Advertisement

Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 41–56 | Cite as

Pernicious virtual communities: Identity, polarisation and the Web 2.0

  • Mitch Parsell
Article

Abstract

The importance of online social spaces is growing. New Web 2.0 resources allow the creation of social networks by any netizen with minimal technical skills. These communities can be extremely narrowly focussed. In this paper, I identify two potential costs of membership in narrowly focussed virtual communities. First, that narrowly focussed communities can polarise attitudes and prejudices leading to increased social cleavage and division. Second, that they can lead sick individuals to revel in their illness, deliberately indulging in their disease and denying the edicts of the medical profession. I specifically examine illness communities centred on the now defunct Multiple Personality Disorder. I highlight these potential problems and point to some technologies that may help combat them.

Keywords

community identity mental illness openness polarisation social networking Web 2.0 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Townley for continued discussions in the area of ethics and ICT, Deranty for emphasizing the importance of identity, members of my virtual philosophy community for promoting open dialogue, and two anonymous referees for incredibly helpful and detailed comments.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, 1994Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist, 47: 1597–1611, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Accessed from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html November 19, 2007
  4. BBC News. Social Networks Top Google Search. December 18, 2006. Accessed from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6189809.stm December 21, 2006
  5. M.C. Bier, S.A. Sherblom, M.A. Gallo. Ethical Issues in a Study of Internet Use: Uncertainty, Responsibility, and the Spirit of Research Relationships. Ethics and Behavior, 6: 141–151, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. G.D. Bishop, D.G. Myers. Informational Influence in Group Discussion. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 92–104, 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. D. Byrne. The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York, NY, 1971Google Scholar
  8. M. Calore. Web Mashups Turn Citizens Into Washington’s Newest Watchdogs. Wired, April 26, 2007. Accessed from http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/04/maplight November 15, 2007
  9. L.C. Charland. A Madness for Identity: Psychiatric Labels, Consumer Autonomy, and the Perils of the Internet. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 11(4): 335–349, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Center for the Digital Future. Surveying the Digital Future. 2006: Accessed from www.digitalcenter.org/ March 10, 2007
  11. P. DiMaggio, J. Evans, B. Bryson. Have Americans’ Social Attitudes Become More Polarised? American Journal of Sociology, 102: 690–755, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. H. Dreyfus. Anonymity Versus Commitment: The Dangers of Education on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology 1(1): 15–21, 1999CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Elliot. Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the American Dream. Norton, New York, NY, 2003Google Scholar
  14. J.H. Evans. Have Americans’ Attitudes Become More Polarised? – An Update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1): 71–90, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. W.A. Galston. Does the Internet Strengthen Community? The Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, 19(4), 1999. Accessed from http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/internet_community.htm May 12, 2007
  16. D.J. Isenberg. Group Polarisation: A Critical Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 1025–1054, 1986Google Scholar
  17. D.A. Jones. The Polarising Effects of New Media Messages. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(2): 158–174, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. H. Keller, S. Lee. Ethical Issues Surrounding Human Participants Research Using the Internet, Ethics and Behavior, 13(3): 211–219, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. V. Krebs. Political Patterns on the WWW – Divided We Stand … Still. 2004: Accessed from http://www.orgnet.com/divided2.html August 10, 2007
  20. V. Krebs. Political Books and Polarised Readers? A New Political Pattern Emerges. 2006: Accessed from http://www.orgnet.com/divided.html August 10, 2007
  21. P.B. de Laat. Trusting Virtual Trust. Ethics and Information Technology, 7: 167–180. 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. H. Lamm. Will an Observer Advise Higher Risk Taking After Hearing a Discussion of the Decision Problem? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6: 467–471, 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. T.C. May. The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, 1999, Reprinted in P. Ludlow (ed.). Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates and Pirate Utopias, pp. 61–64. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001Google Scholar
  24. M. Mendelsohn, R. Nadeau. The Magnification and Minimization of Social Cleavages by the Broadcast and Narrowcast News Media. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8: 374–389, 1996Google Scholar
  25. H. Merskey. Misprisions of Identity. Philosophy, Psychiatry and Psychology, 11(4): 351–355, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. D.G. Myers, H. Lamm. The Polarising Effect of Group Discussion. American Scientist, 63: 297–303, 1971Google Scholar
  27. H. Nissenbaum. Securing Trust Online: Wisdom or Oxymoron? Boston University Law Review, 81: 635–664, 2001Google Scholar
  28. P.S. Nivola. Thinking About Political Polarisation. The Brookings Institute Policy Brief, 137: 1–8, 2005Google Scholar
  29. M. Parsell and J. Duke-Yonge. Virtual Communities of Enquiry: An Argument for their Necessity and Advice for Their Creation. E-Learning, 4(2): 181–193, 2007. Available at http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=elea&aid=3031
  30. T. Postmes, S.A. Haslam, R. Swaab. Social Influence in Small Groups: An Interactive Model of Social Identity Formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16: 1–42, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. T. Postmes, R. Spears, M. Lea. Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? SIDE Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research, 25: 689–715, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. L. Rainie and J. Horrigan. Election 2006 Online. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2007. Accessed from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/199/report_display.asp August 10, 2007
  33. T. Russell. Facebook Boots Pseudonymous Blogger, Then Caves to Blogosphere Pressure. Wired, November 1, 2007. Accessed from http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/11/facebook-boots-.html November 21, 2007
  34. R. Spears, T. Postmes, M. Lea, A. Wolbert. The Power of Influence and the Influence of Power in Virtual Groups: A SIDE Look at CMC and the Internet. The Journal of Social Issues Special Issue: Social impact of the Internet, 58: 91–108, 2002Google Scholar
  35. C. Townley, M. Parsell. Technology and Academic Virtue: Student Plagiarism Through the Looking Glass. Ethics and Information Technology 6(4): 271–277, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. C. Townley, M. Parsell. The Cost of a Common Good: Putting a Price on Spam. Philosophy and the Contemporary World 12(2): 68–75. 2005Google Scholar
  37. C. Townley and M. Parsell. Cyber Disobedience: Gandhian Cyberpunks. Scan, 3(3). 2006; Available at http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=81
  38. K. Vonnegut. Mother Night. Dell Publishing: New York, NY, 1999Google Scholar
  39. D. Williams.(2005). Why Game Studies Now? Games and Culture 1(1): 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations