In cyberspace everyone can hear you swear

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

110
Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

210
This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

by Mark Kenny

310
Weekend Punch: Tea or coffee?

by The Punch Team

410
Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

510
Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

610
Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

710
“Fizzy”, “gusto”, “disco” and other words we love

by Lucy Kippist

810
Ray Beckwith: the science behind the wine

by David Penberthy

910
The world puzzles over Australia’s Prime Minister

by Mark Kenny

1010

by Peter Lewis

14 Jul 12:14am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Please enter your password

Filed under: Internet, Social Media, Swearing

8 comments

People behave better online than in real life, moderating their language, respecting the views of others and being selective in their choice of invective.

A $%*#ing good cartoon by Jon Kudelka

That’s my conclusion after completing what I am claiming is the first definitive study on the language of building workers in a confined space, otherwise known as an online discussion board.

Thinking ourselves prudent, we decided to vet online messages of support for Ark Tribe, the Adelaide building worker facing jail for refusing to answer questions to the Building Commission , before we posted them online.

After all, these are the workers who sent the PM into a spin before the last Federal Election over their poor personal hygiene, lack of body image and colourful use of the vernacular.

These people would surely prove a menace if allowed access to the world wide web.

The results are somewhat disappointing for those looking for fruity language. Of 1288 comments received we recorded the following obscenities;

- 30 bastards,
- 14 bullshits,
- 10 f—-s,
- two buggars,
- one wanker
- and not a single arsehole on site.

As for the c—- word, a mere three; and interestingly, on every occasion proceeded by an f—- word. (not sure if there is an angle in here).

My point (apart from the gratuitous use of bad language to boost up readership figures)? The response was so lame the entire effort in moderating was probably a waste of time.

This touches on one of the fundamental debates as social media grows and more and more people have the opportunity to communicate directly.

Should we moderate discussions because we do not trust participants to behave, or should we let them run free and only flag problems participants once they cross certain lines?

First the case for moderation:

- You can’t trust people

- Online discussions are magnets for nutters WHO TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS AND SCARE THE SANE PEOPLE AWAY

- If someone defames someone on your site, you are up for big defamation costs

- People might criticise you (this is of particular concern to many of the political organisations I work for)

The case for free discourse:

- Trust begets trust

- As the community grows it will impose its own rules and isolate and banish those who abuse the rules

- The legal system is yet to come to terms with online communications; provided you promptly correct and remove defamatory material you will not be exposed

- Giving your critics a platform actually helps manage them. When they are locked out they build their own communities and that’s when they become dangerous.

This is not an academic debate, the way we construct our new online communities will shape the sort of world we live in.

Do we want a vision of 1984 where what you say is vetted before you say it? Or do we want a more authentic place, where even mad people can say what they think.
Indeed, are the mad bloggers actually crazy or just made that way be being locked out of the conversation for so long?

As anyone who is participating in the Punch understands, we are not just a broadcast media any more – we are at the point where information is starting to flow two ways.

Whether it’s Penberthy’s latest tweet or this column’s tenuous logic, you have a chance to fire straight back at us, even before our opinions have properly formed.

The value of a piece of media is no longer gauged just by what it says, but by how it is responded to. If you react you show it is valued. If it makes you swear, even better.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself

390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin

336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer

313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking

266Who murdered the Arts degree?

246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...

231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

8 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- AW says:
  
  09:48am | 15/07/09
  
  I agree with Brian,
  I chat a lot online, mainly on MSN. I chat with a group of people from around the country (inc NZ), and I have to say that I re-read everything before I post, so that things can’t be taken the wrong way. But when it comes to On-on-One chats (when I know the person won’t mind) the filters come off and I tend to say stuff that I’d never say face-to-face.
  
