The curious thing about digital information and online information is that it is a novel mix of standardized, fixed, literate text and fluid, flexible oral communication.* We want to use online writing to facilitate a pseudo-oral, lateral, community discussion without being bonded to our words in the way an author published in institutionalized, traditional mediums like an academic journal, newspaper, or even radio and television would. Words you speak almost never pin you down in the same way written text makes you beholden. But communicating online bestows that written permanence on texts that were meant to be more oral, more speculative, more flexible in nature. In an offline discussion, it’s unlikely someone will quote you verbatim, things you said a year ago (and use those words against you).

Sometimes we treat online information as written texts, sometimes like oral texts. Unsurprisingly, many older users skew towards the former - for them, an email is like a digital letter executed with proper punctuation and signed with a name even though that’s usually redundant information.

Younger users generally skew towards the latter - emails are conversational like cellphone texts, IMs, Facebook wall posts, twitter posts, in which case, why bother with email?

On one hand, we enjoy the speed and flexibility of online communication, on the other hand, we sometimes would like someone to be accountable to online content so you will still find attitudes like anonymity being cowardly etc. As a former moderator of some highly trafficked discussion boards, I’ll say that this discrepancy between communication styles and expectations still causes serious confusion/conflict.

What’s the solution(s)? Well the easiest way to negotiate textual rigidity is to create an impermanent handle completely removed from your offline life. One is (or was…) relatively safe to spew incriminating verbiage, flaming bullshit or what have you anywhere in cyberspace while hiding under a pseudonym.

But 2.0 has changed that. People build identities online that are more intricately bound to their offline selves, even if their online presence presents false information. In addition, an online presence for many people crosses communities; there is a lot of overlap in contacts one accrues on different social networking sites. This 2.0 shift requires different tactics to evade authorial responsibility. Younger users search for spaces where information they produce is not laden with accountability and consequences.

Our old attitudes regarding accountability and language don’t always apply well to internet communication and younger users are creating new strategies to circumvent this. I think this is partly why internet culture has become what it is: ljdrama, ytmnd, camwhores, pr0n, lolcats, furries and whatever else you can find trawling Encyclopedia Dramatica. They’re spaces where it’s acceptable to scan a text rather than read it. They’re spaces where you don’t have to choose your words with care.

And while this works great online, it’s the impact this shift has on offline communication and interaction that brings out the value judgments in me. Because there are certain things that can’t or shouldn’t be expressed through online modes and styles of communication. At least I’d like to believe that there are many things worth expressing face to face or through literary, languorous texts. But then again, I’m a user who still signs her Facebook messages with her name.

Epistolarily yours,
E

*I’m taking these definitions and their associated qualities from economist and communications theorist Harold Innis and his book The Bias of Communication.