Nikolas Thompson
Writing: Style, and Technology
March, 2003

Freer Speech, Online

    There was a time that, while sitting alone and aimless, I would wallow online searching for discussions and information about Bob Dylan -- a musician whose work spoke great meaning to me. My haven within this interest became Google’s online newsgroup: rec.music.dylan. I was interested in such things as opinions (about songs -- their meaning and quality), information (lyrics and history), and general impressions and stories that I, as a fellow fan, could relate to. After frequenting the group for several months I realized something. Rarely did the discussion at rec.music.dylan have anything to do with Bob Dylan. Out of frustration I stopped visiting the newsgroup.
    Recently I logged back on to rec.music.dylan, however this time, I entered with an interest separate from fanmanship. I came to the newsgroup as an observer interested in the nature of online discussions, and perhaps to a greater extent, interested in the group’s reflection of the nature of off line communication and social characteristics. After a month of observation I realized that online discourse (at least within rec.music.dylan) is a distorted reflection of actual social hierarchies and communication patterns. This reflection is distorted by a few important characteristics: 1) Everyone is anonymous. 2) Posted writing is permanent. 3) There are no social consequences (as long as you don’t mind having virtual enemies). What follows is a study of the uniqueness of online communication.

Characteristics of Online Writing
   
    It’s worth noting some technical/stylistic aspects of online discourse that set it apart from most other forms of written and oral communication. Postings to newsgroups are in many ways similar in style to communication done via e-mail. Standard grammatical rules involving such things as punctuation and capitalization take a back seat to the immediate nature of online communication. This immediacy is specific to online writing. No other platform allows the written word to reach millions, instantly. This instantaneousness breeds its own set of grammatical rules (or non-rules) that are very different from the rules of standard written discourse.
    Capitalization online is often used not to signal proper nouns and sentence beginnings, but rather to impose a sense of increased volume or to draw visual attention to a important point. (For the latter think of capitalization replacing the use of underlining which is unavailable to online text formatting). For example, observe how BlindWillieCanSmell uses capitalization to emphasize certain words in a post he wrote on March 3rd, 2003 regarding a Dylan song’s usage in a new Victoria’s Secret commercial.
                       
                        “When you record a song like UNION SUNDOWN, and then use
                    Love Sick to ENDORSE slave labor in the textile industry -- you see who the
                    true moron really is. This is why I have said for years that Bob truly
                    doesn't stand for ANYTHING or ANYONE. He's just a guy with songs in his
                    head. No more, no less.”

    Capitalization rules are also often neglected all together. Certain posters within rec.music.dylan have a tendency to post comments written entirely in either lower case or in upper case characters. RainyDayMan offered such as post on March 1st, 2003.

                        “sorry...i dont respect that opinion one bit.”

    The tendency seems to be that more posters neglect capitalization than overuse it. Overall, most messages within the newsgroup used proper capitalization.
    Punctuation works differently as well, however its use (and misuse) often has a less deliberate purpose than capitalization. The most obvious online difference is the rampant omission of punctuation in general. Omission should not be attributed to laziness or carelessness, but instead as the consequence of online immediacy. Proper punctuation takes time, and when faced with reading and responding to dozens of postings, time is often too valuable to waste on commas and periods. However what is gained in terms of time, usually comes at a cost to clarity and credibility. Posts without punctuation can be surprisingly hard to read, and they also draw a reader’s attention away from the writer’s point. If the subject matter is serious, or if the post is an argument of some sort, sloppy punctuation can seriously deface the value of the writer’s position. On February 25th, 2003 OnlyAHobo wrote a post void of punctuation, and consequently hard to follow.

