December 4th, 2007

Could be persuaded to put down their tar, feathers, pitchforks, and torches, perhaps they might listen to the details coming out about Megan Meiers and the Drews and might want to consider that they acted thoughtlessly, recklessly, and without all the facts.

For six weeks, Josh and Megan traded "innocuous" messages, Banas said, with no sexual suggestion and no "demeaning or disrespectful" language sent by either.

On Oct. 15, 2006, the day before Megan committed suicide, a friend of Drew's daughter was given the password to the Josh Evans account. The friend sent Megan a message as Josh saying he had heard Megan was mean to her friends.

The next day, the messages flew back and forth and became heated, Banas said. Other kids, who may not have known Josh was fake, began writing. They called each other names.

Josh said the world would be better off without Megan.

In the aftermath, bloggers, neighbors and leaders blamed the Drews for Megan's death.

But on Monday, Banas said it's unclear who created the fake MySpace profile.

Grills told lawyers that Drew wanted her to set up a fake profile.

Drew, however, said her daughter and Grills came to her with the idea. Drew agreed but told the girls they should only speak to Megan "in polite terms and not say anything disrespectful," Banas said.

Drew told the FBI she let her daughter write Megan when she was present — only once or twice.

There is no evidence that Drew wrote a single message, Banas said.

On the day Megan hanged herself, it was Grills who wrote the final message, Banas said.

Until now, the story told was that Grills told a lawyer representing Megan's parents that Drew was present and that she was telling Drew what she was typing.

But according to an FBI report, Drew said she wasn't even home when the "heated exchange" between Josh and Megan took place, Banas said.

And that same report shows that Grills had changed her story: It wasn't Lori Drew at home, but her husband, Curt Drew.

Curt Drew said he was home, Banas said, but unaware.

Grills, Banas said, was later hospitalized for psychiatric care as a result of the case. She threatened to harm herself, he said.

"That young lady and most of these people had no idea that this would happen to a young girl the way it did," Banas said.

The account was set up because Drews daughter believe Megan was saying stuff about her, and wanted to find out what she was saying. It was childish, and Lori Drew should not have agreed, but there was no intent to callously push this child into suicide. It was only later, when in typical MySpace fashion, a pile on had occurred and brought in people totally unrelated to any of the people that things got ugly.

Lori Drew was guilty of nothing more than making a mistake in judgment. A bad mistake in judgment, but not unlike mistakes all parents make. Now, her daughter has been forced to drop out of school, her business has been destroyed, her husband has been fired from his job, and they're being forced from their home and their neighborhood. The same people going after Lori Drew have now started going after Grills. Trying for two suicides, eh?

These are two families and a local tragedy, made global. These are two families, both with parents who did not have the sense to keep their kids away from MySpace. This was a tragic event made even more ugly via the same 'social networking' that led to the tragedy in the first place.

As for whether Lori Drew created this Blogger weblog think rationally: do you really believe this weblog was created by Lori Drew? When the grief counselor came to our school last year and spoke to us… Seriously?

I have to wonder at all of those people, sitting in the comfort of their homes, making their value judgments and issuing their own form of vigilante justice–at what point in time, do facts start mattering to you when it comes to your search for justice?

However, I gather that most webloggers don't consider that they need facts. Facts are for other people. Not webloggers.

Here is a perfect example, though, of putting adult tools into the hands of children (age notwithstanding). Kids can be cruel, but in the past, such cruelty was limited to neighborhood and school. Now, cruelty's scope is worldwide, and rather than adults acting to balance the cruelty with calm and consideration, they join in.

update

I am astonished–absolutely astonished–that danah boyd would believe the "Megan had it coming" weblog was written by Lori Drew. And then to perform some form of analysis based on this belief. Absolutely astonished.

While there is no lack of criticism in the weblogging world, there certainly seems to be a lack of critical thinking.

Comments
1

and rather than adults acting to balance the cruelty with calm and consideration, they join in.

From my personal experience, there is nothing new about the parents joining in.
Nothing.

"My kid, right or wrong…"

2
Shelley - 1:29 pm 12/4/2007

Who is talking about the parents, Michael? I'm talking about the webloggers.

3

The anonymous and brutal worldwide attack on the Drews has been horrendous, and I'm sad to say completely inevitable. There's nothing the web loves more than a target for righteous anger (see also Kids, Mean). The nuanced truth will never catch up to the initial story.

As bad as Lori Drews actions were, I feel sorry for her.

"Lori Drew was guilty of nothing more than making a mistake in judgment. A bad mistake in judgment, but not unlike mistakes all parents make."

As a parent, I recoiled a bit at this characterization. Even under the most generous interpretation of the facts, Lori Drew initiated an online relationship with a child through MySpace by pretending to be another child. That's a huge mistake in judgment, and it makes you wonder what Drew would have thought if someone did that to her child.

4
Shelley - 2:55 pm 12/4/2007

Rogers, yes, there is some resemblance to the response to the Mean Kids incident. In that case, a lot of people responded to the emotion, rather than the facts. Once more of the facts came out, amazing how many of them never said another word.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm losing a lot patience for this environment, and it probably shows.

I still consider that what Drew did was make a bad mistake in judgment. What else would you call it? A crime? It wasn't. An act of stupidity? Well, I consider bad mistakes in judgment to be pretty stupid. Otherwise, they wouldn't be bad mistakes.

I don't consider Drew's response to the MySpace request from her daughter and her babysitter to be all that different than Meier letting her child have a MySpace account, and letting her add Josh as a friend. Especially when her daughter had created a fraudulent account the year before, herself. Megan showed she wasn't emotionally mature enough to have MySpace privileges. Also, Meiers let her daughter add a boy who she didn't know, and who supposedly didn't have a phone (but did have an internet connection)? Unfortunately, not a good judgment call, at all. And if Ms. Meiers does take this to court, as she's now stating, an attorney is going to put her through hell on just this, too.

