Thanet's home-brew media is and has become a deeply divided place to be. It is subject to a worrying trend of verbal violence, threats, veiled spite and outright rudeness. So much so that people like Simon Moores have felt compelled to bow out of local blogging. What causes otherwise rational and pleasant people to suddenly become animistic, crude and abusive? How did this trend start in Thanet and what can we do to change it? In short, what is going on and why?

The answer lies in understanding the joint effects of anonymity and emergent crowd behaviour. This is a posh way of saying "how and why gangs do things". I am going to try to explain exactly what is going on underneath the surface and the best practices that have emerged to deal with this behaviour.

The short truth is that we are all guilty. There are, sadly further truths that you may find shocking - they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions and in Thanet this has proven to be true. The key architects of the "attitude of hate" are the key voices of Thanet's home-brew media. Not because they have wished to create hate but nevertheless from the purest of intentions, albeit poorly informed ones, Thanet's home-brew heroes have allowed the fox into the chicken coup. The result is the only possible outcome when that happens - metaphorical bloodshed.

Read on to find out more about how Thanet is better off without a "blog war".

How did this all begin?

Like so many thing in life it began with the best of intentions. Openness, freedom of speech and an ill advised passion for opposing what was seen as censorship. Surely this was a good thing?

When people are unsure of how to behave they will look at the behaviour of others to inform them of social norms. Blogging and other home-brew media are new ideas to Thanet as Thanet is up to three to five years behind the cutting edge. Thanet has yet to really see "pro blogging", "web 2.0" or "social networking" as anything more than an external force - it's all pretty new to us.

So when looking at how to behave Thanet bloggers and those that comment on blogs have looked to each other for clues on how to behave. This is called social proof and it is a strong influence of group behaviour. Just think back to when you last watched something like "Big Brother" - the house mates quickly developed a new set of social norms independent of the way they would otherwise behave outside of the house.

"Social proof, also known as informational social influence, is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior. Making the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behavior of others as appropriate or better informed."
Wikipedia, Social proof

Our own worse enemies!

Bring into this ancient instincts better suited to surviving saber-tooth tigers than social interaction and you get what penny-arcade.com calls the "Greater Internet Dickwad Theory" which roughly says that a normal person plus anonymity and an audience equals "total dickwad".

The wikipedia has a semi humorous article on the subject entitled "No angry mastodons" in which it describes our fight or flight response as a defence against angry mastodons which it also observes "...are very rare in modern cities".

Jonathan Fields writes of his own encounter with such aggression in a guest post for ProBlogger.net entitled "How to Deal with Blog Hecklers" where he says: "I ended up being called names that, only three-weeks into blogging, made me seriously re-think whether I really wanted to keep going."

The instinctive fight or flight reaction makes us want to "fight" the opposing opinion and if not controlled soon this becomes a bitter exchange. In normal conditions most of us have learned to control our tempers and behave like "rational adults" but on the web there are no visual clues and no social reinforcement of our normative behaviour. As a result new norms can develop and if left unchecked this can be quite brutal.

The road to hell.

This is where the good intention of "no censorship" becomes the road to hell. When new readers visit a blog their understanding of acceptable behaviour in the comments section is formed by the current behaviour in the comments section. So when they visit a blog where people are being polite in their disagreement but forthright with their online identity they will largely do likewise.

In the case of Jonathan Fields a new norm was established by leading authorities in "off-blog marketing" who had extensive followings. For whatever reason these "authority figures" got very agitated by a "round up of issues" post that Jonathan had written. This angry posting set a norm that the readership followed creating a nasty and angry mob throwing around some harsh words on all blogs concerned.

This is part of what happened here in Thanet. Anonymous comments were tolerated or even encouraged and with them came spite born of passion and frustration, no doubt, with the issues of Thanet. Yet because there was little or no differentiation between helpful and unhelpful comments the norm was established of "say whatever you feel like".

When it is too rude, too likely to have bad comeback one dives for the anon tag and stays there hurling feces and screaming.

This form of norming existed and was even encouraged in blogging itself so that writers could speak freely behind a mask. At first, no doubt, this was well meant but unchecked and writers such as OVIT (One Voice in Thanet) were able to not only vent angry words but could get attention to them.

What else was going wrong?

It is true that not all people are sheep. Some are motivated by other norms (established bloggers and commenters) or other objectives (promotion, debate, etc) and as such may cut across the social norms developing in the community. If the community is harsh they will be clique-like and socially repel the newcomer as the crowd attempted with Jonathan Fields.

When the community is still forming they may absorb a newcomer into the group and his or her actions will reinforce or reform the "norms" of the group. For much of the time the group is simply making it up as they go and looking to the social proof of the other members to endorse or negate their actions. In some groups a fear of censorship or oppression may fail to correct negative attitudes and will seem to endorse all but the most extreme behaviours - so much so that the behaviour of the group is very much like a single organism that is hard to predict, difficult to direct and is, clearly, out of control.

"Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian developed the emergent-norm theory of crowd dynamics. These researchers concede that social behavior is never entirely predictable, but neither are crowds irrational. If similar interests may draw people together, distinctive patterns of behavior may emerge in the crowd itself. Crowds begin as collectivities, acting, and protest crowds – norms may be vague and changing as when, say, one person at a rock concert holds up a lit cigarette lighter to signal praise for the performers, followed by others. In short, people in crowds make their own rules as they go along.

Decision-making, then, plays a major role in crowd behavior, although casual observers of a crowd may not realize it. Crowd behavior reflects the desires of participants, but it is also guided by norms that emerge as the situation unfolds. Emergent-norm theory points out that people in a crowd take on different roles. Some step forward as leaders; others become lieutenants, rank-and-file followers, inactive bystanders or even opponents. Each Member in the crowd plays a significant role.
wikipedia, Crowd psychology, Emergent-norm theory

In English Please, Matt

In layman's terms local home-brew media had become a mob. The mob followed the social proof for behaviour from other mob members and the answer for things you did not agree with was to let rip on the publisher.

As a result getting readership was simply a mater of letting rip. Social proof backed up the importance of the ranter (OVIT was a prime example) with a full compliment of comments.

Yet this does not solve anything and just makes people angry. "I have a low view of Dr Moores" became "Dr Moores is a baby eating alien from the wrong side of Alpha Centauri!" Worse still such opinions as "Thanet needs help and this is my idea" are met with the intellectual equivalent of "you are Nazi scum and clearly are the product of a mating betwixt dog and devil."

We live within five or six miles of each other and such an explosive mix can not be allowed to continue. Sooner or later people are going to be more than "just" emotionally hurt. A better approach needs to be found if only to help us defuse the time bomb we have built.

Why has no one acted then?

Obviously we are all intelligent people. Able to read and write, use computers, obtain Internet access and so forth. Why then have we allowed things to get so far out of hand?

The study of human behaviour again has answers: bystander apathy

"The bystander effect (also known as bystander apathy, Genovese syndrome, diffused responsibility or bystander intervention) is a psychological phenomenon in which someone is less likely to intervene in an emergency situation when other people are present and able to help than when he or she is alone."
Wikipedia, Bystander effect

Our own natures get in the way. Our own natures can also bring this to a close. The same social proof that led us here can lead us back out again.

It will take just a few bloggers to start saying "no this will not do" and as a whole we will soon be moving in a new direction.

"A 1968 study by John Darley and Bibb Latane first demonstrated the bystander effect in the laboratory. They ran some simple studies such as the following: A participant is placed alone in a room and is told he can communicate with other participants through an intercom. In reality, he is just listening to an audio recording and is told his microphone will be off until it is his turn to speak. During the recording, one participant suddenly pretends he is having a seizure. The study found that how long the participant waits before alerting the experimenter varies directly with the perceived number of other participants. In some cases, the participant never told the experimenter."
Wikipedia, Bystander effect

Well it can't get any worse can it...

Actually it can get a lot worse. Making the news a while ago was a story that took place in America. After taking offence in a forum a man tracked another man across the country to beat him up and burned his house down when he discovered the man was out.

You might say words have no effect but I beg to differ.

Jaden who writes for "screen writing for Hollywood dot com" (screenwritingforhollywood.com) says in "Take a Beating and Like It: Accepting Criticism Gracefully" that "Hollywood is Ignore City. Phone calls and emails go unanswered." and advises that "Criticism is a compliment. You should be flattered. It means people care enough about you to say something."

In that industry the norm is now utter rudeness. If someone were to be polite and pleasant they would stand out like a neon light on a dark night. But social proof shows the way to behave is entirely negative.

Negativity is as bad for commenter as the blogger

I'd like to briefly introduce you to one more idea of human behaviour - the halo effect. (wikipedia on the halo effect).

