I have found that I can’t really look for strong community online. I can use Twitter for news and chatting with friends and friends-of-friends. I can use email and Facebook for coordinating local stuff like giveaways and park meetups. I can use Reddit to crowdsource car repair ideas. But I can’t join non-local Facebook groups geared at moms or Catholic women, for example, because I find that it quickly becomes unhealthy for me. Social media groups, in particular, often seem to encourage me and others to stake out really aggressive positions on decisions that we ourselves are insecure about.
Whew, this one hits kind of close to home for me today. For many years, I've been a regular participant on a particular religious subreddit. I've virtually always experienced it as a safe(r) place, even as a woman on the internet: there's a good core of regular users and a fairly strong moderation team, who together cultivate an environment where, by and large, crudeness and combativeness don't stick around for long. I think it's a product of the trust and friendship that can build over time among like-minded people with reasonably similar moral convictions. However, recently, another longtime user said something kind of gross to me, and it's had me feeling like there might be no safe places on the internet, after all. So, I don't really know my answer to the first question anymore.
On the second question, I have an on-again-off-again relationship with Twitter, because the algorithm tends to tempt me toward reactionary-type tweets that (though I might agree with their substance) are not moving me in a direction of holiness. Periodically I realize that the posts I'm seeing are bringing me more stress and anger than joy and life. Then I have to do a sort of mental reset, and re-curate my follows, so that I'm mainly seeing the good and true and life-affirming conversations that, for me, are a reason to stay on Twitter for now.
I am in one incredible FB group titled Pray Like Mary, Clean Like Martha. It is a group with a commitment to Catholicism (although not all members are Catholic, no one is allowed to post or comment things against the Catholic Church). We are all trying to help each other pray and clean (or sometimes just adult) better, which I think counts as inculcating virtue. I think it is only possible through excellent and sometimes heavy handed moderation. It helps that everyone opts into the group knowing the rules so people generally self-regulate. I have never seen any man try to enter the group… but I also wonder if that plays a part in its excellence…
My husband played Overwatch online for a while. They had a system called Endorsements (https://overwatch.fandom.com/wiki/Endorsements) where you could reward other players for good/prosocial behavior. The matchmaker system used these ratings as part of the process to match people for games, and he said that the games were generally more relaxed/easygoing than he was used to in other online games. I think it worked more by separating the toxic players from the rest of the community (which perhaps is good by not allowing them to teach new players toxic behavior), but I'm would be curious if it helped to reform the toxic players by teaching them what behavior was deemed acceptable by the community.
I know that the focus of this article is on virtual spaces, yet what is coming to mind for me is an ongoing political discussion (sometimes in a virtual chat space) with a friend who is really diving into the world of conservative Republicanism. As a somewhat newly-minted American citizen, the world of active involvement in politics (as in, voting and being vocal about one’s political stance) is new and exciting, and my friend has been eager to engage in discussions with anyone and everyone about it. His enthusiasm has been really refreshing to watch. (Also sometimes exhausting, haha!)
We keep coming around to the notion that good rules make safe citizens and good politicians: basically we can’t trust our politicians to do the right thing, but we can trust rules to ensure they don’t do too much damage. . . . As a former American Government teacher, I’m well aware that this principle was at least a part of the reason for the system of government chosen by the Continental Congress. But more and more I see that rules can’t make people good -- something those same sage Founders also frequently warned!
This line -- “safety can’t come from rules alone but from active work to build a culture that forms character rightly” -- really encapsulates this for me. So so true.
Rules do have a place, but it’s a far smaller place than we collectively hope it will be. Rules can’t make up for the loss of ability to trust in each other’s character.
A community I belong to that inculcates virtue echoes a couple of other commenters as a heavily moderated Facebook group. I'm one of the moderators. It's for Catholic homeschooling mothers. The thing is, keeping the 4300-member group positive and encouraging and on-topic and not braggy requires five of us! It's a lot of work, and it's discouraging to me that so much is required when members have already agreed to our list of rules, and we have screened them to ensure they are indeed Catholic and homeschooling and mothers.
For my own virtue, I use a Chrome plugin on my laptop that blocks my Facebook feed. That way, all I can see on Facebook is my notifications (which I set to "all" for the few people I want there) and my groups. In the same vein, I have turned off all Facebook notifications on my phone and I almost never even open the app. These actions keep me from spending too much time there and from getting involved in arguments I'd rather not.
I'm a longtime follower/member of the community around John and Hank Green's "Vlogbrothers" videos on youtube - we use the somewhat goofy name "Nerdfighters" to describe ourselves and call the community "Nerdfighteria". Though the community got started on youtube and still centers around John and Hank's weekly videos, it isn't based in any particular space around the internet. You can find nerdfighters on facebook, twitter, reddit, discord, tiktok, you name it.
What unites us all isn't just being fans of John and Hank's videos, though: it is a shared commitment to particular values, namely curiosity, compassion, generosity, kindness, understanding, and love. These values come from John and Hank themselves, and also from people around them whose perspectives they value (their wives, friends, mentors, etc).
Much like parents, John and Hank lead by example. Since I found this community in 2008, I have consistently seen them live out and widely share the love that they have for each other and the whole world. In their videos and public lives, they demonstrate and model their values and behavior, which are then adopted by the community. This has resulted in an online community in which people share values, practice virtue, and expect the same from each other.
Nerdfighteria is by far the best "place" on the internet that I've found, and what I love about it is the commitment to shared values. I also feel the need to point out that they're not just any values: they're values also shared by my religion (Orthodox Christianity). I didn't get my values from Nerdfighteria - I had them already and just stumbled across an internet community that actively shares them, even if that community isn't Christian or religious. It's an interesting and wonderful community that I'm proud to be part of.
So, I actually think lots of rules are probably diametrically opposed to fostering an environment where people can grow in virtue.
Growing in virtue is interior, it’s something the individual has to pursue. You can’t chose virtue for another.
Rules are exterior, aimed at enforcing a behavioral set as a norm.
The most effective group I’m part of has precisely 3 rules, and one of them is group membership related. The first is don’t be a dick. The second is don’t make specious arguments on purpose.
And for the most part, this WORKS behavior wise. But there are also instances where you can see people actively choosing not-virtue.
And largely these problems are sexual in nature, where a larger human norm (men can treat women as sexual objects) collides with the reality of persons who feel this behavior violates rule 1 and are non neurotypical enough to make an example of the infractor.
There are a couple ways that I can think of to handle this. One is, as other commenters have said, heavy moderation. If you have people who are willing to tackle bad behavior quickly, then most people who stick around won't behave badly. However, this does carry with it its own risks in terms of mods abusing their power, slacking off, or people finding ways to be jerks without getting caught, like a middle-school bully. There's also a limit to the size of the community which can be effectively and consistently moderated, which brings me to the second option: only forming online communities with people you already know and trust, thereby eliminating the need for moderation.
I live in Nebraska, while my best friend and his family live in Tennessee. We've played videogames together for as long as we've known each other, but distance followed by the pandemic made getting together difficult. So instead we simply made a private server on Discord, consisting only of us and a few other friends/relatives that we want to play with us. That makes the online community an extension of our already-existing friendship, adapted to the circumstances, and it's nice to spend an evening playing games, watching something together, or just having a good chat. That said, I understand that this approach is limited for people who may not have the technical skill or inclination to set up a Discord server, or who specifically want to meet people they don't already know. It also sidesteps Discord's own issues with public servers (usually formed around particular interests like games or Youtube channels) where moderation is can be lax or uneven and being anonymous makes bad behavior easy. For my part, that's a trade I'm willing to make: I don't use Facebook, don't interact on Reddit, and only use Discord with people who are already close and trusted friends.
Not everyone is content with that, though, and online public spaces shouldn't necessarily fall to those with the worst behavior. The ease of bad behavior on Facebook and Twitter, where people are far more likely to be publicly themselves and interact with people by name, bothers me much more than on Reddit or Discord, where anonymity is the default and people only know what you let on. I don't know how one would go about improving those services, except perhaps by detuning the algorithms to not constantly promote shocking/political/provocative content.
> "Do you have practices to actively resist the direction a community (online or off) is pulling you?"
1. Move towards small: If I have any hesitation about shaming someone with a reply posted on a public board--and if there's a DM system available--I send that person a DM. Often much more flourishing conversations have sprouted out of these. But generally--spend time interacting with people in smaller groups when you can! Want to debate something controversial that you know is a hot button for you... or which has personal dimensions? If you can choose between a group of 500 people versus 50, maybe choose the 50! Trying to choose between sharing personal stuff in either a group of 50 people or to like 5? Probably the 5! (Here, I'm especially thinking of Discord, where you can easily "smallen" the group size of who's by-default-included-in/noticing the convo by making your own Discord server, or creating a group DM. Or using threads!)
