Care 2 Research Paper

Brock Cummings Care2 Ethnographic Research Project Care2 – Hot Debates and Shocking News http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/hot_topics http://bcummingsj676.blogspot.com/ 1. Youtube videos 2. Screenshots with explanation (site guide) 3. Care2 polling data

Brock Cummings Ethnographic Research – Care2 J676 – Culver, Ekdale 05/07/09 Care2 Ethnographic Research Project

For my ethnographic research project I chose a website called Care2. Care2 is essentially a gathering place for passionate people of all beliefs and often conflicting ideas. The whole site provides many opportunities for engagement including petitions, volunteer opportunities and donations. Since the site as a whole contains 10,743,702+ members and counting (Care2.com), I narrowed my research to the “community” portion of the website – that is the forums and message boards where views are expressed and argued. Looking through the massive amount of groups within the community I found one in the political subcategory titled “Hot Debates and Shocking News” (HDSN). The group is generally dedicated to highly public issues that tend to be polarizing like abortion, torture and drugs. I chose this group because the group itself is neutral and only provides a place for discourse, and thus many people with many different viewpoints participate (Hot Debates).

After initially joining the site and group I found that it was frequently used, with several members being very active in many of the forums within the group. My initial post was a new forum explaining to other members that I was a student and I wanted to do a research project on their community. There were several replies and all were positive, welcoming me and encouraging me to participate rather than merely observe (First Post). I took them up on their offer and at that point decided that I would approach the project with a participatory stance.

The release of torture memos by the Obama Administration was a very popular topic when I joined and that was the first place where I posted outside of the message board that I created. Upon entering the forum I noticed immediately that there were widely different opinions from several different users. Care2 member Tony Sypa, 46, Brooklyn, NY wrote, “well my position is plain and simple ... if waterboarding saved one attack, one american life , it was well worth it .. and i would consider it immoral if we didn't do everything in our power to stop an attack from happening...” (Torture)

It was interesting because it went against both my personal beliefs as well as that of many members also participating in the discussion. While Sypa's comment created obvious tension in the forum, I was pleased to see that there was very little personal animosity toward the user. This is a great example of the group self-censoring itself. This form of filtering is unique as it is highly encouraged by Care2 as a whole, but also within the HDSN group itself. Care2 does have terms of use for the site as a whole, however, the groups are allowed to create their own rules/code of conduct for discussion within their own group, including the ability to have “freefor-all” forums in which almost anything goes. The HDSN group has rules about respecting users and arguing for or against ideas rather than making any topic personal. The essential rule for HDSN is, “Insulting or acutely off topic posts will be deleted to preserve the integrity and flow of exchange.” (Code of Conduct) What I found most unique is that members seemed to be innately accustomed to that type of rule and I believe that the civility of the forums would remain even if the written rules were taken away. Whether the rule created the civil atmosphere or the civil members created the rule doesn't seem to matter, the members have grown accustomed to

the type of discourse that is expected in the group and infrequently break that contract. With that being said when there is an infraction, members immediately call the violator out and explain that certain posts – personal attacks, hate speech, violence, etc. - will not be tolerated. (Torture) When I began to try to determine what values the community shared it became immediately difficult because of the group I picked. Ironically the very reason I chose the group – diversity of opinions – is what made it hard to determine any shared values. While there were members who obviously agreed with one another about certain topics there were others who held contrary and often even completely opposite views and values. I began to realize that I was looking at the wrong aspect of the community. I was looking at ideas and opinions about the topics at hand rather than the actions of the group itself. That is when I found shared values of respect, advocacy (albeit for many different things), and a kind of amalgamation of communitarianism and Mill's utilitarianism.

I say that the theories are kind of melded because of each of them values community, as do the members of the HDSN group. The difference between the two is also evident however. Whereas Mill would advocate not sacrificing any one part of the community to better the whole, communitarianism would try not to trample on any one member, though sometimes they realize it is unavoidable in order to better the whole. This plays out in the forums in the expression of ideas but infrequently is any member trampled on and indeed there are rules against that.

