(Anti)social online communities – a cause for concern?

One of the major features of the internet is the ability for people to form and participate in online communities. In his book, New Media: an Introduction Terry Flew (2004, 67) quotes Langdon Winner who describes how virtual communities enable people to connect with others who share similar interests. The internet’s potential as a site for community establishment is especially appealing to individuals whose interests and ideas may not be widely shared in the offline community. To quote Shenton and McNeeley, again courtesy of Flew (2004, 69), people often participate in online groups because they are able to express views and opinions that are not usually raised in more mainstream media outlets.

While the majority of these interests are well-meaning, there has been concern raised over the potential for groups that share antisocial interests to form online communities. Articles relating to mySpace suicide pacts and how terrorists use the internet are relatively common. Axel Bruns stated in his week six lecture that one benefit of online communities is the “ability [for people] to operate in fields of interest neglected by mainstream media, business, politics, research.” While this may allow for greater coverage of socially valuable topics such as news, current affairs and politics (see Slashdot, Current TV, and Crikey); antisocial groups such as neo-nazi, terrorist, paedophile or pro-anorexia networks are also provided with the same opportunity to form strong communities. Like-minded individuals can overcome physical and social barriers to participation and exist as part of a network while concealing their true identity. There is no doubt that such groups exist, and I am not going to attempt to find them to prove my point. Instead, I think it is more important to think about whether the internet encourages these groups to form. Is antisocial networking and behaviour increasing because internet and mobile technology allows groups to operate more effectively?

Essentially, I think the answer is no. In the tradition of moral panics, it is easy to assume that the perceived rise in the number and power of antisocial groups such as the Al Qaeda network is due to advances in internet and mobile technology. Alex Iskold’s blog post, Technology and Terrorism: Are we being too naive?, veers towards this line of thinking and discusses how google earth has the potential to provide terrorist organizations with valuable information. . Yet while terrorist operators may be able to use internet and mobile technology for their own destructive purposes, or neo-nazis can air their views in online forums, this does not mean that these technologies should (or could) be censored or banned. If we did try to stifle or dismantle these communities, would we be undermining the very ideals of using the internet as a site for free expression? In March 2005, one year on from the 2004 bombings in Madrid, an international summit was held by the Club of Madrid to discuss current issues of democracy, terrorism and security. One panel addressed the specific topic of Democracy, Terrorism and the Internet, in order to determine whether use of the internet should be censored because of its possibility to be used by terrorist organisations. To quote from the keynotes provided on the website:

"the panellists agreed that interfering with the democratic freedoms offered by the internet would probably damage democracy more than it would harm the terrorists, and that the internet's positive effects, in connecting people for example, far outweighed the possibility of abuse".

Although it may seem easier for undesirable communities to form and function thanks to the internet, the internet has not caused or increased the prevalence of such communities. All of the groups I mentioned existed and operated before the internet. Their methods of organization and communication have changed, just the same as conventional community groups have done. I would argue instead that rather than spawning more antisocial groups, the internet actually serves to expose these groups to greater scrutiny.

The human race has always had its unsavoury elements, and the internet has not increased the prevalence of these. Instead, these anti-social aspects of our global community are now more visible than ever before. I believe that this visibility acts as a censor of sorts. Because internet content can (largely) be viewed by any user, any sites that deal with antisocial communities actually provide us with information about these groups, and can help us to anticipate antisocial action or work to solve problems within our society.

References

Flew, T. 2004. Virtual Cultures. In T. Flew, New media: an introduction, 61-82. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Queensland University of Technology: Course materials Database (accessed March 14, 2008).