CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001 Online Deliberation Analysis/Reflection

Alaina Weinheimer

As technology is advancing, the ease of communication is a advancing. A major communication tool in this age of technology is the internet. On the internet strangers millions of miles apart can have a discussion. Aside from social media sites, email, and instant message, communication can take place through the comments of articles or forums on the internet. Sometimes the comments can lead to full out conversations between individuals. Trying to moderate an online discussion is not so easy. The internet creates an environment extremely different than that of a conference room discussion or a chat on the phone. I tried my hand at moderating a deliberation on three Rolling Stone articles and an article from The Huffington Post. For the most part, my attempts failed to promote a true deliberation. Overall, this experience showed me the challenges of having a deliberation on the internet. I made several attempts at starting an online deliberation either because previous attempts failed or no one responded to my comments. In total, I made four attempts. Each attempt panned out differently, so I am going to discuss each of them. I chose to comment on articles from the websites Rolling Stone and The Huffington Post because I was familiar with the content of some of the sites articles and the format of the websites made following a discussion very easy. I initially commented on a couple entertainment articles from The Rolling Stone because I have a decent knowledge of pop culture and felt most comfortable talking about these topics. I chose Rolling Stone over Entertainment or another entertainment news website because Rolling Stone is not entirely about the gossip. The articles arent about who is dating who or which celebrity is pregnant. I also noticed the organization of comments on the website. Following a discussion was very easy, and I saw examples of arguments on other articles. For those same reasons of ease in following a discussion and pre-existing discussions, I chose to comment on a Huffington Post article. I also chose to comment on a Huffington Post article because I knew there was green news section. I have some knowledge base in this topic, so I felt comfortable posting on environmental articles.

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

On the Rolling Stone site, I chose to comment on one article about Billie Joes visit to rehab and another article about the Star Wars cast signing on to more films before Lukefilms sale to Disney. Because Green Day has a huge fan base, I figured there would be mixed opinions about Billie Joes rehab visit. The Star Wars and Disney fan bases are also huge, so I expected to see some contention between the fan bases in the articles comments. I also commented on a political article about Rubio Marcos use of Jay-Z and Godfather quotes in his speech. As for The Huffington Post, I looked at the environmental news because I am somewhat comfortable discussing the environment. The article I chose centered Chinas secrecy about its soil pollution and its environmental problems in general. In short, I chose to comment on articles from the Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post because the sites provided articles with information I generally knew about and an ideal format for discussion. While the sites provided great environments for discussion, it was up to me, the commenter, to initiate these discussions. For the most part, my comments prompted a response; however, now that I reflect on my comments, I think they could have been tailored better to prompt a discussion. I could have posted more effective questions. My first attempt at deliberation was on the Billie Joe article.

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

The question I posed was whether or not Billie Joes family and friends should have prevented the guitarist from needing to go to rehab in the first place. (When I went to see if anyone had responded, I could not find the article. I returned to the article ten days later, because I figured out how

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

the posting system works on Rolling Stone ten days later. I was happy to find people responded. Unfortunately, it was too late for me to continue the discussion. I did post a comment, but no one responded.) My initial comment intended to become a deliberation about the level of involvement bandmates should have in one anothers lives. My pitfall was that I only presented one side of the claim, that the band should have been more involved when I referenced how the bandmates of Led Zeppelin lack of involvement may have contributed to the drummers death. I should have also interjected that sometimes a band is successful when the members are less tight knit. In fact, the space the members of Led Zeppelin gave each other contributed to their success. Had I presented the other side of the question explicitly, a deliberation about bandmates involvement with each other would have been more likely to occur. My second attempted at promoting deliberation was on the Star Wars article:

As I did at the end of my post on the Billie Joe article, I presented a few questions. I posed the questions of whether or not the prospective cast had a right to know about Lucasfilms sale to Disney and if the sale should even be a factor into their decision to join the films. The article made it sound like

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

the prospective cast was kept in the dark about the sale. Rereading the article after I got a response, I realized that the article simply talked about the cast signing before the Disney sale, but that did not necessarily mean the cast did not know about the Disney sale. Despite the reality that caused my comment to seem uninformed, my questions could have led to responses discussing the stigma that comes with being a part of Disney or the gamble of selling out, such as possibly losing fans and cast members. Unfortunately, my writing failed to promote any such discussion. Next, I commented on a political article.

