furs we don't even want to be human.

Seriously however, yes it makes people less patient, they want everything *now, now, now* and yes they do think hiding behind a computer screen can mean they can say anything they want and it won't matter. I do highly value still having real social interaction in the real world, possibly why I enjoy being part of a community where there is a lot of oppotunity to do that.

[rustyfox.livejournal.com]

There's something about certain methods of communication that seem to bring out the worst in people. I shun IRC for example, there's nothing wrong with it in principle, but in practice over the years, I observed it seems to attract far too much twattish behavior. Whatever channel, whatever topic - IRC seems to breed "regulars" somewhat akin to stereotypical jobless pub regulars. Always there, always ready with a cocky comment, and generally not very friendly. You either fit in and get the in-jokes and internal culture or you don't.

I used to belong to a long-defunct telnet talker (like IRC, more geeky in nature) and after a couple of years, realised I'd become one of those horrid regulars myself, spending every spare moment "inside" it. Promptly prised myself away from it!

Similar with most web forums - it doesn't take much reading to find flame wars and pig ignorance towards others. Probably again symptomatic of "regulars" who inhabit them.

The worst offender is probably YouTube comments. Regardless of the video, flame-bait or downright nasty comments are always there. That one truly puzzles me, but I try not to even gaze at comments now - they only depress me.

As for IM conversations, I think it depends. Sometimes people just pass casual messages back and forth while getting on with something else. This is normally how I use IMs - MSN and sometimes a few others are always on, but I don't start them with the intention of talking for a couple of hours. I think the majority of people on my lists are the same. Usually online, but not for the purpose of being online - more akin to not turning your phone off. It's just there, and easy to use as and when (but less intrusive than a phone - telephone conversations dominate your time, the beauty of IM talk is that you're *not* required to dedicate your time on it...)

Consequently sometimes I don't reply for a while, sometimes other people don't. I'm cool with this - the exception being when perhaps I'm engrossed in a dedicated conversation. Then it's annoying when it abruptly ends (I am guilty of this sin though, when something RL happens, so can't complain much).

As for twitter, and the whole online social networking "revolution" - well. Tried it, now I presently shun that too. Did the twitter thing, and found it to be a gross display of narcissism exhibited by too many users. Comments for comments sake, pretty much a public popularity contest. I was never the competitive sort, so that's a big reason why I deleted the damn thing. The more different social networking tools cross over, the more I push them away. They're not solving problems in my view, they're creating them.

People need to appreciate life and the value of real friendships, relationships, objects and events more - turning every aspect of everyones life into a few irrelevant words lost in a sea of utter crap devalues everything. That's a bigger issue for me that online etiquette.

That the term "facebook friends" even exists illustrates this problem. Friends who aren't actually friends but casual acquaintances, sometimes people we don't even know - but referred to as friends, and added to an ever-increasing pool. Again, a poor show and even worse measure of popularity, I feel.

[rustyfox.livejournal.com]

(wow, didn't mean that to turn into an essay! :P )

[rob-panda.livejournal.com]

"I guess what I am trying to say is that I am probably wrong in trying to transplant normal social etiquette into the online world. Does anyone have any feelings on this?"

It's not that you're wrong and you're commendable for trying.

My suggestion is to just pay it no mind. If people are being douches towards you, just know they're probably really pathetic iRL and just need some sort of haven where they don't feel as pathetic. Just ignore the idiots and go on your merry way.

It's what I've been doing. Much less drama that way.

"Don't feed the trolls."

[redcardlion.livejournal.com]

The internet is not real life.

It never has been.

It won't be until people actually have to run under their own real life names, are recognizable or identified from a distance, and thus the end users have the ability to rate the content of people by their previous statements/actions.

When someone can flame a forum under one name.. and use 15 sockpuppet accounts to equally flame.. the internet cannot be treated like real life.

There's no context. To too many people, it's all just a game.

That said, I have created artificial trust networks that I use and communicate with, and that would be the interesting future of the current "internet."

[alexf0x.livejournal.com]

I just personally prescribe to the basic rule "don't be a dick". A if you have to be a dick have a reason, and don't drag it out.

[mattsqu.livejournal.com]

My feelings are, we are oooold. =~( But maybe that's just me.

[blueberrybadger.livejournal.com]

Internet? Etiquette?

Surely you mean Netiquette dear chap!

[stuart-otterson.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of an earlier talk we had about how Twitter was evidence of ever shorter attention span. An era of instant small digestible information, where we consume bits of info in small chunks and move instantly onto the next one. It's rather scary.

As for response time, my personal feelings is that I have no real problem with long response time. Instant messenger isn't phoning someone nor would I bother treating it as such, because in that case I might as well Skype the person if I wanted to apply those type of etiquettes.

Instant massager for me is instant email messaging all in one environment where it's kept together. I certainly do my best to inform of when I'm going to be slow responding, or apologise if I felt that I've left the conversation hanging for too long, but I do it out of politeness when I can remember. I get lost in stuff, cus I don't stare at the IM all day, it pretty much sits in the background for passing messages back and forth.

As for netiquettes, people certainly lack them, but I suppose it's bound to happen. I mean it's not exactly like it's your parents who are going to teach you it at a young age now is it?

[silent-o.livejournal.com]

I quite appreciate your effort to respond to comments.

It makes me feel important.

[baloki.livejournal.com]

I still wish my phone's MSN hadn't broken so I'm shown as online even when I have nothing signed in :/

[angharan.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you try to do Lupestripe. I'm rarely on the computer but have all im's, tweets, txts and emails sent to my blackberry. I have noticed that lots of tweets never seem to make it to my phone so it seems that I'm ignoring people but haven't figured out if it is more a twitter or tmobile problem. I do use my instant messenger a lot while at work and usually tell people upfront that I may disappear unexpectedly from time to time as on-call work interferes with fun but I do try to at least give them a brb or bbl. The other disadvantage to IM on the blackberry is that it seems to reset frequently and lose my status msg so it looks like I'm always available. I've had a few furs complain that I never responded to their 5am call *lol* We do need to be more polite and show some common sense etiquette and the net seems to be on a downhill slide in that regard.

[metamorphosys.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. The rise of internet speak is making, in my opinion, an actual real conversation (with real words) a dying art :(