Considering how emotionally fragile Megan was, an online presence was not a healthy place for that kid.

Frankly, anyone that lets their under 16 year old have a public MySpace, LiveJournal, FaceBook, Blogger account is also making a bad mistake in judgment. In my opinion, of course, but I'm not a parent. I don't know how you all measure these things.

5

You're right. Instead of blaming the adults or the children (teenagers aren't really children, but whatever) we should blame MySpace.

6
Doug - 4:15 pm 12/4/2007

I don't get it. Everyone agrees that the MySpace account that triggered this mess was fraudulent, right? And yet people automatically accept that the weblog is genuine? Did they learn nothing from Megan's experience?

I would have thought that by now people would understand that impersonation and fraud are widespread on teh Intarwebs.

7
Shelley - 4:25 pm 12/4/2007

"You're right. Instead of blaming the adults or the children (teenagers aren't really children, but whatever) we should blame MySpace.

Wow, Dare, you must have been reading my alternative universe version of this post. That's pretty good, I thought I was the only one to figure out how to do that.

"Did they learn nothing from Megan's experience?"

Doesn't seem like it.

8
Bud Gibson - 5:43 pm 12/4/2007

Intrepidly, I wade back in. I agree that it appears not to be a crime. That does not mean it is not a wrong open to redress in various ways. It strikes me that this could be actionable as some sort of slander.

A creative person might go for some sort of man slaughter based on malicious neglect. After all, if everyone should know that myspace is bad due to pile on effects, opening an account to go after someone on myspace might mean that you exposed them to something that you knew could go terribly wrong.

9
dave rogers - 5:48 pm 12/4/2007

I don't know what you're so down on, Shelley. This is all part of the new world of the internet! Think of it as "crowd-sourced justice." Hierarchies are so 20th Century. Who needs "authorities?" We're all about the flatness now. Flat is the new phat. The 'net "empowers" us to seek justice, each in our own way! No need for those inefficient public "servants!" Think of the tax savings!

And that whole "Josh" thing? It was just a mash-up! C'mon, we're "empowered" to kind of embrace whatever identity we choose on the 'net! Everything is miscellaneous! I'm a parent, but on the 'net, I'm a kid! It's the best of all possible worlds! Identity mash-up! All the cool kids are doing it!

Really, you need to get with the program, Shel! Buy a cap from an online cap vendor, make sure you have a good relationship with your vendor first though, then wear it backwards. You'll feel better in no time. Join in the fun! Life is good! Life is great! The internet cannot wait! Social networks facilitate the collaboration of citizens in the pursuit of justice! And truthiness! And the American entrepreneurial way! Go us!

10
Kathy Sierra - 9:05 pm 12/4/2007

I think "crowd-sourced justice" is a (sadly) good description of what happens. I would only add that it applies to *all* sides — Megan was also a victim of group pile-on behavior, the psychological phenomenon known as "informational social influence" aka "social proof." Even three people can constitute a 'mob' and cause bad behaviors to rapidly escalate (mean quickly turns to cruel, etc.)

For every I-hate-Lori site there will be/are "self-satisfied, superior, smug" megandeservedit sites, fake bios, and heavily-repeated talking points (the dead girl is already being referred to online as "that psycho bitch") portraying Megan and her family in the worst possible light. I have no doubt that Megan's family will be hit from a self-righteous mob just as much as the Drew's. There is a powerful retribution for attempting to complain about "cyberbullying" in any form, and it's often not as visible to those outside the situation. The if-you-can't-take-it-get-off-the-net group is large, and its supporters know how to do their damage in less-visible forums and cover their tracks well.

I've been guilty of inciting a mob and I've been on the receiving end of one–both mobs in a fight over the same situation. I guess I'm saying there is plenty of self-righteous smugness to go around ALL sides of most events, no matter how one-sided it may appear.

Perhaps the important and useful question should be how can we better understand the influence of 'social proof', and learn to teach both kids and adults how to counteract the heavily damaging and largely unconscious effects. We can also learn to better use the influence we ourselves have. Like I said, we all know that I sparked a mob, but Shelley, so have you, albeit smaller scales. One of the key aspects of the psychology around this is that we tend to view only those active groups with an opposing view as 'a mob'. We don't consider it 'self-righteous' when we believe we (and our friends or those who think like us) are simply… right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Proof
http://www.lucifereffect.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-its-Own-Distorts-Deceives/dp/0393062139

11
Ethan - 9:05 pm 12/4/2007

Apropos of nothing, Dave's comment reminds me of those photo montages (think Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) that comes with a numbered guide. #14 is Mick Jagger, #39 is Lou Reed.

I say this because if one squints hard enough (partly while snorting a laugh), one can pick out the references. Backwards cap. Miscellaneous. Hmmmmmmm. :-)

BTW Dave, since I hear you're into that sort of thing, my first Tao article is up. (Sorry to cross-promote, just mashing up the email I would have sent privately into this comment.)

———

As for the morality of the "Josh" identity, that's above and beyond anything I've ever experienced in the world of parents sticking up for their kids. Usually, this was performed by way of the infamous knock on the door (you tell your kid to stay away from my kid) or something more mutually agreeable, like the mothers would talk it over when they had time to talk. Or the kids would eventually figure out how to co-exist without killing each other. My mileage obviously varied. But forging an online identity? I'm thinking this is a new one.

As for the age question, I agree that MySpace accounts for minors should be monitored. Maybe not banned outright, but certainly monitored.

12
Shelley - 10:40 pm 12/4/2007

Bud, this was no violation of law. I think if both the FBI and the county prosecutor agree on this, we should perhaps accept this as fact.

Dave hit it right on and with a better sense of satire than I'm capable of at this moment: crowd-sourced justice. Wickedly brilliant analogy. I wish I could respond in kind. I have become dull with anger. All I can think of is, how dare we?

How dare we presume to know what is or is not equitable justice? To sit in our homes and from afar flick our fingers to destroy this family's life or that.

The problems with the girls should have been resolved by the parents, face to face, but neither set of parents had the sense to tell their kids to get off the internet.

They lived four doors apart from each other. How utterly insane was that? They lived four doors apart from each other, and they sought to resolve issues through MySpace, and now through the internet.

What is the response to this tragedy? More of the same, by people who have no right to have a say in this at all. We are not the wronged party. Megan wasn't our child. We are not the law. No laws were broken. This wasn't a global issue–this is and should remain between the two families. If the Meier's choose to take the Drews to court that is their prerogative.

Kathy:

For every I-hate-Lori site there will be/are "self-satisfied, superior, smug" megandeservedit sites, fake bios, and heavily-repeated talking points (the dead girl is already being referred to online as "that psycho bitch") portraying Megan and her family in the worst possible light. I have no doubt that Megan's family will be hit from a self-righteous mob just as much as the Drew's. There is a powerful retribution for attempting to complain about "cyberbullying" in any form, and it's often not as visible to those outside the situation.

Define cyberbullying? Dumping on this child? Destroying the Drews business and forcing their daughter to quit school? What's to choose between them? They're all acts committed by people using the internet to extract some perceived form of justice.

You think I'm pushing back against those critical of cyberbullying? Then you're not reading what I'm saying, Kathy. I'm saying its time for all of us to butt out. We don't belong in this battle. These two families have to work this out between them. There is no law that could be passed that could have saved Megan, no global change to behavior that would have saved that child. This was adults not acting responsibly.

Now its up to the adults to do what they should have done all along: face each other, and resolve this issue. Nothing any of us can do will make this situation any better, or less likely to happen in the future.

Kathy, you wrote that what we need to do is "…better understand the influence of 'social proof', and learn to teach both kids and adults how to counteract the heavily damaging and largely unconscious effects."

It's call common sense, Kathy. It's also called learning to turn the computer off.

Now I'll take my mob of one and ride off into the sunset.

13
dave rogers - 4:20 am 12/5/2007

We don't belong in this battle.

Well, maybe not this one, but some battle. If it's only the battle for not throwing everything we've learned about civilization over the side, just because the internet [breathlessly]"changes everything."

It's 5:15 a.m., 41 degrees outside, and I'm about to go for a four mile run.

I must be insane.

More to follow.

If I survive. ;^)

(Nice to see you, Kathy Sierra.)

Update: I survived. Unfortunately, now I have to go to work. If I'd have died, I wouldn't have to go to work; but the effect would be the same, I can't expound just now.

But I'll be back…

14
dave rogers - 7:52 am 12/5/2007

Perhaps the important and useful question should be how can we better understand the influence of 'social proof', and learn to teach both kids and adults how to counteract the heavily damaging and largely unconscious effects.

Perhaps not. Perhaps the most important question is how can we begin to learn how to make technology serve us, while preserving the things we value? How can we begin to get ahead of the pace of technological change, such that we don't end up with an "unintended consequence" that we can't live with?

One of my online disagreements with Kathy had to do with her characterization of "negative people." I will be the first to admit that I'm something of a negative person. I won't say I'm a pessimist, and I won't say I can't be optimistic, but I think I can be realistic and I believe I often am, and that leads me to conclusions and opinions that are largely negative.

Most of the time, when anyone can be bothered to respond to my negative criticism, the response is mostly some handwaving and a declaration about being an "optimist." Well, "hope is not a strategy," and neither is optimism.

There are many things we probably know fairly well now about human behavior, as Kathy points out. For instance, I think we understand how sitting in cars seems to isolate or insulate us socially, such that the normal inhibitions that often govern social behavior are less effective behind the wheel. While I wouldn't flip someone the bird when I was angry with them in the office, I would do it to an anonymous person who made me angry on the road. I don't anymore, well, nowhere near as often anyway - sigh -, because I understand something about myself and what's going on in that situation that I didn't understand before. But that knowledge came late, and at some cost, and it's evident to me that many other people don't have that knowledge yet, and may never get it.

So now we have the internet and technology that facilitates social interaction (for commercial purposes, I hasten to add); but, while similar, it's unlike most other social interactions in the "real world." Again, the normal inhibitions that govern our behavior seem absent, and so we're much less inhibited in many ways online. While many celebrate this as a virtue, as a kind of "freedom," we are confronting many "unintended consequences" of that freedom in the loss of privacy to commercial interests.

Do we value privacy? I think we do, but I often read rationalizations and justifications for surrendering our privacy to commercial interests in order to maintain what is, to me anyway, an illusion regarding the utility and value of these artifacts we're constructing. So many people have become emotionally invested in a vision of the future that they've created and built a career on that the potentially significant downsides are swept under the rug, or waved away by claims of being an optimist.

And here we see, not for the first time as most of you visiting here know quite clearly, yet more fairly well understood human behavior, that we don't often encounter in the "real world," or not at the same scale. Remember, technology doesn't change what we do, it changes how we do it, expanding it in space, and compressing it in time - hence "flash mobs." One of the ugliest ideas I ever read about the internet, apart from "markets are conversations," was this notion of "smart mobs." Clearly coined by someone who'd never encountered a mob of any sort.

I'm not calling for pessimism in place of optimism, but I am calling for maturity and sobriety. We're not engaged in a great "experiment," we're involved in a reckless and out of control economic process, which enriches the few at the expense of the many and the things we value. I say it's time we tried to act like responsible adults and figure out how we're going to try and do this better.

That's not sexy, and it's not going to make anyone rich, and it's likely to be an utterly Sisyphean task, but if we don't, then we're going to be the unhappy victims of our own "success."

15
Shelley - 8:23 am 12/5/2007

(Nice to see you, Kathy Sierra.)

Perhaps this signals Kathy's return to weblogging.

16
Bud Gibson - 9:22 am 12/5/2007

One thing that has been running around in the back of my mind during all of this is that the situation was essentially a local, small town affair. Is the use of MySpace just incidental? That's actually what my thinking has been through all of this.

Mother wants to get at child's rival, happens to find MySpace method to do so. Things then spin out of control.

That sounds like an old story.

If you take the view that the use of MySpace is just incidental to the whole plot, it boils down to questioning who was the aggressor. While there may not be a question of illegality (I'll leave that to lawyers), there very well could be a question of tort.

As for the question of vigilante justice, I am generally not for lynchings. But as a public person, people make their opinions about you and decide what to do

17

Who is talking about the parents, Michael? I'm talking about the webloggers.

Shelly, my apologies for the misunderstanding. I'll note that mob justice isn't new either.

While I wouldn't flip someone the bird when I was angry with them in the office, I would do it to an anonymous person who made me angry on the road. I don't anymore, well, nowhere near as often anyway - sigh -, because I understand something about myself and what's going on in that situation that I didn't understand before. […] Again, the normal inhibitions that govern our behavior seem absent, and so we're much less inhibited in many ways online.

Dave, there is a parallel here. Cars are a ubiquitous but an 'unevenly distributed' technology. In LA, the social isolation is even more extreme, such that flipping someone off can actually trigger road rage and get you killed. Guess what? flipping people off is less common in L.A. (BTW, I recommend the movie 'L.A. Story' to anyone who hasn't seen it).

I have a feeling that *eventually* the serious consequences of 'crowd-sourced justice' will result in new social norms that mostly avoid doing things that can provoke it, and also in higher thresholds for joining in. This instance of 'crowd-sourced justice' (or perhaps 'viral justice') is only a difference in degree from various incident's involving public and semi-public figures, like Alan Ralsky getting inundated with mail-order catalogs and junk mail, or the aftermath of George Allen's 'macaca' moment, or various 'fired for blogging' shitstorms. In fact, it is the flip side of such altruistic phenomena as Craig Shergold still getting get well cards 18 years after the original chain letter was sent (over 200 million, at last estimate).

I'm not sure what the new dynamic equilibrium will look like once society digests the changes in how easily someone can become a publicly visible figure and how much easier it is to provoke massive human DDOS attacks to aim at such (not to mention anonymity and pseudonymity protecting the participants), but the 'unevenly distributed' interim is not going to be pretty.

18

The question I take away from all of this: Is there a market on the web for waiting until the facts are in to pass judgment? The view of the Meier/Drew situation seems fixed in cement, as do opinions on the Texas homeowner who shot his neighbor's burglars to death after being told not to confront them by a 911 dispatcher. Just as fast food has inspired a slow food movement, maybe we need slow news.

19
Karl - 11:22 am 12/5/2007

What a sad mess.

Dave, you coined an interesting term. One I'm going to remember.

I don't know how I feel about this, mostly because there are two versions of the truth being shared in the media right now - one version by each family. And I bet we will hear a third shortly as well.

On top of all that we have the police reports.

According to one, Drew admitted *knowing* all of the sock puppet's communication, including messages of a sexual nature.

To a 13 year old.

Now the facts seem more fluid.

There maybe no crime committed as one defined on the books. And we probably still don't know the entire truth.

As for mobs, there appears to be one just as large off line in this case - and it is growing.

Roger - damn I wish there were such a movement. We need it now more than ever.

20

We have slow news. They are called magazines.

21
dave rogers - 1:11 pm 12/5/2007

I think I'm suggesting something more fundamental than simply "slow news," or the evolution of new social norms. This particular incident is merely one aspect of a much, much larger problem. An "evolutionary" approach to new social norms seems too slow to me. One of the definitions I recall for "the Singularity" is that it is the point beyond which we will cease to be able to make meaningful predictions about the future - at any timescale.

While I don't believe we're at that point, I believe we're approaching the point where unintended consequences can affect vast numbers of people far more quickly than we offer any sort of meaningful response. An example may be climate change. But climate change may be a simple problem, compared to financial markets and networked economies. And does a networked world make it easier for us to respond to natural disasters, or far more difficult? When the next killer flu breaks out, will useful information travel faster than the fear and misinformation offered by the fearful and the well-intentioned?

And how do we want our civilization to be shaped by these technologies? If ubiquitous computing and ubiquitous surveillance mean that we can use technology as kind of a universal "lie-detector," will we all begin wearing masks to preserve some sense of inner privacy? Will we increase our social isolation in response to our technological "togetherness?" Or will we all just become more "honest?"

"Why yes, dear, those pants do make your ass look fat.

What is the nature of our relationship to our tools? As one of the digerati likes to point out, we make our tools and our tools shape us. Yet he's not so quick to suggest that we might wish to begin thinking about how we might wish our tools to shape us. What is the nature of our relationship with our economic system? Is commerical consumerism the whole point of life? Even if technology ultimately provides the means to make it environmentally sustainable, is it morally, spiritually, socially desirable? Let's have those conversations, instead of whether or not the latest start-up has a workable business plan.

It's time we stopped expending so much effort on being clever for its own sake, or, more likely, for the sake of making money and focus some effort on introspection. Who are we as a species, and who would we like to be? Maybe there can be no single consensus, but maybe there are some things we can agree on that can begin to establish boundaries, or change directions. I don't really know, and I'm not especially optimistic. I rather expect this is all just going to play out in the fashion of one vast, out of control process. And for all of our hubris, I rather expect it will end badly for us. I don't think it has to, I just think the same dynamics that seem to propel us headlong into a future that seems far less humane are those that prevent us from pausing and reflecting on what it is we're doing.

Competition may be the organizing principle of natural selection that helped the evolution of intelligent life. It remains to be seen if intelligence can become an organizing principle in its own right.

22
Karl - 1:34 pm 12/5/2007

"While I don't believe we're at that point, I believe we're approaching the point where unintended consequences can affect vast numbers of people far more quickly than we offer any sort of meaningful response. "

Dave - we've been at that point since the beginning of the nuclear era.

23

Hmm. I'd say that it dates back to the era of steam power (and incidentally, the telegraph).

24
dave rogers - 7:32 pm 12/5/2007

Nuclear weapons were a relatively simple problem, given the obvious and unambiguous consequences of their use.

We are now confronting vastly subtler problems as new systems are fielded at ever-increasing rates for the sake of achieving competitive advantages. It's true in finance as well, I think, as we might observe in the sub-prime mortgage crisis, though that seems to be something we are able to address in some fashion.

We're talking about matters of scale here, and technology has afforded us vast increases in terms of what we can do. I don't wish to sound like Chicken Little, but complex systems are being ever more tightly coupled in the pursuit of greater efficiencies without a clear understanding of the underlying or emerging vulnerabilities. This is compelled by competition, yet it's not clear to me that we have developed the capability to properly assess the risk, or potential disadvantage a particular "advance" might pose.

Oh for the days of the steam locomotive and the telegraph. I guess we'll just keep whistling past the graveyard and hope for the best.

25
Kathy Sierra - 8:56 pm 12/5/2007

"Perhaps this signals Kathy's return to weblogging."
No. I think about it, but then keep talking myself out of it, for the reasons your post mentions — the abusive mob mentality that leads to pile-ons. I'll probably be back, just not ready yet. I know one thing, a lot of my perspectives have changed. I even find myself agreeing with some of what Dave Rogers has to say (and had to say in the past) these days, although my optimism was already fading a little even before the meankids thing. I made two semi-negative posts about Twitter and people began publicly unsubscribing…

26

"I made two semi-negative posts about Twitter and people began publicly unsubscribing…"

There's a lesson in that.

27
Ethan - 8:52 am 12/6/2007

There's also a lesson in not fretting about losing favor amongst those who can't handle the slightest criticism about a favorite web app.

(For starters.)

28
Kyralessa - 9:27 am 12/6/2007

I don't suppose we should hold our breath waiting for the mass media to step in and say it was wrong to rush to print without all the facts.

29
Shelley - 10:01 am 12/6/2007

Kyralessa, I've already had an exchange of emails with the so-called journalist who wrote about this story, originally. No, it's unlikely the media will do anything other than cover their own butts.

Kathy, "No. I think about it, but then keep talking myself out of it, for the reasons your post mentions — the abusive mob mentality that leads to pile-ons."

You have to be true to yourself, and if weblogging isn't for you, it's not for you.

30
jeneane - 11:27 am 12/6/2007

it's a pain in the ass is what it is.

31
Karl - 11:32 am 12/6/2007

Dave, you're reminding me of Bill Joy's "Why the future doesn't need us" article in Wired from way back.

Shelley, Kyralessa, I'd say there is no 'mass' media anymore. Traditional maybe (whatever that is), but no more mass or mainstream. There is a channel, a paper, a blog, a magazine, an aggregator for whatever your persuasion and bias.

If you watch CNN, you probably don't watch Fox, and vice versa. And both sets believe in - seemingly literally - different versions of reality.

I think Shelley, the reason why I still can't put a post into words about this subject, even if it emotionally pulls at me (as a parent, web developer, etc), is that ultimately I feel as you do - this is a family to family thing. That there isn't some thing to be learned by all this except that when people don't act like adults when children are involved - people get hurt.

32
Doug B - 12:10 pm 12/6/2007

Many good points, Dave. Keep making them, and hopefully you'll challenge some people to at least stop and ask not just "Can we do this?", but also "Should we?"

(By the way, Kathy, I thought you were raising some very good, broader issues in your Twitter post as well. I had just found your site when you quit, and I was sorry to see you go.)

33
jeneane - 2:11 pm 12/6/2007

One other thing. My daughter asked me three days ago when I was online if she could have a myspace page. I said, "Oh no, you're too young for that. Myspace doesn't even allow it at your age." She responded, "Oooooooh. Three kids in my class have them. They're in trooouuubllleee." She told me who they were.

They're 10.

Who set their accounts up? Their parents work–they have no time for that crap. They all have older siblings though. That's my bet.

Ultimately, both sets of parents are responsible to a greater or lesser degree, and it IS a between-family-and-the-law thing. I said a few months ago the biggest problem with the Internet is that it can't shut up for five minutes. Still true.

A child or adult who comes to the Internet with self-loathing is looking - however unconsciously - to have that self hatred mirrored back. And the Internet generally obliges.

But the underlying self hatred does not COME from (or across) the net. Suicide is not the likely result of a single rejection, no matter how cruel. It is the tragic full-stop at the end of a long run of internal pain.

There is no social application heal the deeper wounds we bring to it.

34
Karl - 2:22 pm 12/6/2007

"There is no social application (that can) heal the deeper wounds we bring to it."

*There* goes the content of any post I might write about this.

That's deep (and I'm not being sarcastic).

