Using libertarian means to help moderate an online community

What do you do when you are dedicated to anti-authoritarianism and direct action and someone decides to abuse the system for their own purposes? Here’s how simple peer-pressure solved one problem.

“Peer Pressure”
Image by Ninos_Gun via Flickr

It should be obvious to readers of the Division by Zer0 that I am a frequent user of Reddit for my source of news and online interaction. You may have also noticed that I am also generally hanging out a lot in the Anarchism subreddit as I find the community there quite vibrant and interesting to discuss with. Recently I’ve also been promoted to a moderator as this particular subreddit has a different policy on this issue to get around the potential abuse. This is a complex issue so I won’t go into it at this point as I simply wanted to mention that I ended up getting mod powers.

Now, there’s also a frequent topic of discussion on the subject of “Anarcho”-Capitalists who often come over from other parts of reddit, complain about the anti-capitalist sentiment of the Anarchism subreddit and usually proceed to downvote all pro-socialist articles and submit pro-capitalist articles which are quickly downvoted. Nobody has ever been banned or moderated in any other way for doing this as we prefer to let the moderation happen naturally through the reddit system by the community.

We always had the possibility of moderation in case obvious problems occurred, such as spam accounts. Fortunately, the automated moderation of reddit never made this an issue, so most that the mods ever did was to unban people and posts mistakenly caught by the spam-filter. However just yesterday, this exact dilemma presented itself to me, as I caught one of the latest “Anarcho”-Capitalists to join had been obviously gaming the reddit system for his own purposes.

Now I had three options. The easy one would be to simply start banning his accounts from /r/Anarchism using my moderator powers. Another one would be to report the user to the Reddit moderators themselves for them to take action. However none of them felt right. Using either, would mean that I would have to use authoritarian means to solve the problem and this is something I wanted to avoid. So what is left for an Anarchist to do? Name & Shame.

Why use this method? Simply because I believe that someone who is so interested in making his position look right to an unsuspecting audience will be particularly susceptible to public humiliation once his underhanded tactics were brought to the fore. Not only that, but it would also provide the evidence to use against him pointing to his “public approval” in the form of upvotes as an argument as he was known to do.

And it didn’t take long. Just today I noticed all his accounts have been deleted along with his main one. True, I cannot know for sure that it was indeed him and not the Reddit moderators that finally caught up with him, but as he stopped writing soon after I called him out on the sockpuppetry and he also received scolding PMs from his fellow AnCaps I believe it must have been his own decision.

For me, this was a great example of how moderation of a community can happen even without authoritarian means such as moderation or banning.It shows that even in an online forum with anonymous aliases, where very little outside IRL crimes can get back to bite you in the arse, peer-pressure can be enough to force someone who misbehaved to voluntary “exile”. It shows that simply by public condemnation or activities we wish to discourage, the community can moderate itself and avoid “benevolent dictators” or a bureaucracy.

The sad part in all of this, is all the people who, when reported, jumped in to his defence. Accusations of me bring an “Alarmist”, “Propagandist” and whatnot started flying, even in the face of undeniable evidence of wrongdoing and no actual “force” from my end. It is sad that the simple act of trying to direct peer pressure to a good cause (ie, stopping abuse of the system) must be labeled as “Propaganda” or other such nonsense. This is like the fear of public opinion I was talking about before which in my mind is an excuse for wanting to act like a jerk or of preferring to use authoritarian means.

For me, this experiment in libertarian action has been a success and gives me faith that if this can work even in an environment where peer-pressure is weak by design, it can surely work wonders in real life.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Can self-moderation of a game community reduce abuse and dickwadery?

Can a game community repair its internal social relation through self-moderation or is it doomed to fucktardery by the few. I believe the concept of Direct Action can help.

PA's Greater Internet Dickwad theoryI’ve recently entered the beta for an upcoming DotA (almost-)clone called Heroes of Newerth (HoN) when I discovered through reddit giving away 100 of ’em for the most absurd names (I submitted the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course). I always wanted to play the DotA experience but I didn’t have Warcraft3 available and Demigod is quite different from it (and a bit disappointing as well). Plus, having a native GNU/Linux client was an offer I couldn’t resist. 😉

But what does this have to do with the title above? Well one of the main issues that DotA has is the sheer number of elitist assholes who heave tons of abuse at people trying to learn the ropes or even just don’t play perfectly. I am talking total nerd-rage here. Unfortunately, this mentality seems to have migrated to the HoN community, most likely because it’s been marketed as the intellectual sequel to DotA (Items and Heroes are almost the same).

