8 Comments

User's avatar
Daniel E Vasey's avatar

Many sites and services present themselves as places to keep up with old friends or to find people one can meet later on, sometimes in groups ranging from cat lovers to White Militia. A substitute for face-to-face contacts, they do not try to be.

But allow me to digress to remote communities and concentrate on those in the north. Nordic countries, Inuit, Siberian, whatever, the percentage of wired households is generally very high.

Before, they were necessarily close knit, with all its rewards, but also their share of rancor (Not all trolls are online or under bridges). What happens to all that when the Internet and social media arrive? There are anthropologists of the Internet, but not many address this basic question.

Iceland is very wired. Second-hand information is that time online is not excessive and old community channels largely survive.

What happens in the high arctic, where for many months the cold discourages leaving the house? In the far north of Canada the CBC has long maintained local radio stations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_stations_in_Nunavut

Note the format: “public, talk.” A Canadian archaeologist working in Resolute once elaborated to me. The chitchat ranges from gossip to advice, but much is mundane, e.g., someone dropped by for tea and biscuits. I read that people in Resolute have complained about slow access speeds, so interest in the Net is strong. Still, the radio station goes on.

Expand full comment
Paul J. DeLoca's avatar

As a regular reader of the NYT daily paper since the 1970s, I often choose to send quick thoughts to the comment section of the "online" version of NYT news stories. which generally appear the next day in the "hardcopy" NYT.

I suspect the online NYT has more "community" readers than the hardcopy NYT, although I don't know the actual #$s, but I sense there's more sense of community in the online version which allows immediate thoughtful comments from readers.

So, sharing and reading "others" views of NYT news stories or opinions pieces generally creates a greater sense of shared community with online opportunities.

In my opinion, the Washington Post reader comments sections seem more alienating, probably because the format has been changed recently and it's difficult to follow intelligent string conversations.

Recently, I noticed the WAPO comments are cruel or condescending put-downs, on both sides of the political issues, as can be expected, since 2016, especially.

Years ago, in the mid 1970s, I tried the "Community" friendship card with some Chinese ambassadors in Wash DC along with some Americans from the National Committee on United States China Relations (NCUSCR), but still, even then, the "Taiwan issue" dislodged any further agreement of hope for continued community. That's almost 50 years ago.

So, since most online communities provide anonymous feedback in most instances, since the actual name of the commenter is rarely used - I think stronger community is being degraded before our eyes.

Even "in person" conversations require a "decoding." Can that be because there is too much info to be digested, and, we are being driven further apart because FEAR and MISTRUST has been weaponized by a small segment of our declining culture.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts