Unit 3 Pre-Reading Questions

Unit 3 Pre-reading Questions 1. Have you ever experienced a situation in which you’ve experienced rudeness, nastiness, bullying online? Know anyone? How did you respond? 2. Do you visit any online spaces, or online communities where this happens? 3. What about trolling and trolls? 4. What about harassment, threats, etc? 5. Do you think there has been an increase in this sort of thing? 6. What are possible causes? 7. RM defines demagoguery, as she is concerned about quality of public discourse, or political debate. How should we define incivility? Why? 8. What was done to solve in your experiences? What should be done generally?

CLASS ONE (when paper 2 is due)  VIDEO. Bad Behavior Online: Bullying, Trolling & Free Speech, PBS Digital Studios. 7 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVSAFhTjAdc  VIDEO: Robert Reich, "Political Civility Should Not Be an Oxymoron.” I plan on using just 10 – 20 minutes, from minutes 9.00-11.00 and 17.00 – 35.00, or 17-40 (this includes his “solutions).  VIDEO (4 mins) Louis CK joking about online bullying and why he won't buy his kids cellphones  Anita Sarkeesian – TED talk GamerGate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZAxwsg9J9Q  Tim Adams, “How the Internet Created an Age of Rage” The Guardian, July 24, 2011.  Clayton, Cornell. “Understanding the ‘Civility Crisis.’” Washington State Magazine, Winter 2010.

On day one I’ll use two short-ish videos that students can use as texts in their papers. The first is Robert Reich’s "Political Civility Should Not Be an Oxymoron.” This connects directly to our discussion of demagoguery. Reich argues that for many reasons (internet-driven polarization, commercial media focused on conflict, a general decline in social solidarity due to globalization, inequality, etc.) political incivility has increased, and this has provided demagogues with fertile ground to operate (further eroding incivility). He states: “that, my friend, is fodder for demagogues. Demagogues who want to scapegoat, who want to use the politics of resentment to solidify their own place…and so what do they do, they blame immigrants, they blame the poor, some blame the rich; they blame the French….The blame game, the ad hominem attack, and people looking for easy answers to why they are getting nowhere….You put all that together and you find not only a politics of nastiness, but also an unwillingness and inability to debate …”

The second is from PBS and is called Bad Behavior Online: Bullying, Trolling & Free Speech. It’s only 7 minutes but opens up some useful lines of inquiry.

I’ll also have them read two short texts, Adams “How the Internet Created an Age of Rage” and Clayton, “Understanding the ‘Civility Crisis.’” These will help frame many of the texts we read later. Adams argues incivility is a serious new problem and is driven by some unique characteristics of the internet. Clayton questions how we ought to define incivility and whether it is in fact really anything new.

1 CLASS TWO – Mapping positions  Stafford, Andrew. “Who Are These Haters That Poison the Well of Our Discourse? Sydney Morning Herald, April 12, 2012.  Wilson, Jason. “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet.” The Drum, 23 April 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-13/wilson---online-incivility/3948434  Zhuo, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt.” New York Times, November 20, 2010.  Boyd, Dana. “‘Real Names’ Policies are an Abuse of Power.” Blog post, August 04, 2011. http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html  Jeff Sparrow “Gamergate: when outsiders become the oppressors.” ABC News, Sep 04, 2014.

Groups will be assigned texts and present the main claims, how the issue is framed, how their text relates to the others, and also (time permitting) have them look for a few outside sources that extend, complicate or illustrate their text. If I have time I may show some of the video clips in the Sparrow text in order to open up the Gamergate issue and consider how it relates to the other texts we’ve discussed so far. (Another possibility is to play the “debate” game where they take on the role of the author, defend their position and ask questions of the other authors.)

DAY THREE – Solutions and Synthesis  James Fallows “Is There Anything to Do About 'Civility'? List of readers’ suggestions.  Natasha Lomas. “#Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms.”TechCrunch, Oct 18, 2014.  Thiago Alves Pinto, ‘GamerGate’ and Gendered Hate Speech’ 1 page. Argues for regulation as solution.  Thompson, Clive. Pages 77-81 of the book Smarter Than You Think, Penguin Press, 2013.  Have students take a quick look at projects like these: http://theciviccommons.com/ http://www.civilpolitics.org/

I plan to assign texts to groups and ask that they summarize their text, discuss how it relates to the other texts, and give an evaluation of the solution.

Then we will start working on ways of synthesizing the texts, of mapping points of connection and difference.

Here are some places to start.

Is there an increase in (online) incivility, and if so, what is causing it? - Yes, and it’s caused in large part by the internet – the possibility of mass public writing, de- individuation, disinhibition, etc. (Adams; Reich – to some extent) - Yes, and it’s largely the result of anonymity - Yes, but it’s largely because people who were excluded have found platforms to express their views. - Yes, and it is caused by periods of political disagreement, inequality, and challenge to existing norms such as we are experiencing at present (Reich, Clayton) - Yes, and it’s in part because we have not yet established a set of social and technological norms to foster better forms of discourse

2 - Not really – what we see is caused in large part by pre-existing conflicts, biases and prejudices that have merely been made visible.

How should we define incivility? - Stryker et al., “What is Political Incivility?” “We suggest that insulting utterances, deception, and behaviors tending to shut down or detract from inclusive ongoing deliberation, though correlated, can be treated as distinct, underlying aspects of political incivility.” - Clayton – a social construct we must interrogate carefully - Communication that undermines our ability to deliberative and sustain a healthy democracy (Reich) - Gamergate critics – communication that intimidates, silences and terrorizes opponents

Solutions - Technical fixes (Lomas) - Design of online spaces, social norms and rhetorical strategies (Thompson) - Eliminate anonymous speech or expose anonymous trolls (Zhuo; Chen, “The Troll Hunters.”) - Regulatory (Pinto) - No need – remedy likely to be worse than the problem (Wilson) - Education

3 SAMPLE PROMPT Synthesizing & Analyzing Arguments about Civil Discourse Online Trolling, harassment and online bullying have raised important questions about digital citizenship and civil discourse. President Obama recently argued that in order for our democracy to remain “healthy” we must work to “maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.”1 He outlines the main reasons why he believes civility has declined, and what can be done to improve this. A number of scandals have erupted involving bullying, trolling and “doxing,” and they have raised issues about what causes this behavior, what can be done about it, when and if internet anonymity should be upheld.

In this assignment you will map major points of similarity, difference, contrast and connection between texts that address these questions. You will consider how major positions advanced in these texts relate to each other, and you will evaluate claims representative of these positions.

We will begin by reading a set of arguments about online civility. You will formulate your own question about some aspect of the issue, present your own definition of the problem. Using this question or problem to guide your inquiry, you will “map” out and synthesize three contrasting positions on inequality. (You can also use an “anchor text” as a framework for mapping out the positions of other texts). For each position, you will select a representative text, and discuss some of the main points of connection, disagreement, and contrast between these three texts2. For example, you could compare different claims made about the nature, definition, causes and solutions to online harassment/incivility. You will conclude by discussing some of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these positions.

Part 1. Introduction 1. Introduce the topic and make a case for its significance. 2. Describe the question or problem the paper will investigate (being careful to formulate one that can be addressed to the texts you choose, and which is thus neither overly broad nor too specific.) 3. State the direction your analysis will take and how you will get us there (“metadiscourse.”)

Part 2. The Body, in which you synthesize and analyze the texts 1. Define three positions that represent different approaches to understanding the issue (you can give each position a name). Make sure you present the positions in a way that clearly distinguishes them. (These three positions should also be relevant to your question or problem.) 2. Present three texts that illustrate these three positions. Show how each individual text is representative of the position you defined. 3. Describe the overall argument each text makes, and some of the main points of connection, contrast, agreement, similarity and difference.

Part 3: Your conclusion, in which you outline some relative strengths and weaknesses 1. In the concluding section you will present an outline of some relative strengths and weaknesses of these three positions. OR

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring-commencement 2 Alternatively, could focus on how these arguments modify, complicate, challenge, qualify or extend one another.

4 2. You will make a case for the position that seems most persuasive to you.

AN EXAMPLE OF WRITING THAT MODELS WHAT GOES INTO A SYNTHESIS PAPER: op-ed by Krugman on Energy Prices April 21, 2008, NYT, “Running Out of Planet to Exploit,” PAUL KRUGMAN

Nine years ago The Economist ran a big story on oil, which was then selling for $10 a barrel. The magazine warned that this might not last. Instead, it suggested, oil might well fall to $5 a barrel.

