Resources Regarding Online Civility
When I began writing about online culture, back in the late 1990s, misinformation was at a minimum and easy to identify, and hateful trolls were oh-so-quickly banned from online communities. Now, hate and misinformation rage online. Trolling, where people target others with hateful online messages in an effort purely to anger and intimidate, is common. The netiquette most of us followed in the 1990s seems long-abandoned.
I define incivility online as behavior meant to disrupt conversations and drive people off of a community for not having the same viewpoints as the disrupter. Rudeness can be in the eye of the beholder - I have seen people called rude if they say they don't like a restaurant everyone else loves, or if they challenge someone promoting false information about medicine or climate change, or if they express anger at a harmful act by a religious figure, and I've seen accusations of rudeness or someone being insulting used to shut down online disagreements. I have been the target of people want to say I'm rude and shut down the opinions I have that they don't like. By contrast, violations of community rules and insults based on a person's appearance or heritage, or deliberate spreading of misinformation, are much easier to define in much more concrete terms, beyond just incivility. Also easy to define are intimidation and threats.
Talking about online civility should not be about discouraging disagreements or debates. It should not be used to discourage questions or negative opinions. It also should not be about discouraging people from calling out racism, sexism, trolling, the promotion of false information and harassment. It should be, instead, talking about boundaries for disagreements or debates and encouraging fact-based discussions - and sometimes, just agreeing to disagree.
Can online civility be restored? Is it possible to challenge intimidation, harassment, misinformation and destructive speech in the strongest, most deliberate of terms without being accused of hate speech or even defamation yourself?
A study found that there is a positive effect from even a brief exposure to online civility: "contrary to intuition, according to which a quarrel is much more salient than a polite discussion, a simple lack of aggression in expressing a difference of opinions online acts as a powerful determinant of higher levels of trust towards other people." Civil online interaction "has a significant effect on social trust. This suggests that what is at stake in moderating online discussion is not simply the prevention of negative phenomena (hate speech, cyberbullying, digital harassment, etc.), but also the achievement of significant social benefits, most notably a measurable increase in trust and social capital that can, in turn, positively affect economic development." (from For a Civil Internet – How the tone of online conversations can build trust, April 4, 2019, by Fabio Sabatini and Tommaso Reggiani, posted to the LSE Impact of Social Sciences blog, part of the London School of Economics and Political Science).
Yes, it's just one study. More is needed, absolutely. And the reality is that there are people who love embracing incivility online. The reality is that there are people who aren't willing to just express a difference of opinion - they feel compelled to go beyond a blog that says, "I want my opinion expressed as well and, so, here are my disagreements with so-and-so in detail." Instead, they disparage someone's character, unleashing a barrage of tweets, memes, YouTube videos and more.
Promoting online civility is not the same as stifling disagreements. Consider this: in 2010, a website was created by a university student to study the effectiveness of asking online community members to agree to behavioral standards and allowing them to vote on the quality of each other’s contributions. Users who chose to participate in the “Red Room” were expected to follow the agreement, and those who commented in the “Green Room” had no such expectations. The student's 2012 study of the experience compared the behavior of participants in both rooms. "Results show that users will adhere to some expectations and will behave with civility when they have agreed to do so. The voting system was underutilized and did not appear to influence behavior. While discussions in the Red Room were polite and factbased (sic), discussions in the Green Room appeared to more meaningfully explore differences. Therefore, it might be advisable for website administrators to weigh the benefits of encouraging civility against the benefits of encouraging free expression." (from Promoting civility in online discussions : a study of the intelligent conversation forum, by Anita S. Crane, The University of Toledo).
It's hard to promote online civility when there are people dedicated to disrupting discussions and intimidating people - and let's acknowledge that men are far more likely to troll people online than women, and their targets are often women. That's something to be examined in and of itself...
Start with your own online communities
If your nonprofit has an online community for your volunteers, or your company has an online community for clients/customers, have stated rules for participation, refer to them and enforce them. You should have an appointed facilitator and moderator who will enforce those rules, and staff in particular should know how to set and keep a certain tone.
On your community,
- Be explicit about the purpose of the community - and you may need to remind members frequently.
- Be explicit about what it is acceptable and what is not.
- Do not discourage disagreements or differences in opinion - mere dissent is not disrespect.
More resources
This is a curated list, not a comprehensive one.
-
The dynamics of online culture &
community
Working with people online means building trust and communicating clearly and regularly. This resource, the only one by me in this list of resources, explores the many different ways people read, post and interact online. Spoiler alert: there's no one online personality and no one way of communicating effectively online.