An example of it playing out in ideas/topics was the torture forum in which sides of the case were extremely entrenched in their beliefs. While the majority of posts condemned the United States use of torture or “enhanced interrogation techniques” in Guantanamo Bay, there were also

many that felt that torturing prisoners for information that saved American lives was an acceptable action. (Torture) This is a great example of the differing values. Both sides felt that torture was a bad thing and both had great interest in preserving American values and protecting American citizens. Mill would be in support of those who condemned torture because torture is an absolute violation of one's rights as a human being. Communitarianism is a bit more cloudy because though it does not advocate trampling individual rights, it allows for it if it betters the whole community, which advocates of torture would argue it did, at least for the “American community.” What was so unique is how these people generally agreed on the big issues of American safety and security, it was just determined by what degree they would go to to preserve that safety and security.

I participated regularly and with generally longer, well-explained posts in the message boards I found interesting – the torture board was one of them. In trying to play a combination of devil's advocate and mediator I wrote several posts about differences in values. Some members agreed with me, others were more absolute in their belief that torture is always wrong, despite others values. (Torture) I advocated a degree of cultural relativism in stating that we needed to consider others values before we automatically disregard their views on the topic. I did this not only to participate and express my beliefs, but to test the community and see how they would respond to something that I felt was articulate and well-written, but that blurred the lines of the absolute ideas that most of the members were advocating. At this point I discovered the Care2 system of peer rewards called kudos and I experienced how something that has no real value can be important to the members.

After each of three posts I received one green star and several short personal messages, all positive. I was not even aware of this system – kudos – until I was given stars for some of the posts I had written. There are a series of rewards that really are just compliments from other members or Care2 administrators. Green stars are given by members to members as a sign of appreciation for any reason. While anyone can receive a green star, users must be “vouched for” by another member as well as have a picture on their profile before they themselves can give out green stars. (Kudos) While at first I was skeptical of the value of such a system with no real meaning or control I soon realized that it is a fantastic community building tool. I caught myself wanting to get green stars for my comments and conversing with those who did send me stars. It allows a unique compliment system that starts to breed neighbors out of mere users. There are also butterflies, testimonials and golden notes, none of which I have received. Butterflies are given by the Care2 administrators themselves for participation in the rest of the site – petitions, volunteering and donations. (Kudos) I did not participate in the rest of the site as it was too massive for the project. Testimonials are simply kind comments that people say about you that you can choose to put on your profile. (Kudos) Finally, golden notes differ slightly from the rest of the rewards as it can have an actual effect on content placement on the site. If a member posts a story that others find especially noteworthy they can “note it”. When enough members find your story to be noteworthy, you will receive a golden note as well as be rewarded with having your story posted to the Care2 homepage. (Kudos) While that may not seem like a great reward it seems more important when you realize that there are 10,743,702+ members of the site who have potential for seeing your story. This creates a great way to monitor content through positive reinforcement. Rewarding users for quality content seems to generally be very successful, at least for the HDSN group.

This portion of the report is brand new as I just realized how incredibly valuable the rules that govern Care2 are. They allow a great range of ideas and discussion on many different topics, but the rules that have been implemented by the site as well as the group administrators are invaluable and allow for civil discourse. I recently partook in a conversation with a gentleman who's views are nearly diametrically opposed to my own. I listened to his argument and attempted to share my side of the story regarding presidents Obama and Bush. The gentleman whom I spoke with – and I will not reveal his name – felt that my ideas were wrong. I have no disagreement with others thinking my ideals are different or even wrong. I do, however, have a massive issue with ignorance, and refusing to acknowledge that other ideas may be legitimate is ignorance to the highest degree. I argued this very point within the torture forum. (Torture) Care2, either by design or by evolution along the way advocates all ideas without choosing sides. It also allows anyone to speak their mind without ridicule for the person, only conversation about the topic at hand. An online community has rules of discourse that are not enforceable in the real face-to-face world. While this has the potential for censorship, which I am adamantly against, it also allows for a civil discussion without personal attacks. In my face-to-face experience this very evening I realized how an online community can be guided toward understanding and acceptance through a system of courteousness and self-censorship. Care2 members have wonderfully intense conversations with incredible depth precisely because, I believe, they have limits on the type of out-of-control comments that proliferate in the “real” world. I enjoy Care2 because the members are open to other opinions and ideas, not because they censor material (which they do not, unless it is violent or inappropriate) but because the members who I have encountered are able to recognize on their own that most people will have a difference of opinion

on one topic or another and those differences are the basis for a great democracy. But being civil and courteous to others and their ideas is not a partisan ideal, it is a human ideal and one that I feel everyone can strive for. Care2 gives those who are willing to have civil discussion a place to do that without fear of ridicule. Sure others may (and usually will) disagree with a specific idea put forth, but that is no reason to raise the flag and begin slitting throats. This type of discussion has happened since the dawn of history and will continue for the foreseeable future. The difference with Care2 is that it brings together all sides of an argument to a common table of discussion. A traditional libertarian marketplace of ideas is the basis for what Care2 is all about. Anyone can post anything they want, and the rest of the community determines the newsworthiness and the possible counter-arguments to the case. Then there is great, lengthy discussion with each side advocating what they believe without bashing one another. If someone says something that is false, others are there to correct them. Additionally Care2 and the HDSN group encourage debate amongst those of differing views because they realize that there is only one way to come to a conclusion on any one topic: compromise.