In any case, The Economist asserted, the world faced “the prospect of cheap, plentiful oil for the foreseeable future.” Last week, oil hit $117. It’s not just oil that has defied the complacency of a few years back. Food prices have also soared, as have the prices of basic metals. And the global surge in commodity prices is reviving a question we haven’t heard much since the 1970s: Will limited supplies of natural resources pose an obstacle to future world economic growth?

How you answer this question depends largely on what you believe is driving the rise in resource prices. Broadly speaking, there are three competing views.

The first is that it’s mainly speculation — that investors, looking for high returns at a time of low interest rates, have piled into commodity futures, driving up prices. On this view, someday soon the bubble will burst and high resource prices will go the way of Pets.com.

The second view is that soaring resource prices do, in fact, have a basis in fundamentals — especially rapidly growing demand from newly meat-eating, car-driving Chinese — but that given time we’ll drill more wells, plant more acres, and increased supply will push prices right back down again.

The third view is that the era of cheap resources is over for good — that we’re running out of oil, running out of land to expand food production and generally running out of planet to exploit. I find myself somewhere between the second and third views.

There are some very smart people — not least, George Soros — who believe that we’re in a commodities bubble (although Mr. Soros says that the bubble is still in its “growth phase”). My problem with this view, however, is this: Where are the inventories? Normally, speculation drives up commodity prices by promoting hoarding. Yet there’s no sign of resource hoarding in the data: inventories of food and metals are at or near historic lows, while oil inventories are only normal. The best argument for the second view, that the resource crunch is real but temporary, is the strong resemblance between what we’re seeing now and the resource crisis of the 1970s.

What Americans mostly remember about the 1970s are soaring oil prices and lines at gas stations. But there was also a severe global food crisis, which caused a lot of pain at the supermarket checkout line — I remember 1974 as the year of Hamburger Helper — and, much more important, helped cause devastating famines in poorer countries.

5 In retrospect, the commodity boom of 1972-75 was probably the result of rapid world economic growth that outpaced supplies, combined with the effects of bad weather and Middle Eastern conflict. Eventually, the bad luck came to an end, new land was placed under cultivation, new sources of oil were found in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, and resources got cheap again. But this time may be different: concerns about what happens when an ever-growing world economy pushes up against the limits of a finite planet ring truer now than they did in the 1970s.

For one thing, I don’t expect growth in China to slow sharply anytime soon. That’s a big contrast with what happened in the 1970s, when growth in Japan and Europe, the emerging economies of the time, downshifted — and thereby took a lot of pressure off the world’s resources. Meanwhile, resources are getting harder to find. Big oil discoveries, in particular, have become few and far between, and in the last few years oil production from new sources has been barely enough to offset declining production from established sources.

And the bad weather hitting agricultural production this time is starting to look more fundamental and permanent than El Niño and La Niña, which disrupted crops 35 years ago. Australia, in particular, is now in the 10th year of a drought that looks more and more like a long-term manifestation of climate change. Suppose that we really are running up against global limits. What does it mean?

Even if it turns out that we’re really at or near peak world oil production, that doesn’t mean that one day we’ll say, “Oh my God! We just ran out of oil!” and watch civilization collapse into “Mad Max” anarchy.

But rich countries will face steady pressure on their economies from rising resource prices, making it harder to raise their standard of living. And some poor countries will find themselves living dangerously close to the edge — or over it.

Don’t look now, but the good times may have just stopped rolling.

6 Steps to Synthesis and Evaluation STASES – WAYS OF FINDING PATTERNS IN THE DEBATE Questions of fact: Does the problem exist? Questions of definition: What is it? Questions of interpretation: What does the problem mean and why does it matter? Questions of value: Is it good or bad? Questions of consequence: What are the causes of the problem and what are the effects? Questions of policy: What should be and can be done about this problem? This should give them a good map of each argument. We will also discuss claims and evidence, of course.

Steps to Synthesis and Evaluation  Use the Stases (facts, definitions, causes, solutions, etc.) to establish points of intersection between the texts (may need to infer connections, and do this through role playing or “author interviews”.)  Use problem definitions, claims and evidence, and “framing” to establish points of intersection  Form clusters of points  Use an anchor text (Noah, Edsall) to establish points of connection  Use your work establishing points of intersection connection to create an “argument grid” that displays authors’ positions and helps see the “big picture.”  Establish “maps” of author positions that reveal relationships  Create a synthesis tree – use this to locate splits between positions and within shared approaches. Locate major and minor splits.  In groups role play authors or do pretend “author interviews,” with group representing author.)