While this general level of fucktardery is not such a big issue in a free mod such as DotA, for a commercial game with developers to pay and with big plans for the future, it might make or break their life-expectancy. The less people that are interested in nurturing and increasing their “newbie scene”, the less people will stick around until they won’t be at a level where they suffer abuse simply for not having climbed the (very steep) learning curve.

As I was reading similar sentiments from other people in the fora, I got to thinking on how those who would like to help new players might overcome this obstacle and alleviate, if not reduce the rampart dickwadery. While technical solutions might be proposed and coded, such as improving the match-making system, I think the solution lies in direct action and cooperation from the community.

Of course the community cannot take very good action without the game presenting at least some tools to combat the problem, which is incidentally why the DotA community is what it is. Fortunately, even at this beta stage, the game has some controls that could be used for such purposes. Permaban and Ignore. If I understand the first one correctly, one can mark a specific account as always banned from games one hosts. Ignore just…well, ignores chat messages from a particular player.

So how can these two be used for self-moderation? My idea was through a blacklist. Lets say that a known newbie-friendly player (lets call him/her a ‘Mentor’) while playing in a newb-only game, discovers that one of his team members is constantly ranting and cursing at the others for being worthless, n00bs, sucky and whatnot. The Mentor then, grabs a few screencaps or a replay as evidence of this and adds the dickwad’s alias to a blacklist he maintains. This can be as simply as a blog with each new post being about a particular dickwad and a full list in a prominent location.

Now all the other people who have a likewise mentality, ie they like to promote a healthier community are subscribed to this blacklist. Each time a new person is added to it, people judge the evidence and if solid ((Although of course, if the Mentor or the maintainers of the blacklist are trusted, many will not even need to look at the evidence)), they add this account to their permaban and ignore lists. If just a 10% of the HoN people are subscribed to this blacklist, then the abusive players are going to quickly start running into problems joining games or talking to people.

The effects of this tactic would be akin to peer pressure in a normal social situation. Suddenly the dickwads are going to find out that being a jerk online has some drawbacks. Hopefully some might reconsider as generally, not being a dickwad is not so difficult. They should be then given a chance to take themselves out of the blacklist (probation time?) and who knows, maybe they’ll join the other side for a change.

So why is this better than simply using system based changes? Well first of all because no programmed system is perfect, especially at catching such vague concepts as dickwadery. Matchmaking may not work well enough and options to mark others as abusive (say via a game function like permaban) may in turn be abused themselves for griefing purposes. On the other hand, a self-moderated solution avoids these issues.

Let’s say for example that someone was added to the dickwads blacklist but some think this was wrong. Perhaps his frustration was warranted, or there is not enough evidence and whatnot. What would probably happen is that not all subscribers to the blacklist would add him as they wouldn’t feel he deserves it. As such his “pain” would be much less. Dialogue will be also had and perhaps more evidence requested.

Lets have another example where the Mentor goes on a power trip and starts adding people he doesn’t like to the blacklist without evidence just because he expects to be trusted. Seeing as this is not anything official, nothing would prevent people from calling him out on this, a new blacklist forked from the old under the supervision of another Mentor or even a collaboration of them and the old Mentor might quickly find himself in a prominent position in the new blacklist.

All of these then are ideas that might work to allow a game community to self-moderate itself to a healthy environment which is conductive to new people joining, without requiring any authoritarian measures on the part of the developers or the moderators. Rather it would be based on direct action by the members themselves and as such far less prone to corruption, who would then get the community they deserve.