2. Read and re-read for improved charitability: Most of my online worlds center on text! Since the way an online community is likeliest to "pull" me is by getting mad/irritable at my fellow members... I like to eliminate the option where I get mad because I got an uncharitable "read" of the thoughts shared. I've had multiple times where, after re-reading what someone said, I saw--after my first, obvious, interpretation--a DRASTICALLY different one. You can go back and do this and benefit DAYS or YEARS later if you're in community where you're thrown together with the same people for those stretches of time.
3. Be able to disconnect from any person, community, or chat as needed. I have a theory that there's a natural buildup of friction and frustrations in online forums. I think this is because they're geared towards putting ideas, claims, and arguments out there, but... we're severed from the natural showing of attention in response to what we say. (body language! nods of agreement, eye contact, leaning forward or turning towards the person talking. It's huge--but on a forum, it's invisible!) Having the freedom to disconnect--knowing that you can just take time off or leave without being devastated--keeps the relational stakes lower. You're not dependent on this community to give you every good thing. A corollary to this is that you really want to have in mind where you are going to "go" if you've disconnected from one of your usual communities for awhile!
I gleefully embraced online community back in the '90s when it was irc and random web chats and boards. It always has its draw, and today I can be classified among the "very online." Anything this big in my life... yeah, I think a lot about it because I need to.
This was in a completely different, off-line setting - a residential treatment program for adolescents. Some of the staff were inclined to make more and more rules - rules for everything! Others advocated for a different approach and, thankfully, there was organizational support for other ways of dealing with some challenging behavior. We settled on principles rather than rules: 1) Safety of self and others was most important, 2) Respect for peers and staff, and 3) Learning and practicing new ways of dealing with thoughts, emotions and behavior. There were consequences for negative behaviors - if you were not keeping your self and others safe, you wouldn't be going off-campus for the really fun weekend activities. Staff who were attached to rules, gradually grew to appreciate the changes and saw that kids were internalizing values rather than trying to figure out how to get around the rules. Not sure how this applies to adults online, but I like the foundation of principles and values rather than rules. I'm always so surprised when I read a kind or reasonable response online - but it does have an effect - kind of like when drivers see someone let another car into traffic and are more likely to do the same!
My thoughts: Rules are an afterthought, necessary when virtue was lacking or absent. Virtue has to be planned for and expected. Protections are nice but first should be the standard of behavior. We do not tolerate X, Y, Z and you cannot play here if you don't want to uphold this. And there can be little gray area because people will push the boundaries.
I have found that I can’t really look for strong community online. I can use Twitter for news and chatting with friends and friends-of-friends. I can use email and Facebook for coordinating local stuff like giveaways and park meetups. I can use Reddit to crowdsource car repair ideas. But I can’t join non-local Facebook groups geared at moms or Catholic women, for example, because I find that it quickly becomes unhealthy for me. Social media groups, in particular, often seem to encourage me and others to stake out really aggressive positions on decisions that we ourselves are insecure about.
Whew, this one hits kind of close to home for me today. For many years, I've been a regular participant on a particular religious subreddit. I've virtually always experienced it as a safe(r) place, even as a woman on the internet: there's a good core of regular users and a fairly strong moderation team, who together cultivate an environment where, by and large, crudeness and combativeness don't stick around for long. I think it's a product of the trust and friendship that can build over time among like-minded people with reasonably similar moral convictions. However, recently, another longtime user said something kind of gross to me, and it's had me feeling like there might be no safe places on the internet, after all. So, I don't really know my answer to the first question anymore.
On the second question, I have an on-again-off-again relationship with Twitter, because the algorithm tends to tempt me toward reactionary-type tweets that (though I might agree with their substance) are not moving me in a direction of holiness. Periodically I realize that the posts I'm seeing are bringing me more stress and anger than joy and life. Then I have to do a sort of mental reset, and re-curate my follows, so that I'm mainly seeing the good and true and life-affirming conversations that, for me, are a reason to stay on Twitter for now.
I am in one incredible FB group titled Pray Like Mary, Clean Like Martha. It is a group with a commitment to Catholicism (although not all members are Catholic, no one is allowed to post or comment things against the Catholic Church). We are all trying to help each other pray and clean (or sometimes just adult) better, which I think counts as inculcating virtue. I think it is only possible through excellent and sometimes heavy handed moderation. It helps that everyone opts into the group knowing the rules so people generally self-regulate. I have never seen any man try to enter the group… but I also wonder if that plays a part in its excellence…
My husband played Overwatch online for a while. They had a system called Endorsements (https://overwatch.fandom.com/wiki/Endorsements) where you could reward other players for good/prosocial behavior. The matchmaker system used these ratings as part of the process to match people for games, and he said that the games were generally more relaxed/easygoing than he was used to in other online games. I think it worked more by separating the toxic players from the rest of the community (which perhaps is good by not allowing them to teach new players toxic behavior), but I'm would be curious if it helped to reform the toxic players by teaching them what behavior was deemed acceptable by the community.