35
Shelley - 2:29 pm 12/6/2007

Jeneane's comment is spot on, and agrees, I believe, largely with what Dave has been saying: social applications cannot heal the pains we bring with us into these spaces.

"A child or adult who comes to the Internet with self-loathing is looking - however unconsciously - to have that self hatred mirrored back. And the Internet generally obliges."

Sadly, true.

36

"social applications cannot heal the pains we bring with us into these spaces"

Shelley: I'm not sure whether or not I agree with that.

Online community was the single biggest factor in my growth into adulthood. It challenged me to see the world and myself in ways that my local environment couldn't, and while I've got pains a'plenty that go untouched, quite a few of them were patched up nicely thanks to my experiences.

Is someone likely to get similar value from Myspace? Not from what I've seen, given its tight focus on ranking people and separating them into groups of "friends" and "not friends". But there is more to the world of social applications than Myspace and its ilk.

37
Jersey Guy - 4:18 am 12/7/2007

"An error in judgement"??? If that is what you see that Lori Drew made, it justifies my decision last year to stop reading this blog.

JG.

38
dave rogers - 5:58 am 12/7/2007

It challenged me to see the world and myself in ways that my local environment couldn't.

I'd like to hear more about that, because I'm a little skeptical myself. From my experience, and what I've been able to observe, people generally aren't challenged by "online community." They tend to congregate in "communities" where their views are validated, and the contentious and argumentative venture forth to engage those who may disagree in pointless arguments where nothing is learned and the lurkers are titillated.

There's so little invested in "online community," that it's easy to pack up and move on to a new one whenever you don't like it anymore. Much harder to do that in the "real" world. Indeed, I think the online world is successful because it's less challenging than the "real" world. Rather than get to know the people who live around us, we can meet people much more "like" us online and sit in front of our keyboards and "interact" with them.

That's not to say we don't make "real" friends online, we do. But there's an opportunity cost to everything, and in this case it's being paid by the "real" world.

39

There's a story today on CBS News about the continued efforts to hound the Drews, if you can stomach it.

"I just really hope that no one comes out here and does something insane," her next door neighbor said. "If they do, I hope they get the right house."

40
Doorlady - 10:26 am 12/7/2007

"An error in judgement."???? Read Lorri Drews police statement on the smoking gun where she acknowledges full responsibility for the fake myspace page and also comments she did't fell that guilty since she found out at the funeral that Megan had been suicidal previously. Her statement turned my stomach. The stupidity and meanness of this woman has lead to the death of one child , the destruction of her own family. I feel incredibly sorry for her own children, and yet reading her statements, her only concerns were for documenting things for her own protection and no signs of remorse anywhere. The "vigiliante Justice" That weare seeing is horrible, but in no way should this be turned around to wher Lorrie Drew is a victim

41
Shelley - 10:39 am 12/7/2007

I can see the anonymous kiddies have now found a new spot for their barely literate rants. The question is, how long will I tolerate it? After all, I won't see this thread with thoughtful commentary dragged into the depths of most of the discussions I've seen elsewhere. You can disagree, but do so with some semblance of intellect, and some command of the written language.

Rogers I've been reading worse, much worse, elsewhere.

42
MEGAN - 12:18 pm 12/7/2007

There are lots of people who use myspace to connect with friends in completely innocent ways and for simple fun. It is not the fault of Myspace if grown and supposedly responsible adults want to use it in ways that are immoral, childish, or illegal. I am not only referring to Lori Drews, but to those adults who use it to lure young women into sexual encounters.

Lori Drews was a mother who should have known better. She is teaching her daughter and her young friends that bitchy, backstabbing behavior is what females do. It is not. Grow up, Mrs. Drews.

43

?I'd like to hear more about that, because I'm a little skeptical myself."

Dave: I don't want to clog up Shelley's comments with off-topic stuff, so I'll try (and fail) to be brief.

I discovered my first real online community in 1993, on Compuserve. I came for the topic, but I stayed for the people. Actually, it was more than that. I stayed for the environment. It was a place that rewarded ongoing participation and the establishment of identity. It encouraged conflict… sometimes even demanded it. Newbies were welcomed, but warned that this was *not* a support group, not a flock of sheep that would unquestioningly validate all your crackpot ideas about other people and yourself… we would call you on your shit.

We had our soap operas and rivalries and whatever else. (I was a major dick on occasion, as was just about everyone else.) But over time, the longer we were there, we began to feel a bond even to those we individually despised. We realized how all our relationships helped define us, for good or ill. That we needed the good and bad to grow.

A big part of that was one of the community's central tenets: "getting naked on the stage". It wasn't a rule or anything, but it was expected that every once in a while, everyone would step up and "get nekkid"… reveal their fears, their secrets, their ambitions. You weren't really respected until you learned to make yourself vulnerable. And once you did, you learned a lot… that you can survive when people hit you where it hurts, that being open is its own sort of self-protection, and that people will generally care more about you when they can see more of who you are.

I took the community to the web in '98, where it lived on until I made a couple stupid (though seemingly vital) decisions last year that essentially killed it. But I still talk to some of the people I met in '93 every day (one in particular, since I married her), and I still recognize how vital the whole bunch was to my personal maturation. I don't get to the person I am today without those folks and that place. I'll always be grateful for that.

Which is why my knee jerks when certain chords are strummed relating to online community. I know how ridiculous a lotta stuff is, how tenaciously folks soldier on in developing cults of personality and calling them "communities"… but I know the real stuff can be had, and I'm never gonna give up on it.