Who knows, If I stick around with HoN once it comes out (curse my short attention span) I might actually start this for the heck of it. Just to see if a purely community driven initiative can make a difference. It would be an interest test to put some of my principles under. 😉

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Email: Divided between Communism and Anarchism

A reader contacts me about his dichotomy between communism and anarchism. I think his PoV deserves some more publicity as it points, I believe, to a common question most outside the scene have.

red red red flags
Image via Wikipedia

Recently someone sent me an email letting me know that he likes the content of the Division by Zer0 (Thanks!). Along with his email, he sent some of his own musings which I found interesting enough to deserve some extra publicity. So I got his permission to post them on the blog. Enjoy.


Why I’m divided between “communism” and “anarchism”

By Scott

I have been, for the last few years of my life, moving radically leftward, from my rather innocuous beginnings as a “Trotskyist” to simply a “Marxist” to being labeled a “Left-Communist” to where I am now, which is on the fence between “communist” and “anarchist”. Both sides have their influences; the “communist” side has given me a strong respect for Marx’s historical analyses, as well as his critiques of the Capitalist system, among other things, while the “anarchist” side has given me the example to live by, for many anarchists are “lifestyle” anarchists, living their lives as withdrawn from the capitalist system as possible. Their world-wide actions (notably the recent “unrest” in Greece, along with the French riots a few years ago) have made world powers shake with fear, governments almost collapse, and the entire world watched as cars burned and the streets were controlled by police no more.

So what am I to do?

I believe that the best solution is simply to ignore these labels and be reminded of what is important: ending capitalism’s reign of terror. All who oppose the horrors of capitalism must work together under that banner, not as “communists”, not as “anarchists”, but as people who believe in the survival of humanity, and who believe that humanity cannot survive under the conditions of imperialism, oppression and slavery. What you want to add to that (from environmentalism to animal rights to “power to the people” to whatever else) is up to you. But we who oppose capitalism must not be divided by these ideological differences. Even the most dogmatic of communists from the same party cannot agree on everything, so why should we try? Instead, we should act. An action carries only the message that is put behind it, and a Leninist and an anarchist can both protest against imperialism in the 3rd world. They can both protest against the treatment of workers in many workplaces. They can both agree that community activism is a good thing. So why can’t they work together? We’ll sort out our differences (in a comradely fashion) when capitalism is no longer our enemy. Until that time, though, we must focus on our common struggles.


Truth is that I’ve had similar thought myself but the more I read and interact with Marxist-Leninists, the more stark the differences become between us. While theoretically what Scott says seems reasonable, the problem appear very soon once one tries to actually cooperate as it’s all a matter of how each movement tries to go about bringing down Capitalism.

The biggest difference imho is how one side (M-L) wants a vanguard party to lead the struggle while the other wants the revolution to occur through spontaneous and decentralized actions of the workers. There can be no agreement on this point. Anarchists cannot commit to promoting a vanguard party and M-L very often refuse to support and occasionally oppose struggle which is not led by them.

It is exactly because the methods by which we try to achieve the future society will make or break the revolution that there can be no cooperation when there’s a fundamental difference in tactics. It is exactly because the difference in tactics between Anarchists is not fundamental that they generally cooperate while on the other hand distance themselves from Marxist-Leninists and Rothbardians.

So as nice it would be for all of us to cooperate to bring about a better world, there’s also a reason why this doesn’t generally happen. The best we can do instead is patiently explain and convince people that our tactics are the ones that can work.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Is Public Opinion oppressive?

Will taking away laws defined by the state turn society into a totalitarian nightmare as Orwell had thought. I point out why this is scaremongering and highly unlikely.

Public Opinion
Image by Son of Groucho via Flickr

The Barefoot Bum posts a passage from George Orwell criticizing Anarchism for its apparent tendency for transparent totalitarianism. For Orwell and TBB, people acting as per the social norms is the worst kind of dictatorship, while having actual dictators who tell you what you cannot do is “obviously” far superior, because among the things you can do, you have more freedom.

First, lets take a step back and see how our current society works. Is it true that people in the current society only live according to what they cannot do? Do they abide by the few restrictions and then go wildly in all directions on everything else? Even a casual observation of society shows the falsity of such a view.

Truth is, people do currently abide by social norms and public opinion to a large degree. Do you see people running naked around? Do you see people making physical contact with strangers (at least in western society)? There’s a lot of things people do not do, even though the freedom is there. Is this totalitarianism? Of course some people still do “eccentric” acts even when it goes against the public opinion, but it is a baseless assertion to claim that the same would not happen in Anarchism. Why not?