Sample Synthesis Tree What is the problem?

Disproportionate failure of Some groups

What causes this?

Factors Outside/Inside the School

Factors outside the schools Factors inside the school

Economics Discourses Political Cultural Failure to ensure Correctness Fragmentation traditional pedagogic Economics inside school Conflict betw. (George Will) (Hirsch) practices - homework etc & outside the school primary & 2ry (Applebee) (Gee)

7 Economics Economics Outside school inside school

(Ogbu) (Kozol)

Some Sample Positions from 2014 (Inequality) 1. Progressive – Prime Representatives are Krugman, Reich. Paul Krugman, “Confronting Inequality.” Reich, Inequality for All. Peter Beinart, “The End of American Exceptionalism” (talks about implications for young people) Timothy Noah’s “The Great Divergence.” Jeff Madrick, “Problem Number One”

Opponents/respondents to this view: Brink Lindsey, “Paul Krugman’s Nostalgianomics: Economic Policy, Social Norms and Income Inequality.” Peter Wehner, Robert P. Beschel, “How to Think about Inequality”

2. “Holistic,” Internationalist Progressive This position is most clearly represented by Wilkinson and Pickett, their book The Sprit Level, and “How economic inequality harms societies” (TED Talk) http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html Claims that high inequality leads to stress, ill health, violence and social dislocation that are harmful to everyone. Compares the effects across countries, and compares states within the U.S.

Possible illustration/connection: Monica Potts. “What's Killing Poor White Women?”

3. Conservative “Opportunity Not Inequality” position - Prime Representatives are Arthur Brooks, David Brooks. Some (not many) conservatives argue that inequality can never be a problem. Most others argue that it is only a problem if there is insufficient opportunity, but that there is opportunity.

Arthur Brooks “(In)Equality and Unhappiness in America.” Argues that inequality is a multi-faceted problem, but a relatively “benign” one since there is so much opportunity and social mobility. Suggests that both belief in and experience of mobility creates happiness and fulfillment, which are vital. Proposes we focus not on inequality but opportunity, and advance this through improving education, cultural impediments, labor market flexibility, entrepreneurship and investment.

Sendhil Mullainathan, “A Top-Heavy Focus on Income Inequality”

4. Cultural/Moral Explanations – Murray, Pennington, Chua Charles Murray, “The New American Divide,” Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2012. Amy Chua, “What Drives Success.” (provocative article by “Tiger Mom,” sure to get students talking.) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/what-drives-success.html

Stephanie Coontz “Marriage is not an antidote to poverty” Michelle Goldberg, “Is Conservative Christianity Bad for Marriage?”

5. Technology as Driver of Inequality – Representative is Jaron Lanier

8 Peter Wehner, Robert P. Beschel, “How to Think about Inequality.” The new technology-driven economy favors skilled over unskilled labor, and puts an unprecedented premium on "brain over brawn." Jaron Lanier, “Fixing the Digital Economy.” “TWO big trends in the world appear to contradict each other.On the one hand, computer networks are said to be disrupting centralized power of all kinds and giving it to the individual…But then there’s the other trend. Inequality is soaring in rich countries around the world, not just the United States. Money from the top 1 percent has flooded our politics…”

Texts for Unit 3

Interesting/fun texts to get the ball rolling  Jimmy Kimmel reading tweets in response to his PSA on vaccination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mdwmpLYLY. Could be used as bridge between some of the work we’ve been doing in unit 2 on unethical discourse. His original video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpfNScEd3M  Louis CK on Conan joking about online bullying and why he won't buy his kids cellphones  Kimmel and Celebrities read mean tweets  “How to Kill a Troll,” Erin Kissane. Blog post discusses the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian (GamerGate), the issues raised and what should be done to address this. http://incisive.nu/2012/how-to-kill-a-troll/  “How Anita Sarkeesian Wants Video Games To Change.” http://kotaku.com/how-anita- sarkeesian-wants-video-games-to-change-1688231729  “The Troll Hunters.” MIT Technology Review. Adrian Chen, December 18. http://www.technologyreview.com/photoessay/533426/the-troll-hunters/  Why it matters. “More on rudeness, civility, and the care and feeding of online conversations.” Janet D. Stemwede, Scientific American blog. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good- science/2013/02/15/more-on-rudeness-civility-and-the-care-and-feeding-of-online- conversations/

The Online Reader for unit 3 (see wiki) 1. Obama, Barack. Remarks on Civility and Political Participation by Barack Obama at the University of Michigan Spring Commencement, May 1, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-university-michigan-spring- commencement and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/01/obama-michigan- graduation_n_559688.html 2. Clayton, Cornell. “Understanding the ‘Civility Crisis.’” Washington State Magazine, Winter 2010. http://wsm.wsu.edu/s/index.php?id=827 3. Stafford, Andrew. “Who Are These Haters That Poison the Well of Our Discourse? Sydney Morning Herald, April 12, 2012. 4. Wilson, Jason. “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet.” The Drum, 23 April 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-13/wilson---online-incivility/3948434 5. Thompson, Clive. Pages 77-81 of the book Smarter Than You Think, Penguin Press, 2013 6. Zhuo, “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt.” New York Times, November 20, 2010. 7. Boyd, Dana. “‘Real Names’ Policies are an Abuse of Power.” Blog post, August 04, 2011. http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html 8. McNeely, Allison. “Internet ‘Rife’ with Harassment for Feminists,” Calgary Journal, November 7, 2011.

9 9. Pinto, Thiago Alves. “‘GamerGate’ and Gendered Hate Speech” (OxHRH, 19 November 2014) 10. Rosen, Jeffrey. “Who Decides? Civility v. Hate Speech on the Internet.” Insights on Law and Society, 13, Winter 2013. 11. Scales, Stephen. “Teaching Civility in the Age of Jerry Springer.” Teaching Ethics, Spring 2010.

Possible Anchors Texts 1. Scales, Stephen. “Teaching Civility in the Age of Jerry Springer.” Teaching Ethics, Spring 2010. 2. “National Institute for Civil Discourse Research Brief No. 1: Civil Discourse Online.” This is short (4 pages). Key issues Does online communication expand meaningful discourse across geographic and social boundaries or does it further fragment political discourse and the public sphere? Does anonymity in online discourse exacerbate incivility? http://nicd.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/research_briefs/NICD_research_brief1_0.pdf 3. The larger Civil Discourse Research report: http://nicd.arizona.edu/research-report Answers 3 questions: 1. What is Political Incivility? 2. Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments 3. Patterns and Determinants of Civility in Online Discussions 4. Video debate: Civility and the Media: Ellen Goodman, Joe Klein and Kathleen Parker at UMass Boston https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=regQJOu5tKU

SOME POSITIONS CAUSES  “How the internet created an age of rage” Tim Adams. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams  Robert Reich, "Political Civility Should Not Be an Oxymoron" Short text. Argues that economic inequality and the stresses associated with this are the main driver of incivility online.  [Anonymity a major driver of incivility] Robert Martin Eisinger and Graham Neray, “Civility 2.0: a comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion.” In an effort to clean up user comment sections, news organizations have turned to Facebook, the world's largest social network site, as a way to make users more identifiable and accountable for the content they produce. It is hypothesized that users leaving comments via their Facebook profile will be less likely to engage in uncivil and impolite discussion, even when it comes to discussing politically sensitive and potentially divisive issues.… In line with earlier theories of social interaction, the paper finds that political discussion on The Washington Post website is significantly more likely to be uncivil than discussion of the same content on the Washington Post Facebook page. Moreover, the incivility and impoliteness on the Washington Post website are significantly more likely to be directed towards other participants in the discussion compared to The Washington Post Facebook page.

CASES  “Gamergate and the new horde of digital saboteurs” Gamergate revealed just how quickly online mobs are able to harness hacker tools to intimidate, harass, and humiliate. Fruzsina Eördögh, Correspondent NOVEMBER 25, 2014. The Christian Science Monitor.  “#Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms. Natasha Lomas.” http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/18/gamergate-tactics/  “Gamergate: when outsiders become the oppressors.” Jeff Sparrow, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/sparrow-gamergate-when-outsiders- become-the-oppressors/5719584