44
Doorlady - 1:51 pm 12/7/2007

Please forgive the apparent illiteracy in my previous post. A slight hang-up with a blackberry and I was unable to complete my thoughts or clean up the errors that come with typing on a ridiculously small keypad.
I am against the horrific posts I have seen on the net in regards to this tragedy. Threats I have seen are frightening. It is unfortunate that the names of the individuals were released; however in the telling of the story perhaps somewhere, someone will learn a lesson and think before they act, criticize or judge others. Nah… I doubt it. It is simply too easy to pass quick judgment from the anonymous world of the net or behind the protection of the mob.
The Drew woman had far more than “an error in judgment” if you read her statements on the police reports and should not be considered the victim in this. Her statements appear to be incredibly self- serving and cold when one considers the fact that intent or not, a child was buried. There are victims alright, the victims are still mounting – Her husband, her children, Meiers family, Drew’s advertisers perhaps, but not her.

My opinion. My judgment and I stick by it.

That is of course until more “evidence” comes out. There lies the problem. The internet and the major news networks feed the mob mentality. We receive news at the speed of sound, whether through the TV or the internet and rush to judgment. Stories that we should never even know about are publicized for the world to see and the facts be damned. I read a police report posted on-line and make my judgment, an attorney makes a statement in Drew’s defense and she becomes the victim to some. The truth we’ll never know and to most the truth stopped being an important issue a long time ago.

45
dave rogers - 7:08 pm 12/7/2007

Roger, thanks for your reply and there's probably more there than I can excerpt and respond to, but here's my reaction to what you've related.

It sounds like you had a very positive experience in your online community, making many friends, even meeting your future spouse. Would it be fair to say you invested a great deal of yourself in that community? Your time, your energy, your imagination? I'm going to guess that it probably is.

I'm not sure anyone may have noticed, but I haven't been as active either at Groundhog Day or here in Shelley's blog, as I once was. It's not that I don't enjoy writing in Groundhog Day, or engaging in the give and take here at Shelley's, I enjoy both very much. I simply don't have the time, or if I have the time, I lack the energy. And the reason for that is that I'm much more involved in my "real" community right now. I could go on at length regarding the frustrations attendant to that effort, but I think it's important, and it is challenging to me, and I feel like I'm making more of a difference than I ever did with anything I've ever written at GHD. But it takes a great deal of my time.

I'm here this week because I've finally wrapped up two significant projects, and I haven't been going to taekwondo since September! So I've had a couple of free evenings lately, and I made a couple of posts from work, which I try not to do very often.

So here's where I think "opportunity cost" comes into it. We engage with our "online" community from the comfort of our homes. While it may be challenging in some ways, I venture to say it's nothing like trying to make decisions about how to spend a homeowners association's money, or how to address the problems it faces. Things that genuinely affect people in the quality of their lives, and in their pocketbook. True, our online community interactions affect the quality of our individual lives, and your contributions to it probably affect, for good or ill (for good, I'm sure!), the quality of the other community members' lives, in the context of that online community. But I think it's kind of a peripheral thing, and it comes at the expense of your "real" community. It's not as easy to get out of the house to attend a meeting where you know you'll be seeing people face-to-face who don't agree with you about something, some of whom have little or no self-control. It's not an intellectual exercise to try and figure out what the best solution is to a physical problem that costs a great deal of money to address. It's going to affect you and your neighbors. You can't "ban" trolls. So it takes a great deal of time, and emotional energy, and effort. Because nothing gets done by itself. And if capable, energetic, imaginative people don't step up and take responsibility, then the fearful, the angry, and the unimaginative pretty much do.

So when we have millions of people playing World of Warcraft, or Second Life, or EverQuest, or endlessly debating the same pointless political issues online, or perusing porn, or hitting on MySpace hotties, or downloading thousands of MP3 files or DVDs they can watch from the comfort of their homes, we're extracting all that time, energy and imagination from our "real" communities, our "real" politics.

And I believe it's beginning to show.

46
Antoine Möeller - 9:42 pm 12/7/2007

Dave

Do you find yourself "irreplaceable" in either context?

47
dave rogers - 8:06 am 12/8/2007

Not irreplaceable at all. What is irreplaceable are the hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of hours potential contributions to real communities, all surrendered to virtual ones.

Not to worry though. Someone else will take care of the "real world" for us. And we can all just sit around and bitch about the results in our blogs. Have I go that right? That's our role now, isn't it? To piss and moan from the virtual pages of our blogs, and expect the "real" world to just kind of take note and do something about it? "They" will see the power of all the "small pieces loosely joined," the "wisdom of the crowd" (which can't be bothered to get off its collective ass), the valuable input of the "smart mob," the inherent virtue and nobility of the "long tail," and "they" will amend their ways and fix everything in accordance with the wishes of the enlightened and empowered "netizens."

Yeah, I think I've got that right. Well done, Antoine. You've certainly put me in my place.

48
Shelley - 9:20 am 12/8/2007

Antoine's comment was snarky, but Dave, I don't agree with you.

We've gone from the "online world is better, and will solve all the world's problems" to "being online is a waste of time, better spent in the 'real' world doing 'real' things." Both are extreme viewpoints.

People find time for that which adds meaning to their lives, and this can be found both in the 'real' life and online. You don't have to sacrifice job, family, and community to enjoy communication with folks who live three thousand miles away. If you don't enjoy the communication, then it makes no sense. But if you do, and you benefit from the exchange, why give it up because you 'should' be spending that same time doing something locally? Whether you want to or not?

Having to learn to deal with people? I've had a person who reads my weblog who is a die hard conservative come into my comments and tell me I was right, after all, about Iraq. I've had some of my own closely held beliefs shaken, and eventually changed because of exchanges with others.

At a minimum, it's no different than reading a book: some books entertain, some waste our time, some change our lives.

Dave, if you find that for you, a healthier life is one where you spend more time with your neighbors than as much as I miss your commentary here and in your weblog–and I do–I agree with you: it's a better use of your time. But you have to be careful to make that some judgment for others.