This time I tried a more aggressive comment. I claimed that Senator Marco Rubio was trying to make show through his quoting of Jay-Z and The Godfather, rather than making a point in his speaking. This comment prompted responders to either agree or disagree. When someone disagreed with my statement, I came back with another article that supported my point. In order to continue the discussion, I asked another question because I didnt think my rebuttal rendered a response. I did receive another response, but the response caused the discussion to take a different direction, a direction I wasnt well-informed about so I did not continue the discussion. Perhaps, I could have done

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

more research on Rubio and then commented agreeing or disagreeing with that opinionated response on Rubio as a senator. In short, my initial post could have led to a discussion, but my follow-up post, unfortunately, led to a dead halt. My final attempt at moderating an online deliberation sunk like the Titanic:

My comment argued that working to have the Chinese disclose environmental information would be futile to improving the conditions. It is likely that no one responded because he or she did have anything to say in response. I didnt ask any questions. At the same time, I almost even disagree with my own post, so I imagine some readers must have disagreed with my argument, but just didnt respond. In short, I failed to receive any responses despite my controversial post. On the whole, I would say my online moderation skills need considerable improvement. I started out trying to moderate, but in my later attempts, I took on the role of deliberator. My moderator prompt in my first attempts managed to present a discussion point without any bias. In my first post about Billie Joe, though, I failed to point out the pros of the other side of the argument I presented. As I continued in pursuit of moderating an online deliberation, my skills weakened. In my

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

last two attempts, I realize now, I just stated my opinion, which is absolutely not what a moderator should do. I evoked discussion in the Rubio article but not deliberation. Also, regarding Gastils points of a true deliberation, I lacked a solid information base on some of the articles, which caused some of my attempts to terminate. In summary, I struggled to moderate a deliberation online. The direction these attempts varied significantly. My Billie Joe post merely received cheerleaders; the responders simply agreed with one another pointing out more support to their common argument. Because of my misunderstanding the Star Wars article, I received a snide response from user Logic. In the Rubio article, a very short debate occurred. I stated my opinion, someone disagreed and then I rebutted with information from a different article. A different user responded to my rebuttal, but I think he was just commenting on my initial post and was not following the short dispute. In short, each of my attempts to start an online deliberation took very different directions, none of which resulted in a true deliberation. All of the attempts were unproductive. In order for a discussion to be productive, in my opinion, either participant(s) should gain an enlightened understanding or a common ground should be found that may result in participants taking further action on the issue. In the Billie Joe article attempt, two individuals agreed about a point. No one gained an enlightened understanding, nor agreed to take any action about the situation. In the Star War article, in a sense I gained an enlightened understanding, but not progress was made in the direction I intended a discussion to take place. In the Rubio article, my rebuttal may have made the user understand where I was coming from in my initial post, but he never responded back, making the productivity of that discussion unclear. My final attempt at deliberation on the China article received zero responses. With zero participants, zero common ground was found and no enlightened understanding occurred. On the whole, my attempts at online deliberation were not productive.

CAS 138T Lori Bedell, Section 001

Alaina Weinheimer

The lack of productivity in my attempts at an online deliberation is not that surprising when one considers the obstacles of a true online deliberations occurring. The central obstacle preventing online deliberations from being productive is the impersonality of the internet. To start, the anonymity of the internet allows users to feel comfortable making rude comments or calling names. I experienced this in the Star Wars article. The snide remark came from a user who posted his or her name as Logic. This was a passive aggressive way of calling me dumb. Had I known who the user was, he may not have responded in that way. The anonymity also enables users to angrily rant and voice their opinion without any fear of being traced. To prevent the disrespectful behavior on the internet, commenting should become less anonymous. Perhaps when posting a comment, the site could require a commenter to link the comment to his or her Facebook or Twitter account. Not everyone has such accounts, so this solution is unlikely, but it is not impossible. Another impersonal aspect of online discussions is the fact that the ideas are being exchanged through typed words. Tone of voice is not present when using words. The lack of tone of voice can cause users to take responses offensively and turn a discussion into a debate if they become emotional or defensive. Apart from the impersonal obstacles of an online deliberation, the format of the deliberation is ineffective. Some users comment on the initial post rather than following the current thread. This can cause the thread to have multiple discussions occurring at once. Also, there is no control over responses. In other words, those being asked questions or being targeted in a comment do not have to respond. Due to the anonymity of the internet, the ability to disregard previous comments entirely, and the ability to choose when and when not to respond, a true, productive online deliberation is a rare occurrence.