                        “geez lighten up if he was sitting around in his hotel room eating an
                    apple it wasn't like this call ruined his whole day by keeping him from
                    something more important the guy didn't ask any stupid intrusive
                    questions he didn't ask for autographs or souvenirs he didn't fawn and he
                    kept it short it was a silly shot in the dark that happened to pay off
                    dylan probably forgot about it two minutes later give the guy a break”

    Sometimes a poster will use punctuation in a different manner than is usual. Typical changes in punctuation usage include the frequent replacement of commas or parenthesis with hyphens or dashes.
    Another stylistic difference online is the use of abbreviations, emoticons, and other forms of electronic shorthand. Abbreviations are used to shorten words or phrases that are used with such frequency that they don’t necessarily need to be written out each time used. In the context of newsgroups, abbreviation use is frequent due to the repetitive nature of thread subject or language. On rec.music.dylan, it is presupposed that visitors are familiar with the titles of all of Dylan’s albums and most of his song names, especially those most famous. Rather than refer to the album, Bringing It All Back Home,BIABH. Instead of referring to Dylan’s most famous (perhaps) song by its full title, Like A Rolling Stone, fans use LARS instead. For an outsider this shorthand would be immensely confusing, but it causes little trouble for those who know Dylan’s work, and for those who visit the sight often. It may be worth noting that in the case of Dylan’s masterpiece album Blonde On Blonde, the assumed acronym BOB would be problematic (for obvious reasons). Instead most posters use BoB (lowercase ‘o’) in its place.
    A second system of abbreviation at use at rec.music.dylan involves abbreviated jargon. For instance, to demonstrate a humorous reaction to a post, a responder may write LOL (short for Laugh Out Loud). This form of abbreviation is used throughout electronic communication platforms, and is therefore more familiar and much easier to decipher than album/song title abbreviations. For whatever reason, jargon abbreviation is not all that common at rec.music.dylan.
A final piece of electronic shorthand found at rec.music.dylan is the emoticon. Emoticons are punctuation-symbol combinations that resemble a facial caricature. For example, a colon followed by an end parenthesis resembles a smiling face, : ). A semicolon adds a wink to the face, ; ). These symbols, like the jargon abbreviation, began outside of rec.music.dylan, and are common tools of online communication. Also, like jargon acronyms, emoticons were rarely used by posters to the group.
    The nature of communication online is peculiar for several reasons. We’ve already been through some specific changes in usage that add to the uniqueness. It’s also worth considering that most interaction is done between strangers. Additionally, communication is not carried out in typical one-on-one fashion. An individual’s post is written for the eyes of thousands. Perhaps the most important characteristic of online communication (within newsgroups) is permanence. Regardless of the rashness, the carelessness, or even the accidental nature of a post, it is preserved online forever. This permanence changes the nature of the discourse. Most posts are less sloppy than sidewalk small talk. Even while utilizing time saving measures such as jargon and emoticons, posts incorporate a thoughtfulness uncommon to verbal communication between strangers.

Discussion at rec.music.dylan

    In a perfect internet world Bob Dylan fans would stop by rec.music.dylan to discuss music, rave about concerts, and socialize in a healthy, helpful, and above all friendly manner. Much like real life the internet is far from perfect, and discussion at rec.music.dylan is scattered, off topic, and generally hostile. After a month’s worth of monitoring I divided the group’s threads into three categories based on topic: Dylan related, political discussion, and other (such as a series of posts about classical music, and a fair number of posts about specific contributors to rec.music.dylan). I found that only about a quarter of the newsgroup’s threads involved discussion linked directly to Dylan. The nature of the Dylan related threads varied, however the discussions they induced were typically informative and polite. Sample Dylan related topics include: That Damn Voice, Does Dylan Play Tetris?, and Bob & The Concept Albums. More telling of the group’s off topic nature (than the previously cited thread count bias) is the fact that the non-Dylan related threads easily received the most attention from the group. On average, threads of discussion based in some way on Dylan’s music received five posts of response and comment. Threads having little to do with Dylan typically received twenty responses. During the period of my attention there were four threads that elicited more than seventy five responses - none involved Bob Dylan, and all involved politics. Politically motivated posts easily dominated the newsgroup. About fifty percent of the threads were politics based, while the remaining twenty-five percent fell into the other category. That posters at rec.music.dylan often discuss matters other than Bob can be easily attributed to the fact that after forty-two years and forty-five albums, much Bob based discussion is worn out. On the rare occasion that Dylan makes the news or releases a song or album, posters at rec.music.dylan quickly take up conversation. This leaves plenty of down time which group members seem to gladly fill with talk of other issues, especially political.

War of the Words

    Like most newsgroups rec.music.dylan is meeting place for people who share a specific interest. What makes the newsgroup unique is the manner in which visitors converse. Already mentioned was the group’s tendencies towards punctuation and capitalization, the posters’ use of abbreviations for commonly used and understood terms, and the general avoidance of jargon use and emoticons. The newsgroup’s habit of non-Dylan related conversation has also been noted as an example of the group’s character. However what really stands out about the discourse at rec.music.dylan is the ornery, hostile, and quite cruel nature by which group members interact. While half of the threads involve political issues, and a few involve concert reviews and song discussions, nearly eighty percent of the threads include viscous and contemptible verbal warfare. On average, one out of every four posts contains insulting, ridiculing language. The actual topic of the thread doesn’t seem to matter much at all. Whether about Dylan or current events, posters rarely set their verbal guns aside. As an example of the community’s eagerness to criticize, consider a series of posts I monitored early in the project. The posts came on the day of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. I logged onto rec.music.dylan to find a long thread devoted to a discussion about the tragedy. The lead post’s subject line quoted a Dylan song, reading: Oh, man has invented his doom... The poster, GR, finished the lyric in the body of the post: “...first step was touching the moon...” That’s all that GR wrote. I remember really appreciating that post when I first read it. It was a simple sentiment, free of any partial opinion, borrowing a specific song line that everyone at rec.music.dylan would recognize, and allowing everyone to take it as they like. I don’t know if GR was a regular contributor to the group, but I am relatively sure that he was not prepared for the nature of the posts that followed. The first response, posted by Chris Lee a few hours later, was rather tame.

                        “I knew it was a matter of time before someone was going to drag that one out.”

    This was, however, only the beginning. Moments later another post, this time from Drew, popped onto the thread, reading:

                        “Yeah, fuck you lame ass. By placing that quote out of context you’re basically                             putting words in Dylan’s mouth. He and I resent that.”

    And then, from RaggedClown:
                       
                        “Keep your fucking quips to yourself...Dammit!”
    And from RasberryReturns:

                        “Drew, you are such an asshole. How do you know what Dylan resents? By                                   implying his resentment, you are also putting words where they don’t belong. Can’t                         you see that? Are you that fucking thick? Eat shit.”

    As I read these responses I couldn’t help but to feel dismayed. Often at rec.music.dylan it seems as though people are just waiting for someone to go off on. Whether by coincidence or as a result of the backlash created by his initial post, GR did not make any additional comments during the time I monitored the group.
    By far the most hostile and viscous posts occur during politically related threads. Considering that fifty percent of the posts at rec.music.dylan involve politics, the anger written within these threads overwhelms the general atmosphere of the group. Most ridicule is extensive and well written. The permanence of online communication allows group members to spend long periods of time nitpicking each others posts, and articulating critical responses. Imagine if candidates in a presidential debate were given twenty-four hours to respond to questions and accusations by the opponent. The responses would be calculated and scathing. The sound bite caliber rhetoric would fly. This is the nature of political debate at rec.music.dylan. The practice of debating involves careful dissection of, and quoting from, the advisory's comment. For example on February 8th, 2003, Sean Carrol posted a response in which he quoted from, and then directly responded to a Robert Andrews post. The debate was over US war plans with Iraq. Carrol’s words are printed in white, while Andrews’ appear in yellow.
                       
                        “ >It's arbitrary where you're born, but to some extent a matter of choice where you                     decide to live.
                        For the rich, yes. Not for the poor, and most people are poor. How exactly is a                               destitute family desperately trying to find their next meal supposed to be able to get a                         plane ticket or a passport and go on a nice trip to another country?
                        >Big difference between military dictatorships & Western democracies.
                        Yes. The difference is that the bourgeois 'democracies' -- which are not democracies                     at all, but merely republics of commercialist oligarchy -- are more clever at covering                         up their dictatorship by dressing it up in phony-baloney legal bullshit that makes it                             sound like it's fair. ('Everyone is free to walk to wherever they want, but if your legs                         have been cut off you're on your own, buddy.') Also, the more open dictatorships use                         murder and torture and armed repression on their own citizens, whereas the Western                         republics try to keep all that blatant thuggery directed at foreigners -- like, say, Iraqis                     and Afghans.
                        >I don't share these blanket condemnations of all "rulers" (or for that matter, all                             "people"). Distinctions should be made between systems of government & national                             leaders. Not every rock star is as sick & twisted as Michael Jackson, & not every head                     of state is as dangerous & ruthless as Saddam Hussein.
                        But you see, it's the power structure that matters... Not everyone in Iraq supports                             Saddam Hussein, but when the American bombs start falling under the pretence of                             deposing Hussein, they're not going to discriminate -- his opponents will die horribly                         right along with his supporters.”

    The detail of this discussion and the depth of the response is only possible within the confines of a newsgroup. Although this example is not particularly hostile it demonstrates a structure of debate at rec.music.dylan. While the language and attitudes may not always be polite, at least posters cannot interrupt each other.
    As some people who frequent the group post comments on a regular basis, rivalries spring up between posters. Since so much discussion at rec.music.dylan is based in politics, there are many such rivalries. Posts directed at rivals are easily the most vindictive. There is more than general dislike; some posters flat out hate each other. The best example of this online opposition comes from two enemy posters: BlindWillieCanSmell and Bill Goldman. Their relationship is so hostile that every post by BlindWillieCanSmell includes a signature made up of several insults to Bill Goldman. BlindWillieCanSmell’s signature reads:

                        “The Wisdom Of Bill Goldman:
                   ‘......a brain surgeon with no imagination is a pretty frightening thought; so if I stirred,                    say, under the anaesthetic, said brain surgeon wouldn't have the imagination to                                realise I might be coming round, and would just continue to cut up my brain by the                            book?’

                            Mr. Goldman,
                        ‘You are not in a position to complain about anyone insulting anyone or anyone else                     here being arrogant. In the past two hours alone, you have posted 11 times (8 times                             after saying you were gone) and 64 percent of your posts contained rather blatant                             insults. The arrogance goes without saying. In fact, since your return to this group a                         couple of weeks ago, your rather unfortunate posting history has been one of insults                         and arrogance from the start. Perhaps you should consider getting a life.’ (Peter Stone                     Brown)

                        BILL GOLDMAN: ‘Mr. Dylan, would you be able to one day write a song
                    specifically about ME?’
                    BOB: ‘Don't see why not. Lotsa words rhyme with wanker.’”

    This tag is included on every post written by BlindWillieCanSmell - every single post. It is made up of three separate insults. The first, a quote from Goldman. The middle portion is actually ridicule directed at Goldman by another poster: BlindWillieCanSmell uses Peter Stone Brown’s quote as if to infer a general dislike of Goldman. The final section is simply a joke penned by BlindWillieCanSmell. Bill Goldman protests this signature every chance he gets, but to no avail. It is a specific characteristic of atmosphere of rec.music.dylan.

The Rules are Different Online

    Without any doubt, socialization between people online is different than socialization off-line. The community at rec.music.dylan could never survive as, say, a weekly group event in a room at the public library. First of all, there would be no room big enough. Second of all, by meeting face to face, normal social conventions of politeness and appropriate language would kick in. Thirdly, there would be very little off topic debate. Overall the environment at Google’s rec.music.dylan newsgroup could only survive in an anonymous, electronic setting. The nature of the discourse in this group is a direct result of interconnectedness online. It is a telling example of what people say when there is no threat of social backlash.