Karl has made significant changes in his community with his community web site; though I won't blow my own horn, weblogs made a significant difference in how the state handled Ameren and the Taum Sauk dam break here in Missouri. At a minimum, we might enjoy our exchanges online, and there's nothing wrong with simple enjoyment of communication with others who may not share our immediate space.

Are my neighbors more real than the people I meet online? Unless the people I've come to know and admire and like online suddenly come in and tell me they're a lie–that you're really Betty from New Jersey, Jeneane is Sam from Hawaii–you are real.

I have friends I've never met, and may never meet. They are no less 'real' to me than the young guy two doors down who has a cute little Jack Daniels named Toby.

Lecturing. I'm lecturing. I have become so dull. Sorry.

49
Antoine Möeller - 1:21 pm 12/8/2007

Dave

I can see how my question can be misread, but it wasn't intended to be combative, or "snarky" as Shelley suggested.

I suppose few would publically answer "yes" to that question without qualifying it. But wouldn't some claim to be irreplaceable as provider to a family or as captain of a business or community? How about as partner to one's "perfect mate?"

I think many of us would self-admit to feeling it on occasion when we've played some crucial role as creative catalyst, generator, bridge, etc.

To answer my own question, no, I don't find myself to be irreplaceable in any role I've ever played, virtually or otherwise.

And I consider myself an optimist.

50
Antoine Möeller - 1:22 pm 12/8/2007

12/6 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315684,00.html

Drew's attorney, Jim Briscoe, denied that Drew had any involvement with the "Megan Had It Coming" blog.

"I can categorically say that she did not write it," Briscoe told FOXNews.com. "She has not said anything on the Internet, on any blogs, on any Internet sites."

[..]

Some online readers, skeptical that the blog belonged to Drew, surmised it to be the work of an Internet "troll."

Blogger.com, which houses the blog and lists "impersonation" as one of the things banned from the site, said it has no information that would call into question the authenticity of the "Megan Had It Coming" site.

"We take violations of Blogger's policy very seriously as such activities diminish the experience for our users," a spokesman for Google, Blogger's parent company, told FOXNews.com.

"Once we are notified about a blog that impersonates a person, we act quickly to remove it. We have not received an impersonation claim to date from the individual allegedly being impersonated."

Drew's lawyer said that online harassment laws could be used against those leaving messages for his client.

"I haven't seen the laws so I don't know exactly what they cover, but certainly she is being harassed by the Internet," Briscoe said. "Potentially, laws that are now being created out of this may be ones that people who are harassing her could be prosecuted [under]."

Is the attorney weasel-wording, misleading by phrasing or omission?

What can one legitimately infer from Blogger.com's statement?

Why would Drew not file an "impersonation claim" with Blogger.com?

51
Shelley - 1:25 pm 12/8/2007

Antoine, we shouldn't have assumed intent.

The Drew family did file a formal protest with Blogger, and Google is now researching it to see if it does violate the Bloggers TOS.

52
Antoine Möeller - 1:44 pm 12/8/2007

Shelley

Is a "formal protest" the same as an "impersonation claim?"

53
Antoine Möeller - 2:58 pm 12/8/2007

http://tinyurl.com/259s54

"Jim Briscoe, the Drews' attorney, said he contacted the operators of a website where many of the messages have appeared and asked that the blog be removed. A company representative said it was reviewing the request. The blog included a defense of Lori Drew's actions and criticized Megan. St. Charles County authorities also are investigating who created the blog."

54
dave rogers - 6:47 pm 12/8/2007

Dave, if you find that for you, a healthier life is one where you spend more time with your neighbors than as much as I miss your commentary here and in your weblog–and I do–I agree with you: it's a better use of your time. But you have to be careful to make that some judgment for others.

Did I say it was a "healthier" life? No, I don't think I did. If anything, it's unhealthier. There's far more stress working for the community than there is here.

And if we're not going to assume intent, then you're going to have to give me the benefit of the doubt that I wasn't judging others.

I was trying to illustrate the point that online activity imposes an opportunity cost. Now, that opportunity cost may be less time for watching television, or going to the library, or exercise, or looking after your kids, or any other possible activity, but it unequivocally is an opportunity cost. And it's my perception, flawed or inaccurate though it may be, that the internet affords many people the same feeling of reward that they would get doing something that might yield more tangible results in the "real" world.

I'm not judging anyone, nor am I suggesting I'm "better" than anyone else. I consume ludicrous quantities of energy and resources to no worthwhile end as much as anyone else. Working on the homeowners association is perhaps not the best use of my time. Maybe my efforts would be better at a homeless shelter, or visiting elderly people, or looking after my kids, I don't know. But I realized that I wasn't able to continue to participate online at the same level that I had before because I was doing more offline, and it occurred to me that there is an opportunity cost to being online, and I think it is reflected in the quality of our communities and our politics. But that's just my opinion.

You'll be relieved to know that things are about to get busy again, and while I'm not irreplaceable, I'll be spending much of my time there, and less of it here.

55
Shelley - 6:58 pm 12/8/2007

"You'll be relieved to know that things are about to get busy again, and while I'm not irreplaceable, I'll be spending much of my time there, and less of it here."

Good for you.

56
Chip Camden - 4:47 pm 12/10/2007

When you said there was a good discussion going on over here, Shelley, you weren't just gratuitously "friending". It's relatively free from ignorance, too (until I showed up) — are you weeding out the shouters?

57
Karoli - 2:17 am 12/11/2007

Thanks for the slap back to reason, Shelley. I mean that.

Thanks to all those who have contributed to the discussion. Comments are now closed, but you can contact the author of the post directly.