  Reply
- Brian says:
  
  06:38pm | 14/07/09
  
  Personally, I’m not surprised that people swear less online. I’ve got a couple of theories regarding it:
  
  1) When you swear in person, it’s normally something which flows. Rarely do I think ‘Hmm, let’s swear’ - normally I’m not even aware I’m speaking until I get ‘Gee, that hurts like fu’ out. Most really profligate swearers I know don’t realise they actually swear that much. Online, however, you have to think. I know of very few people who type as automatically as they speak, and most of those are trained (strangely, most training doesn’t include swearing).
  
  2) Online it is much easier to re-read and correct your comment (I’ve reworded theory 1 four times so far), but in real life you get only one chance to say something that makes sense. As a result swearing online only makes it appear that you need these useless words to get your point across, that you are unable to use the English language correctly, and that therefore your arguments are inherently coming from a lower base (true or not, this is how it is viewed. How many of you would take financial advice from a man who swore repeatedly, smelled and wore a blue, stained singlet? For all you know he’s an expert in stocks).
  
  3) Inherently we all want to appear intelligent and reasonable online. Swearing is not usually associated with these traits in the social consciousness.
  
  4) In person we know who we are talking to, and how offended they are likely to get. Online we are making comments without knowing who will read them. I know that when I am with my friends I swear like a sailor (Oops, sorry, being ‘job-ist’ there), but as soon as a stranger, girlfriend or wife arrives we quiet down a lot. Similarly, in a closed chat room, MSN conversation or something similar the language is a lot cruder than on a news site.
  
  Reply
- suze says:
  
  05:59pm | 14/07/09
  
  I’m far more creative with my insults online. I swear obscenities offline everyday, always and often because it’s easier, and i can raise the severity by saying the word louder or repeating it several times or making different swear combination’s. It all comes down to anger management but if you stub your little toe in a piece of furniture you are not going to say “oh golly gosh that hurts”.
  
  Online i don’t need to use swear words as it is very easy to express or put another person or issue down in so many other written ways. When i look back at my online writing i cringe when i see I’ve over used a swear word.
  I’ve had to monitor how I respond to others because writing even without swear words can appear very aggressive and intimidating and after all i want to prove my point not make someone wee their pants in fear.
  
  Reply
- footy says:
  
  03:50pm | 14/07/09
  
  F*&$, yes
  
  Reply
- Adam Dennis says:
  
  12:48pm | 14/07/09
  
  These days it’s becoming standard to get commenters signed up, then let them give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote in response to nutbaggery. Enough thumbs-down votes and a comment quietly disappears. Add in a bad language filter that automatically masks words from sensitive eyes, and you’ve got a system that allows real-time discussion with community values determining what gets seen in the long run. Yes, there’s the chance that the moral majority might target dissenting ideas ... but there’s an equal chance that the loony left could do the same thing. Generally it all tends to even out after a while and everyone gets along in the playground reasonably well.
  
  Mind you, I’d love a filter that automatically applies proper case to those whose caps lock key is mysteriously stuck in the on position.
  
  Reply
- SULLY says:
  
  11:37am | 14/07/09
  
  As recent posts on Mumbrella have shown, there is an interesting element of self-regulation on-line.
  Not necessarily in language (profanities can be blocked in the same way as the TV beep).
  More in the way that any incredibly biased or over opinionated view of any kind will draw a response.
  The risk is that it turns into a school yard brawl, but in my experience so far, the moral majority seem to win. Just.
  As more extremist groups tap into the medium it will be interesting to see if it can be manipulated?
  
  Reply
- Eric says:
  
  09:19am | 14/07/09
  
  It might be worth mentioning, for the record, that the comments on this site are of the pre-moderated kind.
  
  I prefer post-comment moderation, combined with a system of registration.
  
  Registering commenters allows persistent offenders to be banned, while also making it difficult to fake identities. As it stands, The Punch has no protection against commenters impersonating other commenters.
  
  Reply
- Timski says:
  
  09:13am | 14/07/09
  
  I suppose whether you’re having a go at someone in the real world or online the same sort of rules apply. You are in public after all.
  
  Reply