I know that the focus of this article is on virtual spaces, yet what is coming to mind for me is an ongoing political discussion (sometimes in a virtual chat space) with a friend who is really diving into the world of conservative Republicanism. As a somewhat newly-minted American citizen, the world of active involvement in politics (as in, voting and being vocal about one’s political stance) is new and exciting, and my friend has been eager to engage in discussions with anyone and everyone about it. His enthusiasm has been really refreshing to watch. (Also sometimes exhausting, haha!)
We keep coming around to the notion that good rules make safe citizens and good politicians: basically we can’t trust our politicians to do the right thing, but we can trust rules to ensure they don’t do too much damage. . . . As a former American Government teacher, I’m well aware that this principle was at least a part of the reason for the system of government chosen by the Continental Congress. But more and more I see that rules can’t make people good -- something those same sage Founders also frequently warned!
This line -- “safety can’t come from rules alone but from active work to build a culture that forms character rightly” -- really encapsulates this for me. So so true.
Rules do have a place, but it’s a far smaller place than we collectively hope it will be. Rules can’t make up for the loss of ability to trust in each other’s character.
A community I belong to that inculcates virtue echoes a couple of other commenters as a heavily moderated Facebook group. I'm one of the moderators. It's for Catholic homeschooling mothers. The thing is, keeping the 4300-member group positive and encouraging and on-topic and not braggy requires five of us! It's a lot of work, and it's discouraging to me that so much is required when members have already agreed to our list of rules, and we have screened them to ensure they are indeed Catholic and homeschooling and mothers.
For my own virtue, I use a Chrome plugin on my laptop that blocks my Facebook feed. That way, all I can see on Facebook is my notifications (which I set to "all" for the few people I want there) and my groups. In the same vein, I have turned off all Facebook notifications on my phone and I almost never even open the app. These actions keep me from spending too much time there and from getting involved in arguments I'd rather not.
I'm a longtime follower/member of the community around John and Hank Green's "Vlogbrothers" videos on youtube - we use the somewhat goofy name "Nerdfighters" to describe ourselves and call the community "Nerdfighteria". Though the community got started on youtube and still centers around John and Hank's weekly videos, it isn't based in any particular space around the internet. You can find nerdfighters on facebook, twitter, reddit, discord, tiktok, you name it.
What unites us all isn't just being fans of John and Hank's videos, though: it is a shared commitment to particular values, namely curiosity, compassion, generosity, kindness, understanding, and love. These values come from John and Hank themselves, and also from people around them whose perspectives they value (their wives, friends, mentors, etc).
Much like parents, John and Hank lead by example. Since I found this community in 2008, I have consistently seen them live out and widely share the love that they have for each other and the whole world. In their videos and public lives, they demonstrate and model their values and behavior, which are then adopted by the community. This has resulted in an online community in which people share values, practice virtue, and expect the same from each other.
Nerdfighteria is by far the best "place" on the internet that I've found, and what I love about it is the commitment to shared values. I also feel the need to point out that they're not just any values: they're values also shared by my religion (Orthodox Christianity). I didn't get my values from Nerdfighteria - I had them already and just stumbled across an internet community that actively shares them, even if that community isn't Christian or religious. It's an interesting and wonderful community that I'm proud to be part of.
So, I actually think lots of rules are probably diametrically opposed to fostering an environment where people can grow in virtue.
Growing in virtue is interior, it’s something the individual has to pursue. You can’t chose virtue for another.
Rules are exterior, aimed at enforcing a behavioral set as a norm.
The most effective group I’m part of has precisely 3 rules, and one of them is group membership related. The first is don’t be a dick. The second is don’t make specious arguments on purpose.
And for the most part, this WORKS behavior wise. But there are also instances where you can see people actively choosing not-virtue.
And largely these problems are sexual in nature, where a larger human norm (men can treat women as sexual objects) collides with the reality of persons who feel this behavior violates rule 1 and are non neurotypical enough to make an example of the infractor.
There are a couple ways that I can think of to handle this. One is, as other commenters have said, heavy moderation. If you have people who are willing to tackle bad behavior quickly, then most people who stick around won't behave badly. However, this does carry with it its own risks in terms of mods abusing their power, slacking off, or people finding ways to be jerks without getting caught, like a middle-school bully. There's also a limit to the size of the community which can be effectively and consistently moderated, which brings me to the second option: only forming online communities with people you already know and trust, thereby eliminating the need for moderation.
