Despicable behavior and internet ethics

Critic Anita Sarkeesian has been the subject of intense harassment and abuse (a.k.a “trolling”) from the gaming community after sharing her views on how women are portrayed in video games. She shared 1 week of tweets from trolls from on her blog last week. Just as a preview, she has the following content warning before her tweets – Content warning for misogyny, gendered insults, victim blaming, incitement to suicide, sexual violence, rape and death threats.

Now, a question – how many of those who tweeted would have the guts to say that to her in person?

I would be surprised if one out of every hundred had real courage. The most courageous people would look to give Anita a call and discuss her point of view or perhaps disagree with her with a critique on her own. Despicable behavior is a hallmark of gutless cowards. And, unfortunately, such pseudo-macho behavior is a hallmark of cowardly male behavior on the internet.

There are 2 thoughts that come straight to mind –
1. In short term, Twitter needs to take a hard stand against trolling. We need to think of it as bouncers in a club. Users should be given a warning (strike 1), thrown out for a few days for abusive tweeting (strike 2) and then banned from the service altogether if there’s a third strike. I know this would run counter to the typical social media mantra of “we want all the users we can get,” but, Twitter is fairly niche and is really well positioned to take such a stand. (And, it looks like they’re thinking about it)

And, my hypothesis is that a few such actions will stop the rest from such behavior. Cowardice doesn’t do too well with hard action. It is just a question of creating norms – you rarely see such trolls on LinkedIn..

2. In the long term, we need more education and discussion around ethics on the internet. I spent a lot of time as a secondary student learning to write letters as part of the English curriculum. Now, I write letters just once a year but, at least, some of those learnings have been useful in the world of email. Services like Twitter are completely new territory and we need to think intentionally about ethics and norms.

And, the other question for the long term is whether we can figure out ways to reduce emotional distance between two people on services like Twitter. Emotional distance is what makes it easy for a coward to throw insults on Twitter but not in person. It doesn’t feel as “real” and we forget that the people at the other end are real people – a lot like us (see Derek Sivers’ excellent 3 min video if you haven’t as yet). I’m not sure how we’d do that as yet. But, there has to be a way. And, I’m sure we’ll find it.

Measuring laundry

I have a recurring task on weekends to get laundry done. We’ve been living in university apartments/dorms and the laundry room is downstairs. So, I rewarded myself with a “done” on laundry once I ran the clothes on the washer and dryer and brought them back home. After that, I’d pass the baton to the wife.

Over time, I realized my wife doesn’t enjoy folding clothes (I don’t mind it all that much). So, I began folding mine and passing her clothes over.

Now, just as additional background, our share of the housework is about 30%-70% in my eyes. Given our propensity to overestimate our own contribution, I think it might be closer to 20%-80%. So, a few weeks back, I made a small mental switch – I wouldn’t take laundry out of my task list until I’d folder all our clothes in.

My wife loves the new arrangement and I feel I’ve definitely notched up an extra 5% on the contribution index.

Was that switch hard to do? Absolutely not. It just required me to measure a task a different way.

So, why did I not measure it this way when I started? I just never gave it much thought.

It made for a profound lesson, though. Give careful thought to what you measure.. because the behavior you measure and reward is the behavior you get.

Every market/client has problems and every market/client is special

There is a nice consulting truism that serves as a reminder from time to time – every market/client has problems and every market/client is special and, most importantly, no one really understands this (especially not those people sitting in headquarters).

I’ve seen this across clients and across country organizations within the same client. Every country organization says exactly the same thing when starting out on a discussion around change.

What they are really saying is – Take time to listen to and understand us. If we don’t feel listened to, we’re not going to listen to you.

They’re right in part. The listening helps us in understanding the nuances that will enable us to ask the right questions. The basic principles will still work (they are basic principles for a reason) – we just have to customize them to suit the needs of our clients.

But, first, you have to listen to be heard.