In fact, there is nothing that would stop this. A social rules and laws are not black and white. It’s not that we have some definite laws and then freedom. It’s that we have a gradual scale of rules which move in the intensity of social disapproval. We start from simple etiquette, progress through unwritten rules and eventually reach the definite “laws” that one is not allowed to break. All the rules in this scale are decided via public opinion. Yes. including Laws. Laws do not spring up from nothingness, nor are they inherent rules of the universe that some “bright minds” have discovered.

The distinguishing thing is that the power to decide the unbreakable rules in an authoritarian system (such as any statist system, from Representative Democracy to a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship) is granted only to a privileged few. The original and basic laws that will be passed (such as respect for human life etc) will be based on pre-existing social rules of the same type and thus will seem natural, but many of the rest of the laws will be decided arbitrarily by the ruling elite and may even come in opposition to the public opinion. The rest of the social norms, such as etiquette or unwritten rules will remain in the enforcement of the public, as has always been the case.

Now the fallacy that Orwell is commiting is to assert that if the ruling elite is taken away, if the power to decide the laws is taken away from the few, then all social rules will become laws. That is, people will start treating rules of etiquette with the same contempt and opposition as murder. This is the only way that one can be forced out of eccentricity and conform with every rule the public opinion decides.

But this is absurd. There is nothing to make us believe that if the power to decide and enforce the strictest rules (laws) in a society is decentralized, there will be no gradual scale and no freedom anymore. This is a mental jump that just makes no sense to take.

In Anarchism then, the only difference from an authoritarian system is who hold the power to decide and enforce the laws. The statist will tell you that it’s better for the enlightened few to make those decisions but I don’t think I need to point out the utopianism of the  “enlightened few” concept. The Anarchist will tell you that since laws are in any case taken from what the public opinion already does, it makes no sense to take this power away from the people.

To do so is to simply invite abuse and stagnation into our society. Abuse from those who would pass arbitrary laws only to benefit themselves and stagnation from making it difficult to modify the laws when public opinion does not agree with them in the same intensity anymore (for example a law becoming an unwritten rule, such as in the case of nudity.)

To allow the public to decide its rules is not to have absolute conformity with the public opinion as this is impossible for the non-major things. For public opinion includes every one of us and all of us. The less important the act, the more diverse and therefore weak this “public opinion” becomes.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Vestas workers now besieged and starved by police.

Help the Vestas occupation continue. Take direct action and prevent them being driven out by force or hunger. The time to act is NOW people!

A critical point has been reached in the recent Vestas turbine factory occupation, as now the occupying workers have been fenced in by security guards and supporters trying to bring in food are being prevented and arrested by the police.

Things seem to progressing quite fast on that front.The reaction of the managers an the state has been swift and it has managed to prevent the initial organization of the workers of progressing any further towards a more solidified occupation or possible takeover. I do not know what to make of this really. Is it possible that the UK is actually taking notice of places like Argentina and being pre-emptive about it?

In any case, the latest development is disheartening. Unless the police and security grip on the factory is broken, the occupation is certain to reach an abrupt end once hunger takes over. People are already demonstrating in various ways they can to the government officials but this is unlikely to do any good if the workers are forced out of the factory either by force or hunger. What they really need now I believe is direct action on the premises. People must band together to either reinforce the workers or manage to pass them food. If this requires tearing down the fence so be it.

So I urge you, if you’re a socialist activist and live within driving distance of the location, consider going there for hand-on support. Contact the radicals in your area and urge them to put their words into action. If the occupation of Vestas progresses to something favourable then it might provide a spark and incentive for other UK workers. If not, an opportunity will have been lost.

Follow updates on the Vestas occupation from their blog.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

A way to help the third world without charity

Kiva is a Microfinance project which aims to help alleviate poverty in the third world. I think it’s a small step in the right direction and worthy of our support.

Image representing Kiva as depicted in CrunchBase
Image via CrunchBase

Through one of reddit’s recent advert campaigns, I’ve come to discover Kiva, a non-profit project trying to alleviate poverty through micro-financing of entrepreneurs in (mostly) third world or developing nations. It’s quite an interesting attempt at this issue really. While Micro-financing (MFI) is not something novel anymore, the idea of utilizing the Internet to make it very easy for distributed people all over the world to provide credit for particular causes.

