Virtual Communities + Hate
I've been thinking more about the connections between the sites I mentioned in the earlier post today and extremist hate sites such as neo-Nazis, and what the implications for broader understandings of globalization and the Internet might be. In the process, I ran across this article from my friends over at SPLC that I thought I would put here because there's a lot about this that I like.
Basically, the article makes the case for the fact that static web sites do not have much "stickiness," as they like to say in the dotcom world. In other worlds, people don't "stick," to those kinds of sites. They may visit them once, but they don't come back to them again and again. To get that "stickiness," a web site has got to have some kind of itneractivity, some way for there to be social interaction. This is what Howard Rheingold refers to when he uses the term "virtual community."
That's what the 'pro-ana' sites do, they offer "community." And, increasingly, that's what the extremist hate sites do, they offer a kind of "community," as well.
Here's the link to the SPLC article, and a rather lengthy excerpt:
Community is the Key
"As dot.commers the world over have discovered of late, having a flashy site on the World Wide Web is no guarantee that people will continue to visit your site to buy products — or ideology.
Students of the Net have found that in order to flourish, Web sites must create a sense of community, a feeling that you will find new ideas and people who will engage your mind and interests.
Otherwise, visitors may view a site on one or two occasions, but find little reason for returning regularly.
But while a sense of community is very difficult to engender on static Web sites, it is natural to the lively exchanges that typify Net discussion groups. Chatters engage in direct, unmediated discussions that flesh out their pre-existing views. For those who are not members of hate groups, these venues allow a safe exploration of extremist ideology — one in which no physical commitment is made.
For people who are members, discussion groups have been likened to a virtual cross-burning — a kind of hatefest in which participants reinforce one another's racist views.
'Extremists need to be told that what they do is good and right and true,' says David Goldman, an expert who ran the HateWatch.org site until it shut down early this year. 'These interactive [discussion] groups, even more than the Web, let them feel hope, like they're participating in a community bigger than themselves.'
Expert opinion on these topics is not unanimous. Some believe that Web sites do significantly aid recruiting, and they point to the handful of cases where there is some evidence of this.
Others say the sites have virtually no impact, except perhaps to take people out of active life in the movement and park them at a computer.
The reality is probably somewhere in between, with the sites acting as kinds of brochures to hate groups, but the real energy of the movement found in discussion groups. In fact, some hate sites act as portals, with links to an array of discussion groups.
Behind Closed Doors
Discussion groups are important for a number of reasons, including:
· Privacy. Although many lists are open, an increasing number are not, requiring passwords and prior approval by the larger group. For a racist group like the neo-Confederate League of the South (LOS), which poses as a mainstream conservative outfit, this is important. It allows members and even leaders to speak candidly.
'Let us not flinch,' LOS President Michael Hill wrote last year on a private list, 'when our enemies call us "racists"; rather, just reply with, "So, what's your point?" ' Hill has not made such remarks publicly.
· Persuasion. Discussion groups allow activists to talk personally to potential members who are alienated but not yet convinced racists. 'Think about how you convince somebody of a proposition, any proposition,' says Goldman. 'You have to say, "Hey, I understand your problems and your concerns. In fact, I have the same ones. Do you understand that these problems come from the blacks, the Jews, et cetera? Why don't you come to a meeting?" '
· Anonymity for sympathizers. 'It reduces the perceived risk of contacting these groups,' says Todd Schroer, a professor at the University of Southern Indiana who studies extremism on the Internet. 'If you have to go to a Klan rally or actually write to [groups] to get involved in hate, that's a big barrier to overcome.'
Through public discussion groups, the person who may be interested in joining can discuss it thoroughly before committing.
· Planning. Groups like the Hammerskin Nation, which puts on several white power music concerts a year, have had consistent trouble with being shut down by antiracist activists. Closed discussion groups or E-mails allow such groups to plan events while minimizing the chances of disruption.