10  ‘GamerGate’ and Gendered Hate Speech, Thiago Alves Pinto. Argues for regulation. http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/gamergate-and-gendered-hate-speech/  How to Kill a Troll. Discussion of the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian (GamerGate) and what should be done to address this. http://incisive.nu/2012/how-to-kill-a-troll/  The ‘‘Nasty Effect:’’ Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Ashley Anderson et al. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (2014) 373–387. Uncivil discourse is a growing concern in American rhetoric, and this trend has expanded beyond traditional media to online sources, such as audience comments. Using an experiment given to a sample representative of the U.S. population, we examine the effects online incivility on perceptions toward a particular issue—namely, an emerging technology, nanotechnology. We found that exposure to uncivil blog comments can polarize risk perceptions of nanotechnology along the lines of religiosity and issue support.  “Curt Schilling goes after the trolls who went after his daughter.” Mary Elizabeth Williams. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/03/curt_schilling_goes_after_the_trolls_who_went_a fter_his_daughter/  “The Troll Hunters.” MIT Technology Review. Adrian Chen, December 18. http://www.technologyreview.com/photoessay/533426/the-troll-hunters/

DEFINITIONS  Adam Ferguson’s Civil Society and the Rhetorical Functions of (In)Civility in United States Senate Debate. Christopher R. Darr. [Argues that incivility is or can be an important part of political deliberation]  Robert M. Eisinger “Incivility on the Internet: dilemmas for democratic discourse” Vitriolic Internet discourse does not appear to promote or advance democratic deliberation, however episodic contentious discourse allows political actors and the mass public to hear, read and learn each other’s attitudes and perspectives.”  “Why I like vicious, anonymous online comments”. Matt Zoller Seitz. “As news outlets push back against trolls, we may be losing something: A glimpse of the real America.” http://www.salon.com/2010/08/03/in_defense_of_anonymous_commenting/

EFFECTS/WHY MATTERS  “The Polarizing Effect of Incivility in the Political Blog Commentsphere.” Elizabeth Suhay. “Overall, the data suggest that much blog content polarizes readers along partisan and ideological lines and that uncivil comments are especially able to do so.”  Why it matters. “More on rudeness, civility, and the care and feeding of online conversations.” Janet D. Stemwede, Scientific American blog. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2013/02/15/more-on- rudeness-civility-and-the-care-and-feeding-of-online-conversations/

SOLUTIONS  How to Kill a Troll. Discussion of the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian (GamerGate) and what should be done to address this. http://incisive.nu/2012/how-to-kill-a-troll/  “#Gamergate Shows Tech Needs Far Better Algorithms. Natasha Lomas.” http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/18/gamergate-tactics/

11  ‘GamerGate’ and Gendered Hate Speech, Thiago Alves Pinto. Argues for regulation as solution. http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/gamergate-and-gendered-hate- speech/  “The Universal Rules of Civilized Discourse” “With Discourse, it was clear that we needed to totally reboot the software to create next-generation forum software. But code is only part of the story. Any reasonable attempt at delivering a Civilized Discourse Construction Kit has to provide a safe, simple default set of guidelines for civilized discourse.” http://blog.discourse.org/2013/03/the-universal-rules-of-civilized- discourse/  Wilson, Jason. “Beware attempts to suppress conflict on the internet.” The Drum, 23 April 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-13/wilson---online- incivility/3948434  “What If We Could Weaponize Empathy?” Jeff Atwood. Rules for online community, how to shape norms, handle moderation, etc. http://blog.codinghorror.com/what-if-we-could-weaponize-empathy/ Part two is here:  “Regulating hate speech online,” James Banks. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology Vol. 24, No. 3, November 2010, 233–239. ….The paper develops to consider how technological innovations can restrict the harm caused by hate speech while states seek to find common ground upon which to harmonise their approach to regulation. Further, it argues that a broad coalition of government, business and citizenry is likely to be most effective in reducing the harm caused by hate speech.  “Hate Speech on the Internet Should Be Regulated” Ronald Eissens. From Hate on the Net: Virtual Nursery for In Real Life Crime. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), 2004.  Teach Digital Citizenship http://www.edutopia.org/article/digital-citizenship-resources http://www.edutopia.org/blog/digital-native-digitial-citizen-stereotype-mary-beth-hertz Rather than stereotyping our students as "digital natives," we should be calling them "digital citizens." Being a digital citizen is complex. These days, digital citizenship encompasses everything we do in every aspect of our lives. With students maintaining personal blogs, creating their own YouTube channels and engaging in online gaming, learning, creation and you-name-it communities, it is imperative that they know and understand their rights and responsibilities when it comes to content creation and consumption, as well as how they conduct themselves socially online.