This is in fact I believe the most important part. While MFIs are quite a worthwhile way to provide credit to those falling between the cracks of the financial system, it must have been quite difficult for people with some spare money to contribute to it. Kiva is the necessary step which finally makes it easy to connect those with money, to those who will distribute it. That it adds a personal touch and a sense of connection of lender to borrower is just the icing to the cake.

The thing I like the most about Kiva is that this is not a charity. While there is a general charitable aspect of it – specifically in the sense that lenders do not receive interest on their loans and have a risk of losing some of their money – as a whole the concept is made so that people get a chance to receive funds for their purpose (whether entrepreneurship or personal) and then return it as a whole but on better terms.

Why is this noteworthy? For me, it’s quite important not to be a charity event as I consider charity to be the wrong way to go about solving poverty issues. I won’t get into a lot of details but in a few words it insults both charitor and beneficiary and it promotes a passive and victim mentality. Nothing really an Anarchist likes to promote. On the opposite side, the Kiva and MFIs at least push people to find a way to put the money to good use and then be able to repay it. If trains people to solve their problems with those of us who have it better giving the leg up.

And this is the most important part. Simply giving money to the poor in order to get them from one day to the next is just hiding the problem under the carpet. Helping the poor overcome their problems with their own solutions and empowering them to continue thinking this way is the important thing.  And I believe Kiva is a small step in the right direction.

Of course, compared to what should happen to finally resolve the problem of poverty, MFI is a drop in the ocean. However in a world where those of us who want to help feel so helpless to do so, the idea of helping people learn to stand on their own two legs is something.

So initially I was quite furtive in my first loan. I only gave out 25$ to one person and waited to see what would happen. Well, today I am glad to say I got 1.2$ of those back from the first return. Once I have it all back, I’ll be able to use it then to refinance someone else or even the same person if needed. This, along with me recently proposing to some rich online person to join Kiva as well, gave me the incentive to put my hand a bit deeper in my pocket and also to spread the word. Hence, this post.

kiva-redditThere’s also some other interesting thoughts about Kiva I’ve made. For example, one can also withdraw their money once its been returned. This means that one can theoretically use Kiva as a kind of savings account as well, in a sense hitting two birds with one stone. Both doing something about poverty and also having a small modicum of diversified security. Sure, it’s not getting interest and you may lose part of it, but it’s so spread out that it’s unlikely you’ll lose a lot and furthermore you can personally manage its risk to an extent and I am assuming it’s safe from bank runs.  Just an idea anyway.

This post wouldn’t be complete without me mentioning what I think is the biggest criticism about Kiva: Interest rates.

You see, while Kiva does not charge any interest rates for giving the money, the partners who actually are in contact with the borrower and serve as the intermediary between Kiva and entrepreneur, do charge an interest, and this interest can go quite high. To the tune of 50% even! On average, at the time of writing, Kiva has an average interest rates from partners of 23% but this varies wildly. I’ve seen 1% as well.

While Kiva does a pretty good job of explaining why MFI interest rates are so high, one also needs to consider that the interest rate sharpness is relative. While in comparison to the developed world they are astronomical, compared to their local money lenders, the interest rates are downright free. Local money lender average is at around 86% and I’ve noticed a lot of areas where it’s over 100%! So I think if someone really needs a loan, an interest rate of 70% less than one would get through local channels is a much better help.

Of course this does not mean that all partners have it so high. One can easily discover those who have it as low as 4% or even 1% and since Kiva provides the capability to search by partner, one can easily just look and provide loans with the lowest interest rates possible. Of course, you shouldn’t expect to be able to find such partners on areas with high risk and poverty as that would simply be not sustainable. Personally I prefer to use the word search and look for “coop”. This way I usually find entrepreneurs who are having a cooperative as a partner, which at least tells me that the money I give out is not going to fund worker exploitation for profit.

I think Kiva is a very nice idea and certainly a step in the right direction. It’s not the most radical of concepts but every little bit counts. I also like the idea that as a movement, it can also combine the powers of both the left and the right spectrum of libertarianism. Both those of us who want to do out little bit to fight poverty without insulting those we help and those of us who want to spread entepreneurship values.