· Support. While it's not safe to publicly brag about, say, beating up blacks or gays, there are some people who applaud these actions — even some women who flock to those who carry them out. Discussion groups provide a forum for racists to congratulate one another or urge each other on to violence.
In many ways, these cyber-venues have become the virtual barrooms of the future.
A Devastating Effect
These kinds of discussions, especially the ones in closed discussion groups, are important for all of these reasons and more. They also allow the ever more important individual and unconnected activist — the so-called 'lone wolf' — to take part in movement debates and even planning without exposing himself.
'The radical right is decentralizing,' explains Goldman. 'Organized groups are becoming less crucial to the movement, and the lone wolf model is coming forward.' Closed e-groups are of particular interest to such people.
Internet Web sites are not going away. On the contrary, they have been growing steadily since Don Black first put up Stormfront in March 1995. But as the movement develops and grows more sophisticated, it seems clear that hate groups and individual propagandists will concentrate on the more private Net venues.
'Having all this out there on the Internet is not the same thing as having people join the Ku Klux Klan or the [neo-Nazi] World Church of the Creator,' says Berlet.
'But it has a devastating effect on the public debate, both in America and worldwide. ... The Internet has allowed the spreading of a conspiracist world view that looks for scapegoats to blame, and ultimately to eliminate.' "
I'm struck by several things here. First, is the rather obvious by now way that the Internet has changed the way these groups operate. Just in terms of sheer power to reach people, the Internet has radically transformed these groups. Most days that I surf Don Black's page, the 'interactive' feature says that there are nearly 1,000 people online at that 'community' at any given time. Sure, it's possible those numbers are fiction and that Black has engineered the site to inflate those estimates. It's also possible that the numbers are accurate. In either case, virtual communities of hate do not exist in a brave new world with no connection to previous modes of interaction. Instead, there is a new-new blendedness of online and off-line social interaction.
I'm also fascinated by the lure of "privacy" with these sorts of communities that the article raises. Closet racists. Lurking. This whole study is beginning to put me in mind of Laud Humphries' Tea Room Trade . I guess that makes me a watch queen.
Basically, the article makes the case for the fact that static web sites do not have much "stickiness," as they like to say in the dotcom world. In other worlds, people don't "stick," to those kinds of sites. They may visit them once, but they don't come back to them again and again. To get that "stickiness," a web site has got to have some kind of itneractivity, some way for there to be social interaction. This is what Howard Rheingold refers to when he uses the term "virtual community."
That's what the 'pro-ana' sites do, they offer "community." And, increasingly, that's what the extremist hate sites do, they offer a kind of "community," as well.
Here's the link to the SPLC article, and a rather lengthy excerpt:
Community is the Key
"As dot.commers the world over have discovered of late, having a flashy site on the World Wide Web is no guarantee that people will continue to visit your site to buy products — or ideology.
Students of the Net have found that in order to flourish, Web sites must create a sense of community, a feeling that you will find new ideas and people who will engage your mind and interests.
Otherwise, visitors may view a site on one or two occasions, but find little reason for returning regularly.
But while a sense of community is very difficult to engender on static Web sites, it is natural to the lively exchanges that typify Net discussion groups. Chatters engage in direct, unmediated discussions that flesh out their pre-existing views. For those who are not members of hate groups, these venues allow a safe exploration of extremist ideology — one in which no physical commitment is made.
For people who are members, discussion groups have been likened to a virtual cross-burning — a kind of hatefest in which participants reinforce one another's racist views.
'Extremists need to be told that what they do is good and right and true,' says David Goldman, an expert who ran the HateWatch.org site until it shut down early this year. 'These interactive [discussion] groups, even more than the Web, let them feel hope, like they're participating in a community bigger than themselves.'
Expert opinion on these topics is not unanimous. Some believe that Web sites do significantly aid recruiting, and they point to the handful of cases where there is some evidence of this.
Others say the sites have virtually no impact, except perhaps to take people out of active life in the movement and park them at a computer.
The reality is probably somewhere in between, with the sites acting as kinds of brochures to hate groups, but the real energy of the movement found in discussion groups. In fact, some hate sites act as portals, with links to an array of discussion groups.
Behind Closed Doors
Discussion groups are important for a number of reasons, including:
· Privacy. Although many lists are open, an increasing number are not, requiring passwords and prior approval by the larger group. For a racist group like the neo-Confederate League of the South (LOS), which poses as a mainstream conservative outfit, this is important. It allows members and even leaders to speak candidly.
'Let us not flinch,' LOS President Michael Hill wrote last year on a private list, 'when our enemies call us "racists"; rather, just reply with, "So, what's your point?" ' Hill has not made such remarks publicly.
· Persuasion. Discussion groups allow activists to talk personally to potential members who are alienated but not yet convinced racists. 'Think about how you convince somebody of a proposition, any proposition,' says Goldman. 'You have to say, "Hey, I understand your problems and your concerns. In fact, I have the same ones. Do you understand that these problems come from the blacks, the Jews, et cetera? Why don't you come to a meeting?" '
· Anonymity for sympathizers. 'It reduces the perceived risk of contacting these groups,' says Todd Schroer, a professor at the University of Southern Indiana who studies extremism on the Internet. 'If you have to go to a Klan rally or actually write to [groups] to get involved in hate, that's a big barrier to overcome.'
Through public discussion groups, the person who may be interested in joining can discuss it thoroughly before committing.
· Planning. Groups like the Hammerskin Nation, which puts on several white power music concerts a year, have had consistent trouble with being shut down by antiracist activists. Closed discussion groups or E-mails allow such groups to plan events while minimizing the chances of disruption.
· Support. While it's not safe to publicly brag about, say, beating up blacks or gays, there are some people who applaud these actions — even some women who flock to those who carry them out. Discussion groups provide a forum for racists to congratulate one another or urge each other on to violence.
In many ways, these cyber-venues have become the virtual barrooms of the future.
A Devastating Effect
These kinds of discussions, especially the ones in closed discussion groups, are important for all of these reasons and more. They also allow the ever more important individual and unconnected activist — the so-called 'lone wolf' — to take part in movement debates and even planning without exposing himself.
'The radical right is decentralizing,' explains Goldman. 'Organized groups are becoming less crucial to the movement, and the lone wolf model is coming forward.' Closed e-groups are of particular interest to such people.
Internet Web sites are not going away. On the contrary, they have been growing steadily since Don Black first put up Stormfront in March 1995. But as the movement develops and grows more sophisticated, it seems clear that hate groups and individual propagandists will concentrate on the more private Net venues.
'Having all this out there on the Internet is not the same thing as having people join the Ku Klux Klan or the [neo-Nazi] World Church of the Creator,' says Berlet.
'But it has a devastating effect on the public debate, both in America and worldwide. ... The Internet has allowed the spreading of a conspiracist world view that looks for scapegoats to blame, and ultimately to eliminate.' "
I'm struck by several things here. First, is the rather obvious by now way that the Internet has changed the way these groups operate. Just in terms of sheer power to reach people, the Internet has radically transformed these groups. Most days that I surf Don Black's page, the 'interactive' feature says that there are nearly 1,000 people online at that 'community' at any given time. Sure, it's possible those numbers are fiction and that Black has engineered the site to inflate those estimates. It's also possible that the numbers are accurate. In either case, virtual communities of hate do not exist in a brave new world with no connection to previous modes of interaction. Instead, there is a new-new blendedness of online and off-line social interaction.
I'm also fascinated by the lure of "privacy" with these sorts of communities that the article raises. Closet racists. Lurking. This whole study is beginning to put me in mind of Laud Humphries' Tea Room Trade . I guess that makes me a watch queen.
posted by Jessie Daniels at
3:14 PM