The halo effect and its counter part the devil effect are products of our brains methodology for dealing with too much information. When we see something positive about someone we tend to see them in an entirely good light and when we spot something negative we home in on other negative things such that we have nothing good to say. This has a polarising effect on us and our opinions.

The result is that we can usually divide our fellow bloggers into those that can do no wrong and those that we have no time for. The former we will forgive the shortcomings of and forget them and the later we will see only evidence of out negative comments. For example: Tony of Big News Margate saw a focus on metrics of measurement in myself and one or two others and that one negative coloured his opinion so that he had no time for bloggers he saw as having no positive merit.

It's that simple - we do it all the time and never notice.

So when "Anny Nonimouse" and friends pile negativity and scorn onto others to get attention the attention they do get might be worth less than no attention at all. Whatever you try to do with that attention after will be seen in the same (negative) light as the method used to get the attention. Unless what you want is "a good fight" you have lost before you start.

What can we do?

eMoms at home suggest "8 Ways to Turn Negative Feedback into an Opportunity". They also deal with the story of a 13 year old that hung herself because of online bullies: "When Trolls, Flame Wars and Cyber-Rage go too Far" tells the story of just how bad things can get citing examples of things that no healthy person would actually say to another face to face and mean.

As mentioned already the article by Jonathan Fields "How to Deal with Blog Hecklers" gives a good introduction to the subject. Jonathan explains that: "...it’s important to try to understand what the commenter is trying to accomplish by voicing her/his opinion". From there you can gauge the best way to reply.

Jonathan goes on to explain the different types of heckles you might get and how he generally addresses them. The comment section carries on the debate.

There is a six step approach on ehow.com outlining a good method for addressing harsh comments. "How to Handle Negative Comments on Your Blog" by Avenefica is a short but sensible approach to the subject.

An essay on the wikipedia suggests that we "Deny Recognition for those that start trouble thus starving them of the attention they are seeking.

Chris Garrett, a professional blogger, explains on his blog about "How to Get the Right Attention". Something that I feel is a lesson that Thanet blogging as a whole might want to consider. Especially if we are to see less flared tempers and more constructive blogging.

Niche marketing expert Andy Beard takes the approach of establishing a commenting policy that outlines how he will treat comments. Thanet star also has a policy that has been in place from the start inspired by Andy's policy on the mater.

Andy Beard's policy can be summed up in just a few words: "Don't be an idiot". The premise is that the statement is so short that the message has been received before a person even makes up their mind if they are going to read it. Job done.

When commenting on other people's blogs I like to use the Open ID that has the server for Thanet Star confirm that I am from Thanet Star. I feel this gives a level of answerability which often forces me to think about what I write. I hope it works and I come over as reasonably friendly most of the time (which is what, on the whole, I would like to be). If not I can be found (I have no where to hide) so I had better try to be nice or shut my mouth.

Kathy Sierra co-creator of the bestselling Head First books was the target of a hate campaign so harsh she gave up her blog, all public speaking debates and vanished from the public eye. In a post entitled "Angry/negative people can be bad for your brain" she writes:

"How often have you found yourself sliding into the accent of those around you? Spend a month in England and even a California valley girl sounds different. Spend a week in Texas and even a native New Yorker starts slowing down his speech. How often have you found yourself laughing, dressing, skiing like your closest friend? Has someone ever observed that you and a close friend or significant other had similar mannerisms?"
Angry/negative people can be bad for your brain

The answer then is to choose carefully whose blog you pay attention to. Focus on blogs filled with negativity and you become negative but focus on well though out blogs where posters and commenters really think for themselves and that is how you too will start to behave.

Choose your role models carefully.

Kathy goes on to say:

"Find yourself in a room full of pissed off people and feel the smile slide right off your face. Listen to people complaining endlessly about work, and you'll find yourself starting to do the same. How many of us have been horrified to suddenly realize that we've spent the last half-hour caught up in a gossip session--despite our strong aversion to gossip? The behavior of others we're around is nearly irresistible."
Angry/negative people can be bad for your brain

The answer, as I see it, is simple. Spend time only with those home-brew media writers that life you up, that think that set you a good or better example and simply ignore the remainder.

Advice that sounds so good to me right now that over the next few days I am going to go through my "Thanet Reading List" and have a bit of a clear out. So much the better to make room for newer blogs and bloggers.

In changing the social proof of our local blogging what do you think is your contribution might be?