Oh, and as a bonus fact, Kiva also supports groups. This means that when you lend money, you can do it as part of a group of people. And would you know which people are the ones who have lent out more and by a large margin? Atheists 😉

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Must-see documentary: We Feed the World

How globalization is ruining the food industry, causing starvation and destroying the environment. All for profit, while causing more and more people to starve.

Just finished watching this sombering documentary. I’m now oscillating between anger and mild depression. I also want to slap the CEO of Nestlè silly. I can’t recommend it enough. Just find it and watch it.

[youtube]ssP_Bjh6kK0[/youtube]

Can’t say more right now really. Too upset, especially since I keep bumping into apologists of this rotten system.

Why are there so many Right-Libertarians online?

The English-speaking internet seems to be chock full of free market ideologues and apologists of Capitalism. What is it that makes it such a fertile environment?

Internet! Right there!
Image by asleeponasunbeam via Flickr

Here’s the thing, the more I enter into political debates and discussions online, the more I notice the very large presence of people who would be classified to be on the “Libertarian” right. That includes proponents of Austrian Economics, Randroids, Ron Paul Stormtroopers, “Anarcho”-Capitalists and the occasional crypto-“Libertarian” Conservative/Republicans.

The weird thing about this, is how common they are, in the English speaking part of the net at least, compared to how scarce they are IRL. Before I went political on the net, I spent the better part of a decade without even encountering one such person, even though I found it impossible to not meet Communists or Anarchists. But online, the roles are reversed. Right-“Libertarians” and general proponents of Free Markets are dime a dozen, while one is hard pressed to find the occasional outspoken Anarchist or Communist in discussion boards or any other non-partisan location.

Obviously there is something in the Internet which gives the vulgar proponent of capitalism an advantage over their actual representation, at least in political debates. I’ve written in the past on why Conservatives are so few online, so I might as well throw my half-arsed opinion on the proliferation of this ideology.

1. The internet is full of IT geeks

Why is this important? Well IT geeks tend to generally be smart and extremely rational as these are aspects of personality which would make someone like stuff like programming and gaming. Incidentally these are the kind of interests that make people less social and more individualist. We are all familiar with the concepts of the lone gamer or the asocial programmer in his parent’s basement and while these are far from the norm, the archetype was not achieved without any basis in reality.

Then there’s the fact that the Internet and IT technology is extremely young, disruptive and on which comprehensive barriers to entry have not yet been erected by the big players. All of these as a result allow any geek with a dream of success to try his hand at a start-up with very little upfront cost, especially since the means of production are, if not free (such as programming languages), at worst very affordable.

Ther result of this mix, is a culture where it seems as if the smartest and more capable are the ones that can succeed. Add to this the obvious lack of government intervention and regulation of the online IT industry and one tends to draw the same conclusions: Rugged individualism works for the best.

In short, you have an environment skewed very much towards the progressive strata of society.

Unfortunately, these conclusions look at only half of the greater picture (eg, they ignore that it’s the workers which own the means of productions in this environment) and end up drawing the wrong conclusions. The current situation is quite similar on general with the pre-depression auto industry, when the economic boom and low maturity of the technology made it profitable for many to create cars. However it has little relation to the real world.

But for for asocial or antisocial IT geeks, the idea that looking at one’s immediate material self-interest is socially constructive and that the smartest will always prosper if the government doesn’t interfere makes obviously for a positive candidate for the right-libertarian ideology.

That is not to say of course that most geeks are right-“libertarians” or that most right-“libertarians” are geeks but it’s rather to point out the obvious fertile ground for such ideologies.

2. Economics

Mathematics is pure logic. It is the explanatory method we use to transfer arithmetic information and because of this it is quite interesting to those with more rational minds. This ties somehow with the first point above, specifically with the aspect of rationality that most geeks have.

But how does mathematics help increase the pool of right-“libertarians”? Economics.

Economics, at least the mainstream kind, attempts to describe reality through a mathematical perspective. As such, it promises to achieve a rational certainty that is impossible in any other social science. All the certainty of science, without any of that pesky scientific method or empirical evidence. All you need is to find the few irrefutable axioms and Bob’s your uncle.

