Broken Windows and the Internet: Why Civility is Dying

Few things can ruin our internet experience as much as internet trolls. It doesn't matter what you do or say to them, you'll only get madder. And they'll delight in that very fact. Ignoring them preserves your sanity and emotional well-being, but still, there's always that lingering sour aftertaste.

It's not only the trolls. There's flamers too, people who can't seem to respond without an insult and a fiery word. Joining the party are grammar nazis and their related nazis. Why is incivility so prevalent on the Net? Of course, anonymity and the low-barriers to entry possibly encourage such behaviour. But I think part of the issue lies in social norms or what is or is not acceptable; in simple words, the broken windows theory.

The broken windows theory is a criminological theory which suggests that vandalism and littering, basically signs of poor estate upkeep, have a signaling effect that serves to increase rates of crime and anti-social behavior. Well maintained and clean estates therefore have lower crime behavior. The argument is that 'broken windows' signal to people that anti-social behavior is tolerated or not penalized, hence logically criminal behavior is similarly not monitored or policed. In effect, the condition of the environment reflects the acceptable social norms, and affects the behaviors of those in the same environment.

The theory is not difficult to believe. I think we have less hesitation to, for instance, litter if there's rubbish all around us, or to jaywalk if others are already crossing the road before us. We all act based on cues of what's acceptable. Of course, the bad thing is that this tends to be self-reinforcing, after some important threshold has been reached.

My (no doubt tenuous) argument is that this threshold has already been passed. Civility, while still important to most of us, typically disappears in the online arena. A sarcastic remark or failed joke misinterpreted, and tinder sparks go off in the Balkans. Somehow it's become the (unacceptable) norm to respond with an inflammatory reply to a blog post, a caustically cynical jeer, or just a crude, belittling remark.

What's even more terrible is that the Internet generally doesn't go away. It stays there. If it's bad enough, it even spreads and is replicated across several parallel channels. We can probably find the ramblings of the first ancient troll, I think, if we look hard enough.

On Capital Punishment

Regarding capital punishment, I can imagine a number of crimes so heinous that they are almost certainly unpardonable. Such black deeds can so shake our faith in humanity that we must instead draw the conclusion that these are the acts of no human, but instead of a monster. 

Human rights and protections should only be extended to humans. 

For those who universally reject the death penalty, they must be willing to forgive even the worst of acts. I do not believe that many have that capacity, only that they claim to.

Of course, the law is not, and should not be, determined solely on the basis of morality.

Letter about the Wifi Mooching Case

I was extremely interested by a letter in the Straits Times Forum. The letter referenced the Wifi Mooching case, in which a youth was found guilty of tapping illegally into a neighbour's wireless internet (this is known as mooching).

Apparently, many people do not agree with the sentence, or even the basic point of whether this was a crime in the first place. Two main arguments were raised to support the notion that this was not a crime. The first is that the act of mooching, at least in this particular incident, did not have any significant or discernable effect on the 'victim', since the youth was only engaging in casual surfing which consumed only a modicum of bandwidth. If we are to judge a crime based on the severity of the crime, then this clearly would only amount to a very minor infraction at best.

The second argument is the failure of the 'victim' in securing his Wifi connection. In the words of the letter writer,

Take the analogy of two adjacent landed houses. One owner sets up a lawn sprinkler which sprays over the hedge into the neighbour's yard. The neighbour captures the runoff and uses it to water his plants. Is he 'stealing' water? Who is to blame here? Is there a crime, and who is the victim?

I believe the second argument is flawed. If someone forgets to lock the door to his house, is it then justified to take items from that house? Even if that someone were to leave his front door wide open, this does not allow us to misappropiate anything. At best, we can only reprimand the 'victim' for his negligence or even his stupidity, but this does not obscure the fact that a crime was committed.

Now, let us return to the first argument. Again, I believe that this argument is problematic. The problem lies in the false relation between harm and crime. Just because an action has no discernable effect on the victim does not mean that a crime has not been committed. Consider the following example: Each day, before you pick up your mail, I, out of pure curiosity, read through your mail and seal it such that you would not notice any intrusion. Given that I do not misuse any information thus learned, and furthermore behave as if nothing had happened, you would never come to learn of this nor be disadvantaged in any real or physical way. Would this then justify my reading of your mail, and thus the invasion of your privacy? If the answer is no, then the question is, what exactly is the harm done?

I would argue that Wifi leeching is at least morally wrong, not neccessarily because it 'harms' anyone, but because it reflects a mindset which is undesirable. The idea that it is acceptable to take anything, at no cost to oneself, is dangerous, even if taking the item cost others little. It is the same kind of selfish mindset which encourages, among other acts, software and media piracy. Surely, this mindset should be discouraged.

Of course, I would question whether we should make a crime out of what is merely morally wrong, or whether we should make it a crime only to discourage selfish behaviour. In this respect, I believe I am aligned with the critics, because if elements of harm are absent, then the crime itself should only be lightly punished.

Malaysia's Indecency Law

It is not uncommon knowledge that in some states of Malaysia, there are indecency laws criminalising public displays of affection. There are two main lines of thought regarding the issue.

The first line found the law unacceptable, for not everyone follows the same beliefs. The indecency law essentially forces the morals of one religion upon the populace. Hence, it it unfair.

The second line of thought, as elucidated by Malaysia's Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, is that 'public displays of affection "go against the fabric and morality of the Asian people"'. Public displays of affection are acceptable only by Western standards of morality. Hence, by our own system of moral values, the law is acceptable.

Both lines of thought have some basis to their arguments, but both have some flaws. The first, while recognising that everyone may have different beliefs and values, and that imposing foreign values on another is unfair, fails to realise that basically there exists no system which is absolutely fair. All systems of law draw from some conception of morality, and it is inevitable that some will not agree with the law. If a law is to be abolished because it is unfair or unacceptable to some party, then there will be no laws. To live in a society, one has to abide by its laws, however unacceptable. Socrates chose to drink the hemlock because he had willingly agreed to abide by the laws of Athens.

However, this is precisely the error of the second line of thought. While ideally we should obey the laws of the society, it must be understood that these laws did not appear arbitrarily from nothingness. A key is consensus, of at least the majority. It does not matter if the law is ordained by the traditional "morality of the asian people", or by some stone tablet. The law must be passed through the people.

Hence, the question is how many support and how many oppose the law. My opinion is that since a law must impose on people, there must be a large majority of supporters before it can be accepted. A simple majority cannot suffice.

Thoughts about Justice

What is Justice ? I think it has to do with the fair treatment of people, giving them what is rightly due to them. Thus, Justice involves fairness and right.

Justice also involves vengeance and retribution. For criminals, their due is punishment. This punishment is both fair and just, in that it is fair to the victims of the crime, and just because it upholds the morals which the criminal has failed to adhere to.

However, because I am innately suspicious of all things, I question Justice. Justice must ultimately be drawn from some ideas of what is right. But is there a universal right from which Justice can be drawn ? If not, then Justice ceases to be universal.

How, then, can Justice apply to members who do not suscribe to our ideas of Justice ? To forcefully impose our Justice on these members is to forgo the other principle of Justice, that of fairness and equal treatment of others. This problem cannot be resolved easily.