I live in Nebraska, while my best friend and his family live in Tennessee. We've played videogames together for as long as we've known each other, but distance followed by the pandemic made getting together difficult. So instead we simply made a private server on Discord, consisting only of us and a few other friends/relatives that we want to play with us. That makes the online community an extension of our already-existing friendship, adapted to the circumstances, and it's nice to spend an evening playing games, watching something together, or just having a good chat. That said, I understand that this approach is limited for people who may not have the technical skill or inclination to set up a Discord server, or who specifically want to meet people they don't already know. It also sidesteps Discord's own issues with public servers (usually formed around particular interests like games or Youtube channels) where moderation is can be lax or uneven and being anonymous makes bad behavior easy. For my part, that's a trade I'm willing to make: I don't use Facebook, don't interact on Reddit, and only use Discord with people who are already close and trusted friends.
Not everyone is content with that, though, and online public spaces shouldn't necessarily fall to those with the worst behavior. The ease of bad behavior on Facebook and Twitter, where people are far more likely to be publicly themselves and interact with people by name, bothers me much more than on Reddit or Discord, where anonymity is the default and people only know what you let on. I don't know how one would go about improving those services, except perhaps by detuning the algorithms to not constantly promote shocking/political/provocative content.
> "Do you have practices to actively resist the direction a community (online or off) is pulling you?"
1. Move towards small: If I have any hesitation about shaming someone with a reply posted on a public board--and if there's a DM system available--I send that person a DM. Often much more flourishing conversations have sprouted out of these. But generally--spend time interacting with people in smaller groups when you can! Want to debate something controversial that you know is a hot button for you... or which has personal dimensions? If you can choose between a group of 500 people versus 50, maybe choose the 50! Trying to choose between sharing personal stuff in either a group of 50 people or to like 5? Probably the 5! (Here, I'm especially thinking of Discord, where you can easily "smallen" the group size of who's by-default-included-in/noticing the convo by making your own Discord server, or creating a group DM. Or using threads!)
2. Read and re-read for improved charitability: Most of my online worlds center on text! Since the way an online community is likeliest to "pull" me is by getting mad/irritable at my fellow members... I like to eliminate the option where I get mad because I got an uncharitable "read" of the thoughts shared. I've had multiple times where, after re-reading what someone said, I saw--after my first, obvious, interpretation--a DRASTICALLY different one. You can go back and do this and benefit DAYS or YEARS later if you're in community where you're thrown together with the same people for those stretches of time.
3. Be able to disconnect from any person, community, or chat as needed. I have a theory that there's a natural buildup of friction and frustrations in online forums. I think this is because they're geared towards putting ideas, claims, and arguments out there, but... we're severed from the natural showing of attention in response to what we say. (body language! nods of agreement, eye contact, leaning forward or turning towards the person talking. It's huge--but on a forum, it's invisible!) Having the freedom to disconnect--knowing that you can just take time off or leave without being devastated--keeps the relational stakes lower. You're not dependent on this community to give you every good thing. A corollary to this is that you really want to have in mind where you are going to "go" if you've disconnected from one of your usual communities for awhile!
I gleefully embraced online community back in the '90s when it was irc and random web chats and boards. It always has its draw, and today I can be classified among the "very online." Anything this big in my life... yeah, I think a lot about it because I need to.
This was in a completely different, off-line setting - a residential treatment program for adolescents. Some of the staff were inclined to make more and more rules - rules for everything! Others advocated for a different approach and, thankfully, there was organizational support for other ways of dealing with some challenging behavior. We settled on principles rather than rules: 1) Safety of self and others was most important, 2) Respect for peers and staff, and 3) Learning and practicing new ways of dealing with thoughts, emotions and behavior. There were consequences for negative behaviors - if you were not keeping your self and others safe, you wouldn't be going off-campus for the really fun weekend activities. Staff who were attached to rules, gradually grew to appreciate the changes and saw that kids were internalizing values rather than trying to figure out how to get around the rules. Not sure how this applies to adults online, but I like the foundation of principles and values rather than rules. I'm always so surprised when I read a kind or reasonable response online - but it does have an effect - kind of like when drivers see someone let another car into traffic and are more likely to do the same!
My thoughts: Rules are an afterthought, necessary when virtue was lacking or absent. Virtue has to be planned for and expected. Protections are nice but first should be the standard of behavior. We do not tolerate X, Y, Z and you cannot play here if you don't want to uphold this. And there can be little gray area because people will push the boundaries.