The Difference in Email, Social Media & Online Communities: A Graphic Explanation.
It can be difficult for people to understand the difference in email, in social media and in online communities, especially since email can be used to create an online community, or social media can be used to create an online community (Facebook Groups, for instance). And they all are people sending messages to people - so what, really, is the difference? This is my attempt to graphically show the difference, but I'll still have to use words to more fully explain what I mean. All three of these avenues for online communication can intersect. But one online avenue of online communication may be a better avenue for a communication goal than another - this resource examines that as well.
Building a team culture among remote workers
Coming together face-to-face, in the same room, does not automatically create team cohesion and a strong sense of team. Yet, many people think having online meetings automatically means it’s difficult for staff to have a strong sense of team. When thinking about creating a sense of team online, try to get away from that aforementioned belief. People feel a part of a team if they feel heard and included, whether online or off. And they will attend meetings and pay attention to those meetings if they feel the meeting is relevant to their work - on or offline. This resource offers ideas for live events, asynchronous events & activities that can build a sense of team among remote workers.
ASHA Online Civility Toolkit
The American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association compiled civility-related tools, templates and resources in a digital toolkit for its members to use "to cope with online environments that don’t reflect ASHA’s standards of professional conduct or promote the cultural competency principles ASHA espouses, and to model the respectful ways in which we can agree to disagree. The tools can help members to conduct themselves civilly and professionally on open and private social media channels and also to promote civil discourse in all conversations."
Civility Tools from The National Institute for Civil Discourse
(NICD) was established in May of 2011 after the tragic Tucson shooting that killed six people and wounded thirteen others including former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. All were participating in a “Congress on Your Corner” event, a fundamental act of democracy. In response to the tragedy, the Tucson community came together to create NICD, a non-partisan organization based at the University of Arizona that would promote healthy and civil political debate. NICD is devoted to the same principles that motivated Congresswoman Giffords: that people with different values and political preferences can discuss their differences in a civil and productive manner. Ironically, just days before the shooting Representative Giffords had begun discussions about the possibility of setting up a center to study how to improve the quality of civil conversation.
Microsoft's Digital Civility Challenge
This is a challenge by Microsoft, asking people everywhere to live by four, positive tenets when they engage online with others. I am deeply cynical - and I actually really like them. Would be good agreements for any online community to ask all members to adhere to.
National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Offers resources for bring people together "to discuss, decide, and take action together effectively on today’s toughest issues." The NCDD website is a clearinghouse for literally thousands of resources and best practices. Most are about meeting face-to-face, but the suggestions can also be applied online.
How to Handle Online Criticism
Online criticism of your organization, even by its own supporters, is inevitable. In fact, your nonprofit is probably going to be criticized on other people's blogs, Facebook profiles, etc. You can't prevent it, but you can be prepared to respond to such in a timely manner, in a way that could increase your credibility with key audiences.
Why Every Staff Person Should Regularly Read At Least One Online Discussion Group
Each and every employee of your mission-based organization should be a part of at least one online discussion group, and subscribe to at least one email newsletter, relating to their job. Why? It offers a simple, easy way to get employees connected to important news and resources they need in their jobs, It's professional development right from their desktops!.
Virtue & reputation in the developing world
A caution to humanitarian and development workers wanting NGOs and government agencies to engage more on social media; you need to provide guidance for the women who would be expected to manage online activities on how to stay safe and protect their personal reputations. For them, online activities can be a matter of life and death.
Myths About Online Volunteering (Virtual Volunteering)
Online volunteering means unpaid service that is given by volunteers via the Internet. It's also known as virtual volunteering, online mentoring, ementoring, evolunteering, cyber volunteering, cyber service, telementoring, online engagement, and on and on. Here is a list of common myths about online volunteering, and my attempt to counter them.
Studies and Research Regarding Online Volunteering / Virtual Volunteering
While there is a plethora of articles and information about online volunteering, there has been very little research published regarding the subject. This is a compilation of publicly-available research regarding online volunteering, and a list of suggested possible angles for researching online volunteering. New contributions to this page are welcomed, including regarding online mentoring programs.
Nonprofits & governments programs rejecting staff per social media activities
In 2006 and 2008, there was a thread on the TechSoup Community forum that I think is worth saving. It took a while to find on archive.org, but I did! The original subject for this discussion was rejecting a volunteer per online activity/online profile, but it grew into talking about employees and candidates for employment as well. Here's most of the thread.