Reputation, reputation, reputation

Rosanne Bersten

The old adage says don't mention politics or religion. And yet this is what we do every day. Over the years we've developed careful and caring guidelines to ensure we can do this in healthy, safe ways — we call it safe meeting procedure for short and we're good at it.

But online — on Facebook, Twitter, in email, in private messages to each other and to supporters of other parties — when you don't have to look people in the eye, it can be too easy to let fly in ways that fall short of our best selves and our ideals. The problem has escalated from the occasional tweet alerting the Greens that supporters have been engaging in personal “attacks” while discussing heated issues to participants in some groups describing the online culture as “toxic” to formal complaints about bullying.

As a result, the Australian Greens National Council has now released a statement about cyberbullying.

(For the time-poor: it's never okay to bully someone online and there are mechanisms to deal with complaints against members. National Council will be taking issues like this very seriously.

Greens members and supporters are expected to be polite and respectful, to address the issue not the person and to generally set the example for how online discussions should be conducted.)

The problem

What is going on? One obvious problem is 'ad hominem' attacks — and we're hardly the only political party or indeed organisation with this issue. The Internet is rife with trolling, so-called 'sock-puppets' and anonymous aggression. And that's before we even get to the deeply revolting stuff like GamerGate.

Another of the challenges relates to “micro-aggressions” around gender, race, and age, which are noticeable where conversations occur between groups that can't see each other.

As Greens, we are aware of racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia and are careful to measure our words in person but, as extensive research has shown, all of us have implicit assumptions that unconsciously inform our behaviour. We moderate our own behaviour more consciously when we know a member of that group is present, which leads to the joke that's told followed by, “Oh, if I'd known you were gay/Jewish/married to a Kenyan, I'd never have told it”. Of course, online, as the saying goes, no one knows you're a dog and so anything goes — or so it seems.

Sadly, this has been true even in groups where moderators have been diligent in ensuring that participants are all members of the party — so we can't just blame members of other parties trolling us, although that definitely happens too.

These online micro-aggressions do not exist in a vacuum. For young women, for example, they are part of a continuum of the lived experience of sexism and the expectation that a Greens space should be a haven from this experience makes for an even stronger reaction when it's encountered. The recipient responds with accusations of trolling or sexism which of course is remarkably offensive to the person who it's aimed at. Sure, what was said was problematic, but the speaker in turn has their own particular histories and experiences — for example, they could be an older gay trade unionist with a long history of activism who had no intention of sexism or condescension. In turn, they arc up, the conversation escalates and next thing you know, Person A has blocked Person B and perhaps Person C has decided the Greens are not the organisation they thought and they disengage just that little bit more.

But, as Naomi Klein says, to change everything, we need everyone, so we can't afford to alienate each other.

The solution

How should this be resolved? Is it enough to post a reminder of those safe meeting procedures in online spaces or does the semi-anonymity or perceived distance behind the keyboard and screen dampen the knowledge that the person on the other end is still a human being?

In many ways, this is a deeply privileged conversation, another aspect we've lost sight of — in China, there are still people in jail due to online activism.

First, let's have a look at those safe meeting procedures. Here's an example recently posted in a Facebook group:

1. Come with good intentions

2. Have the intention of reaching consensus and a commitment to consensus decision-making

3. Extend goodwill to all participants

4. Try not to bring previous differences, difficulties and problems to the meeting

5. If someone else has made the point, don't repeat it

6. Listen without preconceptions and be open to new ideas

7. Respect others' points of view

8. Encourage quieter people to participate

9. Avoid sexist, homophobic or generally aggressive and oppressive language

10. Address the issue not the person

11. Avoid side-conversations and interjections

12. Leave the group if you do not want to participate in good faith.

It's been noted that not all of these actually work online, notably number 11, because 'side conversations' is pretty much the definition of a vibrant online space. However, to use online-speak, what this really means is 'don't derail'. And while number 5 sounds amazing, we all know it won't happen. In a meeting with a set end-time, holding back on your point that has been 95% made but has a uniquely different angle is easy enough; online, it feels more like you're reinforcing the argument for those who've gone before you in a way a 'like' never will.

The rest, however, sounds pretty good. And then, when you bring in the Community Guidelines of the Australian Greens Facebook page, you've probably got it covered:

Vibrant and open comments threads are at the heart of what we aim to achieve. However, to encourage open participation there are limits to acceptable communication. Violent language is not welcome here.

We often post about contentious issues that evoke passionate responses. We welcome all kinds of comments and thoughts: supportive, dissenting, critical or otherwise, as long as they are made in the spirit of constructive and civilised dialogue.

• Polite language please! Coarse, racist, sexist or homophobic language, defamation, abuse and attacks are not acceptable.

• Please do your best to stay on topic. While we appreciate wide-ranging discussions, we'd like to avoid derailed threads.

• Please try to avoid excessively frequent or long comments, which may discourage others from participating. If you have a lot to add, write a Facebook note and link to it.

• No hawkers. This page is NOT somewhere to sell your goods and services, or spruik off-topic issues or campaigns.

• Limit links. Any comment with more than two links could be marked as comment spam.

• Trolling and sockpuppetry are not acceptable.

The question of human induced global warming has been settled. If you wish to take exception to the findings of NASA, CSIRO and 97% of the world's scientists, there are plenty of places online you can do that. Discussion here will not be derailed by questions around the existence of the issue, and will focus instead on the best means to address it.

Administrators may report or remove comments containing spam, profanity, or otherwise objectionable or prohibited material subject to the Facebook Code of Conduct, Terms of Use, and the general rules above. Discussion about moderation will not be entered into on the Facebook page.

The only remaining points might be to add Islamophobia and chemtrails to the list of topics that meet zero tolerance.

Time, people and determination

None of us like being the 'bad guy'. In every utopian political scenario, the biggest question is always, “What do we do with people who break the rules?”

So, even if we have consensus that these are the rules we'd like to follow online, we need enough people with enough time to read everything and sufficient authority and determination to discourage, hide and delete comments that cross over into breaches of ethics or firmly into the realm of bullying without being overly enthusiastic and deleting otherwise passionate conversation, and thereby risking accusations of censorship.

What does 'enough people' mean? There are some who say the ideal moderation ratio is one moderator to every 10,000 people — but that would mean we need 20 moderators for the Australian Greens Facebook page and we simply don't have that. It also suggests that only one moderator is needed for some of the very active discussion spaces that have fewer than 5000 people, and that's clearly not true.

Let's say, though, that we expect all Greens spaces to have at least three moderators and to have people available to moderate from at least 8am to at least 10pm.

We also expect you — Greens members and supporters — to moderate yourselves and take responsibility for your own behaviour, to generally set the example for how online discussions should be conducted.

Finally, there's that last resort of banning repeat offenders. In utopian literature, it's usually referred to as ostracism. Should it be immediate in the case of an obvious breach of rules? Should it require at least two moderators to ensure personal vendettas aren't in play? And what of real world consequences? Is there space for mediation? When are the police called? When is an offence bad enough that the offender is stripped of membership? These are difficult questions that are still being resolved.

The Greens welcome further discussion about this important issue — but obviously invite you to remain polite and respectful.

Rosanne Bersten is the Australian Greens National Communications Coordinator. Each State and Territory Greens party has mechanisms to resolve disputes between members within States. Contact details for State convenors can be found here: greens.org.au/contact. Complaints about a member from interstate can be referred to the National Co-Convenors via email: convenor@greens.org.au.