Monday, 30 July 2007

Shape of things to Come

I'm not sure what to make of this thread where AngryDarren got angry about money being taken out of his account. But he quickly got help and was contacted by the publishers about it.

The title of the post? Well, seeing some of the replies to the angry post, reminds my why I post little on any outdoors forums these days. I'm at the stage in my cycle where negativity is magnified disproportionately and then levelled squarely between my eyes. So I tend to avoid things that are likely to cause me suffering. I wouldn't have bothered writing an angry post like Darren did. Not to a forum.

Some people see having lots of sources of opinions as good, others see it as bad. What is the place of the expert in a democracy? People see others as information nodes to be tapped for knowledge, and people offer that up freely. Sometimes the offering isn't what you want to hear, but is constructive. In a free society, the strongest, most popular, best run, most adaptive communities grow. They attract more members, more sponsors, can offer more prizes, more features, bigger servers to store more articles, photographs, etc. A growing artificial entity. It has its own morals, its own codes of conducts. Some stated, some unstated.

Outcasts are just that - cast out. Lawbreakers, with or without fair trial, are chastised. Challenges are organised and deeds of derring do are done. Tales from events, real or online, are circulated, and legends are born. People leave, people join, there are good times, there are bad, there are lean times, there are bountiful times.

Like any community - there are natural sizes before the community needs to reorganize. Do the same rules apply online? I don't think so, but I think it depends on how you view - and interact - with the community.

Simply put, if you keep track of the people replying, know their backgrounds, who they like and dislike, etc, then I'd guess that the standards of real world social modelling would apply. Otherwise, if you read posts, reply to those that you can help with, no matter who is asking, then you are interacting less with the society, and so different rules apply.

Web2.0 allows more interaction with people rather than the processes. People. Happy or sad. Tired or awake. Today or tomorrow. Vindictive or paranoid. Home or away. With you each day. Someone you can rely on. Closer each day. Home and away.


WD said...

you are right I shouldn't of posted in anger on there. But I'll learn one day (although Kate may say different ;) )
I'll stick to where my friends are. Where they give positive contributions to discussions.
But as always you have a very wise head on you, and with hindsight maybe I should of just talked to you before letting the red mist get the better of me.

AktoMan said...

Yeah, I never get angry and mouth off at the world, the tv set, other road users, church bells, etc etc.

As to hindsight - well, too often I post something and then delete it rather than press submit. To much these days is people getting angry and annoyed for the sake of it. The Web seems to be a place to skim-read, and not digest words. Words and meanings are quoted out of context, and people seem to think every post is an attack on themselves just because they are reading it. Everyone knows that the world is centred on AktoMan and not on You, dear reader.

Oh, I'll just add a smiley to the end of that, and it'll be all right