Don't feed the trolls?

I expect you've come across the advice: don't feed the trolls.  With the growth of web forums, discussion boards, blogs, Facebook groups, there is always an argument going on somewhere online.  Reading the comment threads on some news articles or the wall posts of some Facebook groups is possibly the most depressing experiences on the internet.  I'm not going to post any links because I don't want to give them publicity, or to depress readers!

People argue over everything from government policy on immigration or war or religion to whether Dr Who is better than Twilight (what's to argue?)  And, sooner or later, no matter how seriously and mild tempered the discussion begins, it will very often descend into argument.  Often this will be accompanied by personal insults and unpleasant language (let alone spelling and grammar inconsistencies!).   Some people just argue for the sake of it.  They don't, in the view of more sensible respondents, deserve 'feeding.'  You can't win an argument against a troll.  You might as well not start.

Sometimes I feel that politics can be like this.  The parties (and even more media coverage) often base their arguments on little evidence, or on evidence that is skewed to their own point of view.  Of course, all the parties are now trying to get to grips with online media and to use it to spread their own messages.  If that leads to discussion board commenters becoming more aware of what they're actually talking about, good.

Often we complain that people don't bother to vote in elections, that they're apathetic, that they don't care about politics.  Fewer people are involved in campaigning these days, the unions aren't as big a political force as they were in the past, many people don't seem to be interested in- or know much about- political discussions.  So perhaps all those people who comment on newspaper and BBC articles aren't a bad thing after all.  Perhaps that's where this country's political discussion is happening in this new online world.

Wow, that's quite a scary thought.

Unfortunately, most comments seem to come from the extreme points of view on any issue.  Extremists are always more active than moderates, it seems, whatever method they're using.  Moderates are more likely to retreat, and not feed the trolls.  There is little point engaging in an argument when the other person isn't actually interested in hearing your views.  It's hard to be moderate in such circumstances.

Perhaps, though, it's not quite as scary as the idea that there is no political discussion going on at all, outside the parliamentary elite.  People do care about things- things which, if they thought about it, are political issues- they just don't seem to connect this with voting.

How can we connect these people to the political process- and how can the political process change to connect with these people?   I don't know- but I suspect the internet has something to do with it.

Advent 09- Science and Technology

When Christians think about giving thanks to God or about his greatness, so often the images that come to mind are from nature- mountains, sunrise, oceans, autumn leaves, summer warmth.  And of course this isn't wrong, there's much biblical precedent especially in the psalms.

But now I want to give thanks for something different, for scientific and technological advancement.  And I don't think that's as incompatible as it first sounds.

It's all too easy to use technology as an example of humanity's own unaided achievement.  Popular culture and the media today are fond of using science and religion as two opposing systems of belief, or world views.  But that's a very different view from many of those who we see now as founders of modern science.  Early scientists who helped define the genre, such as Isaac Newton, were interested in discovering more about the world and how it worked and saw this as part of their worship of God- praising God for the intricacies of his creation.  I think that's still a very valid response to science- to consider the wonders of the world, and to let that lead us to praise of God (although I wouldn't say that it forces you to believe in a God).

And science and technology have, of course, made life better for humanity, with medical advances saving lives and improving many people's quality of life, while technology has made the world a much smaller place by helping us communicate and travel faster than our ancestors would have thought possible.  How have we done this?  By using that piece of tissue that scientists still struggle to understand: the human brain, another part of God's creation.

So it's not really down to us.  Not that I want to take away from the men and women who have made amazing discoveries or leaps forward.  But neither do I think we should scorn (as some Christians do) modern technology or medicine, because it is the product of humanity, not God.  It is through the intelligence that God has given that these advances have been made, and the products of them are (mostly) to be thankful for.  This does not, of course, absolve us from the responsibility to be good stewards of this planet that is our home.  We have to ensure that skills and technologies are used for good, not for bad.  But overall, I'm grateful for their existence.

Digital Gospel

Those who read my last post will know that last weekend I was away at a conference of Scripture Union, an organisation which resources and works with the church to help them reach out to the community, particularly among children and young people.  Over the last couple of years SU has felt a particular calling to investigate ways of using 'technology' (ie the internet) to do this, and a lot of money and effort has gone into digital projects like WordLive, designed to help individuals engage with the Bible; and LightLive, which provides resources for youth and children's leaders.

During one of the meetings one of the members of the council expressed a concern that these days technology moves on so fast that we could end up investing in something only to find that by the time it was complete it would already be obsolete.  For example, are books going to be made obsolete by ebooks?  Could something like GoogleWave render ways of communicating by email, skype and social networking sites useless?

I thought about this, and wondered if actually we should be concerned about something slightly different.  In the past, there was generally only one method of doing things- if you wanted to speak to someone you telephoned their landline, if you wanted to send them documents you used the postal system.  Today, there are many ways to communicate- you can speak to someone by landline or mobile, via skype, or send them a text message, IM or email, or send a message via a social networking site like Twitter.  If you want to share a document you can use the post, fax, email, or upload it to Google Docs where you can collaborate on it instantly.

Perhaps we can look at the entertainment market for an example of what communication might look like in the future.  When TV began to become widespread there were fears that it might kill off radio and cinema.  It didn't.  Radio and cinema changed the way they did things, but they survived.  VCR recorders and tapes have survived long past the introduction of DVD's because they possessed something DVD's didn't- the ability to record and wipe- and are only now being supplanted by DVD recorders and hard drive recorders.  DVD's are in turn under threat from BluRay, but are likely to be around for some time yet.

So rather than one thing directly replacing another, it seems to me that what we're looking at for the future is a multiplicity of methods of communication.  That presents a different kind of challenge, as we have to work out how to communicate in many ways without increasing the costs or risking decreasing quality by spreading ourselves too thinly.  The alternative is to risk loosing touch with many users by only focusing on one or two methods, and potentially being trapped into servicing a diminishing market share.

So perhaps there is a need for caution.  But it's also an opportunity to potentially reach new users and to develop new ways of getting the message across.  Being too cautious is risky too.

P.S.  If you have any thoughts on this subject, I really would be interested to hear them.