Iron Ridge Creative

Growing up in the dawn of social media, I’ve learned that the internet—as public space—is a home for many different opinions and beliefs. In an ideal world, we could discuss these differences with care and civility. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As much as I wish otherwise, the internet can be a toxic, divisive place.

I feel like I’ve heard this before: “Never read the comments!”

For our assignment this week, we were asked to choose a national or international news article and review the reader comments that appear as responses. Right away, I feel like I knew what I was getting into. “Prepare for insanity,” I told myself.

At the same time, part of me is intrigued by reading the comments and searching for conflict. I think it’s the voyeur in me—always interested in seeing how others live their life and deal with personal issues. You know what I mean. And at times, I guess I’m a bit like Michael Jackson in this particular meme:

But I digress! Now, back to the assignment at hand.

I chose to focus on a recent article from The Hill entitled, “Trump threatens government shutdown over border security.” With nearly 3,000 comments, I figured this one would have plenty of differing opinions and, thus, conflict. To be frank, I wasn’t wrong. Here are several noteworthy responses from this article, in no particular order:

• “He just doubles down on crazy every day, doesn’t he?”
• “Enforcing immigration law is crazy only to liberals, liberalism is a mental disorder.”
• “Do it, Donald. Shut it down. Right before the midterms. Do it! So we can vote you bums out.”
• “4.0% unemployment. Record number working. Put down the Kool-Aid.”
• “Oh… good, another distraction when the Mueller/Cohen/Stormy/Manafort investigations are closing in. Squirrel!!”
• “I believe the Heritage Foundation says the average illegal immigrant costs $500,000 net lifetime.”
• “Will this be the first President ever to shut down the government because Mexico wouldn’t fulfill his promises?”

Not surprisingly, these comments just scratch the surface. There are hundreds of smaller threads beneath the aforementioned responses, with all of them attempting to argue for what they believe is right. Alas, our need to argue for what is right on the internet never really ends the way we want it to.

Like many online comment threads, these responses carry a sense of “undue confidence and unsubstantiated opinion” (Arnett, Fritz, & Bell, 2009, p. 103). It seems as though the writers of these comments are grounded so firmly in their opinion that nothing will ever sway them. People don’t often change their mind when differing ideas are presented.

These comments further illustrate a duopoly of ideologies—two differing ideologies that dominate our national narrative. Any attempts to bridge the gap between the two seem to be met with extreme disgust. It makes me wonder: who else is in this figurative gap? We must consider “the unknown, unheard, and unseen” (Arnett, Fritz, & Bell, 2009, p. 111) and give them a voice in the public arena. In the case of this article, I feel like the voices of refugees and migrant families are absent and should be considered too.

I also see many arguments in this article ending with despicable insults like “libtard” and “Trumpkin.” This petty name-calling from all sides is detrimental to the internet—a public space—as it undermines the people’s ability to acknowledge and accept a world of difference. When we resort to these actions, we become unwarranted enemies of each other.

So, how could we make sure that these comment threads are home to civil discussion? Would informed moderators make a difference and challenge our beliefs in a healthy manner? Based on this one exchange, I’m not too sure:

Maybe this moderator isn’t well-informed, but the fact remains—a moderator is still human. They have their opinions and can get offended like many of the other commenters. I struggle to accept that they would make these comments threads any more civil at all. Like I said earlier, people aren’t quick to change their minds online.

Sadly, I think it’s unwise to rely on the internet for dialogue. After all, it’s easier to be a “keyboard warrior” than a public speaker. Sure, we can learn a lot on the internet; I would never deny that. But maybe our dialogue is more authentic when it’s not on the internet? I feel that we should focus on actually speaking more with others, and not just typing at them.

I might be a little pessimistic in my way of looking at the internet as a public space, but I feel like the vitriol of today could be remedied with a little bit of care and respect for others as human beings.

I think Mister Rogers got it right—won’t you be my neighbor? We have to learn to live with others and in a world of difference. Extending a kind word and a smile is the first step. Pass it on!

---

References:

• Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. M., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.