(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Joseph M. Reagle Jr. Reading the Comments. Likers, Haters and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. MIT Press, 2015
In a publication that can be classified as a mix of professional literature and popular science, Associate Professor Joseph Reagle at Northeastern University begins by confirming that he is a computer nerd (even his dog has a Facebook account) and that he is a so-called Maximizer. Both of these features color the defense of the internet's dirty and untidy "lower reaches", where Reagle believes both "intimate serendipty" and "filtered sludge" can be found. He argues that there are two main categories of consumers: the satisficer and the maximizer. Despite my bloodthirsty blood, I would undoubtedly have defined myself as a "satisficer", so I have to make the effort to understand that some people think it is important to spend hours reading digital camera reviews to make the best choice. What is certain, however, is that Reagle, because of its need for optimization, has in-depth knowledge of all kinds of reviews and rankings that surround us in our digitized everyday lives. The media researcher reminds us that commenting on the internet is much more than angry web trolling on VG's comment fields and reviewers of Harry Potter-fanfiction on Goodreads. “Liking” something on Facebook or Instagram is a form of commentary, as is the use of dating apps like Tinder or the TripAdvisor travel app. According to this definition, there is reason to assume that around 95 per cent of us are internet commentators (ie about as many as have internet access in Norway).
In excess of coal. Reading the Comments is a professional book in the sense that it is pronounced pedagogically in tone, sometimes on the border of moralizing. Each chapter concludes with a clear but nuanced point of view, and the author holds the reader in hand as he gently guides her through, among other things, the history of social media and commentary, the difference between a reviewer and a critic, the huge industry that grows in every nook and cranny. of the Internet's white, gray, and darker zones, and dozens of acronyms and expressions, such as LOLZ, FREEZE PEACH og bully battles. This is a difficult exercise. Social media is extremely trend-sensitive and changeable, and the trends are controlled by young people. Once a phenomenon falls on the syllabus, the credibility drops drastically, and the hipsters find something new that the adults have not yet been able to decode. The complex navigation in the landscape of coolness is reflected in both Reagal's language and the media moguls he cites. They try to be "inside" and must therefore show that they can speak the language of the young people. While powerful businessmen use profanity in public statements, Reagle's attempt to reach out to the youth comes through the way he refers to historical figures. He uses Montaigne as an example of the world's first blogger, and draws Nietzsche with the quote "What doesn't kill you make you stronger". If he is first to bring in Montaigne and Nietzsche, why can't he do it in a less superficial way? He could, for example, discuss in greater depth the confessional tradition, or analyze our contemporary aestheticization of reality through Nietzsche's discussion of art as value creation in secular societies. Although the media researcher has a nuanced and rich language and at times very good analyzes, it feels a bit like I am forcibly fed with P3. This is the reverse of a trend-sensitive and youth-growing culture – the elderly are afraid of their own weight.
Need for control. The most important reason for reading comment fields is the most obvious one: winning over the ignorance and lack of knowledge. VGTV's recently published case about the online warriors illustrates this, but at the same time shows what dedication it requires. One of the interview subjects is the student Hans Kristian Støvern, who can spend several hours a day debating human rights and freedom of speech, and thinks the rhetoric that is often used about Muslims is similar to the one used about Jews in the 1930s. He says in VG's interview that "people happen to take my opinions and it's incredibly satisfying". Reagle, of course, also emphasizes this aspect of the commentary. The internet comments can be manipulative and hateful, but he believes they are such a big part of our society that they cannot be avoided and therefore must be addressed. He examines various models for moderating web debates, noting that although there is undoubtedly a need for control at some level, censorship is often counterproductive. According to a survey conducted on millions of comments on four different websites, including CNNs, commentators who were down at writing even more comments of even poorer quality responded than the previous ones. It is also understandable, since the worst that can happen in our age is not to be seen.
Once a phenomenon falls on the syllabus, the credibility drops drastically, and the hipsters find something new that the adults have not yet been able to decode.
Confirmation, confirmation. selfieThe trend is at the heart of social media, reflecting both the need to be visible and our love for the quantifiable. Facebook was originally an image chart of Harvard students that made it easier to rate and rank each one, while what eventually became YouTube was a site called HOTorNOT, where users would give their virtual thumbs up or down to each other's looks. Still, it is clear that personal photos are the most popular, and the boundaries of what had previously been dismissed as boastful are constantly expanding. The problem with this is, according to Reagle, not only narcissism (he refers to research among college students in the US who conclude that the increase in narcissistic personality traits since the 1980s has been as large as the increase in overweight), but that the positive affirmation does not work. By being most concerned with self-confidence, the very interests end up in the background. Studies show that students who are constantly hearing how good and wonderful they are are most concerned with getting more of this confirmation, rather than delving into and enjoying what they are actually learning, and that makes their efforts worse than in students who receive less confirmation from parents and teachers. It will be exciting to see if the selfies will diminish in strength, or if the trend is that what is behind all the mirror images and self-reflective comments will end up in an even darker shade.
Although there is undoubtedly a need for control at some level, censorship is often counterproductive.
We-definition. A problematic aspect of the book's analysis is that it does not take into account the part of the world's population that is unable to get an account on Google+ or Snapchat. A quick look at the UN statistics page Globalis shows that in 38 countries, less than 95,1 percent of the population has internet access, while in Norway, as mentioned, 84,2 percent and XNUMX percent in the United States. The author could discuss whether we really have a multidimensional and representative debate, and whether our love for neat, fruit-decorated screens makes us blind to the extensive societal changes that are necessary for us not to destroy our own globe. Illiteracy has always been widespread, but has the demand for internet access created an even bigger gap between developing countries and developing countries? A lot can be said about this, all the time we circle our own navel and evaluate products the few are particularly concerned about the origin of (although this is due to the activities we like to do online and not the internet beforehand). When Reagle claims that "our reaction to things has come to be seen as a way in which we define ourselves", then this does not apply to a significant portion of the world's population. It is necessary to define which “we” we are talking about – and here it is mainly the western middle and upper classes.
However, even the more technology pessimistic among us can see more benefits and opportunities of the world wide web, and Reading the Comments convinces that to be against one relatively Free flow of comments online is as useless as being against the phone. Even if you come across a discussion about which banana peels to choose – the one that peels to the right, or the one that peels to the left. LOL!
Bjørnøy is a bookstore employee and freelance critic.
bbjornoy@gmail.com
