It's interesting how you articulate the "freedom from social consequences" idea; could you elaborate on how internet anonymity shifts this dynamic furder?
This is a great question, and one I was exploring at length for this series, especially for the second and final parts. I'll answer briefly here since it's complicated and has a lot of literature. Anonymized cyberbullying is a big risk for youth, for example (as opposed to normal, non-anonymized bullying having potential consequences). That changed behavior continues in adults, with a number of studies (a few linked below) reporting increased behaviors that they wouldn't otherwise associate themselves with. As far as I'm aware, this change in behavioral pattern is most often known as the online disinhibition effect. Perhaps most interesting is that there's research supporting that humans tend to experience more moral outrage over online events rather than those personally experienced, something I was not aware of before researching for this piece (as cited in the final link below).
So in summary, we have a wealth of research indicating that anonymity can lead people to act in different, often more antisocial, ways. The Internet then provides an easy path to anonymity. "Freedom from social consequences" is just another way to describe aspects of that behavior, and "freedom of speech" is used to justify that behavior, even if it would be judged immoral by average social standards.
My suspicion is that people who spend more time online then become acclimated and inoculated to this sort of behavior, and that there's a broader societal shift (outside of online spaces) generally towards those anonymized behavioral changes due to how ubitquitous the Internet has become, but I'm not currently aware of any research to back either of those statements.
Sharing this Newsweek article (original data source article also below) showing the generational changes in voting blocs in the Republican party. Disturbing numbers believe false information. Amongst Republicans, 37% vs. 3% Milennials vs. Baby Boomers self-identifying as having racist views is extreme. There's no excuses for this, and Republicans seem to have no interest in cleaning house, instead choosing to make policy issues over settled fact. While not the only factor affecting Milennials, rampant disinformation stemming from the Internet is certainly a contributing factor. Republican leadership needs to actually lead (or at least be capable of feeling shame), rather than accept votes wherever they can—for example, proud and out antisemites existing in the same party as the staunchest pro-Israeli supporters is truly baffling.
It's interesting how you articulate the "freedom from social consequences" idea; could you elaborate on how internet anonymity shifts this dynamic furder?
This is a great question, and one I was exploring at length for this series, especially for the second and final parts. I'll answer briefly here since it's complicated and has a lot of literature. Anonymized cyberbullying is a big risk for youth, for example (as opposed to normal, non-anonymized bullying having potential consequences). That changed behavior continues in adults, with a number of studies (a few linked below) reporting increased behaviors that they wouldn't otherwise associate themselves with. As far as I'm aware, this change in behavioral pattern is most often known as the online disinhibition effect. Perhaps most interesting is that there's research supporting that humans tend to experience more moral outrage over online events rather than those personally experienced, something I was not aware of before researching for this piece (as cited in the final link below).
So in summary, we have a wealth of research indicating that anonymity can lead people to act in different, often more antisocial, ways. The Internet then provides an easy path to anonymity. "Freedom from social consequences" is just another way to describe aspects of that behavior, and "freedom of speech" is used to justify that behavior, even if it would be judged immoral by average social standards.
My suspicion is that people who spend more time online then become acclimated and inoculated to this sort of behavior, and that there's a broader societal shift (outside of online spaces) generally towards those anonymized behavioral changes due to how ubitquitous the Internet has become, but I'm not currently aware of any research to back either of those statements.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/1094931041291295
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/icis2016/article/1241/&path_info=icis_0151_2016_File001.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804320306923
https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/conlr52&id=1141&men_tab=srchresults
Sharing this Newsweek article (original data source article also below) showing the generational changes in voting blocs in the Republican party. Disturbing numbers believe false information. Amongst Republicans, 37% vs. 3% Milennials vs. Baby Boomers self-identifying as having racist views is extreme. There's no excuses for this, and Republicans seem to have no interest in cleaning house, instead choosing to make policy issues over settled fact. While not the only factor affecting Milennials, rampant disinformation stemming from the Internet is certainly a contributing factor. Republican leadership needs to actually lead (or at least be capable of feeling shame), rather than accept votes wherever they can—for example, proud and out antisemites existing in the same party as the staunchest pro-Israeli supporters is truly baffling.
https://www.newsweek.com/millennial-republicans-more-likely-to-identify-as-racist-than-boomers-poll-11150023
https://manhattan.institute/article/the-new-gop-survey-analysis-of-americans-overall-todays-republican-coalition-and-the-minorities-of-maga