Subscribe for Email Updates
RSS Feed
Technorati
Delicious bookmark
Bloglines
Death Threats At TechCrunch — WTF?
This morning Michael Arrington, the iconic figure for TechCrunch, announced he was taking a leave of absence. The straw that broke this blogger-camel’s back was being spat on yesterday at a conference in Europe. Michael also revealed that he and his family had recently received death threats and were forced into hiding while paying $2,000/day for private security. WTF? What is wrong with some people?
I have written many posts illuminating my stark contrast of opinion when it comes to Arrington’s perspective regarding PR people and the PR industry as a whole. At times I find his opinion slanderous and highly discriminatory and his tone usually wreaks of disrespect. I think judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a few to be unacceptable and never leads to anything positive. However, Arrington is entitled to his opinion without having his life threatened. Despite our differences, my heart goes out to Michael, his family and his employees. The only people who deserve to be on the receiving end of a death threat are the ones who have molested children or done something as repulsive.
While I love Web 2.0 and all the power it brings to individuals’ voices, there is a dark side that often overshadows its greatness. In the physical world, you often learn of a nutbag’s level of craziness after he/she has committed some type of violent crime. The very “after-the-fact” nature of traditional media limits the visibility into this underbelly of society. However, the blogosphere brings it out for all to see. The hatred and outright rage spewed in many people’s responses to blog posts can be incredibly alarming. I often think “WTF is wrong with these people?” Their comments are not in response to posts on rape, murder or other violent crimes where one could understand such venom. We’re talking about comments in response to a post about an internet start-up. Even more frightening than the hostile response is that it is not one fruit loop with one response, it is an army of imbalanced people terrorizing the world through their keyboards.
The harsh reality is that this situation is not going to get better. What can we do? I think it is important to do less lurking in the blogosphere. It’s important for people to comment on posts and share their thoughtful, non-threatening perspectives. Nothing could be safer because the blogosphere allows for anonymity if one so desires. More posts from reasonable people would dilute the vitriol that often dominates a thread.
What do you think?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
I think that given the anonymity that web interaction provides that, unfortunately, you get to “see” a side of people that they normally keep hidden. There are a lot of nut jobs out there that are able to interact normally in the physical world on the day to day. But give them an environment where it is possible to let their freak flag fly without saying who they are, and you’re treated to a dark side of humanity.
Sounds like Arrington was dealing with an actual deranged stalker with the death threats. And the person that spit on him – there really are no words. It makes me wonder if the lines between the physical and virtual world are starting to get so blurry for people predisposed to appallingly bad behaviors that we’re destined to see more of it. I know, it’s the “Marilyn Manson made me do it” thing – but it does make you wonder!
Look at all the reports on teenage “web” sexuality this week. How does that sort of thing occur to 13 year old children? Some scary downsides to all that is bright, shiny and wonderful about our 2.0 world!
January 28th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Kel,
I completely agree. You shouldn’t have to be subjected to revolting behavior simply because you have a different opionion to share. I, too, haven’t always agreed with Michael’s approach, however I can’t help but have empathy for him and his family.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Your key point is spot on: the blogosphere allows for anonymity. Over time, more and more blogs will have to go behind closed doors or be more highly moderated. There are a number of reasons why letters to the editor have been moderated since the beginning (or in Ben Franklin’s world, completely fabricated) – one is that open, anonymous public dialogue can quickly degenerate. Self moderating communities (e.g., wikis) respond to this if there are enough people, but even that doesn’t always work. (See C. Shirky’s “Here Comes Everybody” for additional comments on this.) New era companies like Mzinga provide moderation services for open communities, a necessary function in keeping a web-based, brand-centric community clean, safe, and open. Larger blogs will need to start addressing this, balancing the need for openness with the need for a healthy and safe community.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Kel. Well said! Meagan, you hit it on the head. A brilliant Yoga/Therapist friend of mine on the Cape just mentioned to me how there is concern about the younger generation and how they are getting a messed up sense of intimacy because of how social networking is being used. All sorts of intimate and private behavior is pput out there to people they don’t even know or meet. That’s probably getting off on another tangent, but back to the specific topic at hand, we’ve all seen how people can perceive an email very differently than the intended tone or message… and the flaming begins. People say things in email messages and now in blogs, message boards, txt, etc stuff that they would never say in person. Let’s hope that it isn’t taking the next step of evolution and bringing out the dark side of people during face to face communications. It’s a very exciting time we live it, but it’s also a very scary time.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
meagan, i think your point about the blurring of the lines between the physical and virtual worlds is very insightful. i think in some cases many people are spending more time interacting online than interacting with real people in the physical world. when this happens i think their gate keeper checks out and in some cases never returns. great insight! thanks.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
michelle, i agree. the good news is that we woke up this morning and read a headline that Arrington is taking a leave versus “well known blogger killed.” i have a feeling we aren’t too far away from reading that headline. it really is frightening to think about it.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
michael, as always i enjoy your savvy perspective. discussing moderation in the “anything goes” world of web 2.0 often sparks heated debate. i agree brands certainly have a greater need for this approach due to the potential negative association it brings to the brand. however, it is a fine line. i agree that the moderation needs to focus on keeping it clean and safe. the challenge is ensuring the truth is not moderated out. i think many brands feel the need to control the message to ensure nothing negative is said about their brand. this is where i think moderation has the potential to fail. btw, i really respect mzinga and hope they have a fantastic 2009.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
geo, sounds like you and meagan think alike. i guess we won’t know where this is heading until we get there. let’s hope everyone gets there in one piece!
January 28th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
need more regulation in order to be able to post. your blog requires email. some others I’ve seen require phone numbers in order to post. Maybe bloggers SHOULD call these numbers and email these addresses to unveil the cloak of anonymity of these posters. once these cowards have to come out of their caves (or parent’s cellars) they’ll think twice before firing those ranting flame outs. let alone death threats. you cant yell fire in a crowded theater nor say you’ve got a bomb on a plane. why not require some form of vetting in order to post on a blog. dont want prying eyes looking at your personal info? dont post. I say if you’ve got the cahones to say what you think and back it up with legit contact info, let it fly. otherwise, get back in the cellar and keep your vile filled, pu**y comments to yourself, tough guy. oh yeah, my real name IS Bill.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
bill, i appreciate your post for many reasons. first, i now know how to spell “cahones.” second, i found someone else who likes to use the term “pussy” in reference to a coward. seriously, the concept of regulation in a web 2.0 world is yet another lightening rod. it’s a fine line, but i do think bloggers are empowered to use as much or as little regulation as they choose.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
What is wrong with these crazy people? Unfortunately, it’s not surprising.
I couldn’t agree with you more about how important it is to less lurking and spend more time engaging and sharing our opinions – in a civilized way. Considering the time we spend online keeping on our news and RSS feeds, we should exercise our brains and interact more. But when a post on a major news site or a high profile blog is filled with aggressive comments, I lose any interest in even commenting as a reasonable person.
January 30th, 2009 at 9:06 am
lindsay, i share your feelings. i’m sure fear is what keeps so many people from commenting. the flames start getting thrown and it’s like seeing a complete drunk at a party. the person ruins the experience for everyone.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Those kinds of posts only discredit the author who writes them. Unfortunately, it tends to discredit the post itself. Guilt by association, unfortunately. It’s a cheap form of power. Definitely a sad by product of this medium. That’s why I love the feature “Delete comment.” Not with the intent of controling the message, but for keeping the stream clear of contaminants. Safety & truth should prevail.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
karen, thanks for sharing your thoughts. i would be interested to know how often you use the “delete comment” function. luckily, i have only had to use it once because the comment was racist.