It is then unsurprising that almost all right-“libertarians” you will meet online will at one occasion or other claim that you need to learn economics before you can argue with them. I’ve actually yet to meet a right-“libertarian” who’s advocacy of stateless (or minarchistic) capitalism does not follow from them accepting a particular economic school as correct.

3. Most people online are middle to upper class

This is pretty self-explanatory really. It is an obvious fact that those of us who can afford to waste time arguing and debating online, must come from the part of society which is well off enough to use it like this. The poor, the homeless and the exploited, in short, the vast majority of humans either do not have access to the Internet at all, and even if they do, it’s unlikely that they have enough time or interest to tackle with apologists of the system that is keeping them down.

As such, online discussions are generally full of middle-class progressives, students from better off families (which can afford them a PC and online connection) and the occasional struggling individualist who is annoyed at the guv’ment putting them down. Which is incidentally why you’re more likely to see a US Liberal (ie Social Democrat) vs Libertarian argument than anything else.

As the Internet is still a luxury for most, it is in fact those who’s life is on the better track which will be using it the most, and the perspective of those, is unlikely to understand the socialist point of view, as things are simply not bad enough.

4. English-speaking Internet is a USA (and friends) dominated zone

The last thing I believe adds to the popularity of this ideology is because most people who are active in the english-speaking online world are those who come from USA and the UK. This is understandable as those two nations especially have a hugely inflated middle class (see above).

Furthermore. both bastions of Capitalism and neoliberal policies. Especially US is so dominated by right-wing ideology where their whole political terminology needed to take a turn to the right as a whole so as to avoid the “Social Democrat” label.

Mix then the recent popularity of right-“libertarian” icons such as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Pen & Teller etc to the viral nature of Web2.0 and one can see what is cooking. It is precisely because of this recent rise of interest to the Free marketeer personas that more and more right-“libertarians” feel brave enough to state and argue for their chosen ideology.

Fortunately, this effect is mostly concentrated in the English speaking online world, as other nations have a far larger (and occasionally brighter) history with socialist movements. Unfortunately this means that those of us who have a international perspective cannot throw a virtual stone in an online location without hitting someone claiming that taxes are theft, greed is good or some other such nonsense.

So what is a socialist to do?

To tell the truth, in the English speaking online world there’s not much we can do. It’s impossible to do anything to reverse the turn towards the right political spectrum of UK and US  and as such we can expect their discussions to keep being dominated by “Liberals” and “Libertarians”. Two things are going to probably change the balance of opinions however. First the coming crisis is certainly going to make those who’s life is being turned upside down re-evaluate their positions. Those of them already used to the online interaction, might become allies.

Second, if the Capitalist system manages to persist, the Internet will slowly but surely start being dominated by larger and larger players (see: Google) which will lead to the classic barriers to entry starting to be erected. Perhaps it will take the form of removing or hijacking  “net-neutrality”. Perhaps it will be through “for the children” Internet censorship, but whatever it is, creating a start-up will not be as easy anymore. The obviousness of the progressive agenda will be weakened.

And finally, as the Internet is popularized more and more and the difficulty of getting online is reduced (See: netbooks and more cheap technology), the poor and downtrodden will find it easier to get online and state their opinion as well.

Of course, whether the Internet we will have by then will remain the same open environment we have now or transform into a politicized and propagandistic system such as the mass media is now, is another question altogether.

Whatever happens, it’s unlikely that it will serve as a bastion of right-“libertarians” forever.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Libertarians sappin' mah initiative

Anarchist’s a spy!

Damnit, the last few weeks I haven’t been able to blog of anything particular. I just don’t seem to have the energy for it. I am guessing that this is caused by my wasting too much time arguing online with various strains of Right-“Libertarians” (Rothbardians, Objectivists etc) which ends up eating all my interest in writing on the Division by Zer0. And that is sad.

I should probably stop and write something here instead. But then, I’m out of ideas.

Maybe I should write about the very high concentration of aforementioned right-“libertarians” online. Hmm….

EDIT: Something is breaking my theme. Ignore this sentence.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]