Care2 is a fantastic model of a libertarian marketplace of ideas. While it does not allow anything and everything to be posted (no harmful posts) it does allow a great many ideas to freely flow and be commented on and discussed. While most new posts begin with a question or a news story, there are posts that seem to be unsupported opinion. (Torture) The community and the site allow posts that do not have any supporting information or sources. That is where the real marketplace shows its face: members will call out anyone who is spreading information that is not supported with a source or at least some degree of common knowledge. Just as in a true marketplace of ideas, one is allowed to post anything from a full research project with scientific

data to some big fish story that has no truth. Also just as in a real marketplace of ideas there are “watchdogs”, or people who monitor information that is disseminated and are there to counter any false ideas with valid counterargument that is almost always fact-supported. This combined with the civility of the group makes for a pleasant give-and-take and a respectful – if sometimes slightly heated – conversation.

Finding answers to the question of whether or not online forums can be places for the dissemination of false/misleading information or propaganda I observed, participated and asked for general community comments. (Second Post) For the most part through my observations and participation I found that the “soul” of the community – that is the general feeling and unwritten rules of respect described previously – does a great job of stopping any false information very quickly. Simply advocating that opinions be supported with facts before the community will even consider looking at a post is a step in the right direction. When I asked the community if they felt online discourse or offline face-to-face discourse was more likely to breed false ideas it was nearly unanimous it its reply. (Second Post) They said that offline discussion could be better manipulated because there is a combination of factors that the online forums take away: body language, “salesmen” or fast-talkers and eye-movement. Not only does online discussion remove some of the best weapons of the salesman and propagandist, but it also allows one to immediately do research on a presented idea. (Second Post) I agree that this is one of the greatest benefits to an online discussion forum. Being able to search the web to determine if an opinion has any support in fact is invaluable in having a substantive conversation. Not only can users search for themselves, but most members understand this and provide links or genuine stories in their first post. There may be many viewpoints and opinions, but most of the members really

want others to understand their position and post facts and news that supports their ideas. (Second Post) This is very professional and a good model for how all discussions should go. The sad fact is that we need to be online in order to substantiate information that we take in, especially if it is new information or something that is personally new to us. If offline discourse had the checks and balances that the web has more people would probably be political and social moderates with a better understanding of one another. For now that is not the case, but I think it is something we can strive for by simply being true to human decency, respect and the truth.

One must take care to note that with almost 11 million members that this research does not speak for the entire Care2 community, and to be frank with 719 members in the Hot Debates and Shocking News group it likely does not represent all of those members either. It was required that I narrow down my research as far as possible, especially within such a massive site with an even more massive community of members. In doing that I am aware that I have likely diminished the site as a whole because of the strict focus on a single group. The whole site contains – among other things – petitions, news, green tips, volunteerism and the real-world communities that have grown out of the cyber-communities. This is not to say that anything above is any less valid. It is certainly valid for the HDSN group and for members of that group who do branch out across the site as well, spreading that idea of how a forum should be run. But that may also be a side-effect of the nature of the group. Moderators and administrators push civil discourse, members of the group monitor themselves and one another and the opinions are fact-supported. I hope that the ideals from this group do indeed extend across the whole Care2 community and beyond to the rest of the web as well.

Works Cited: Care2 Homepage, http://www.care2.com/ Code of Conduct, http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc_conduct.html?gpp=156 First Post, Question for the Care2 Community, http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html? gpp=156&pst=1023826 Hot Debates and Shocking News group, http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/hot_topics Kudos, http://www.care2.com/c2c/my/kudos_green_stars.html Note: I am not sure if you will be able to view this page as it is within my logged-in profile. I can take a screenshot for you if you would like. Second Post, Discussing Online Discourse: Pros and Cons, http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=156&pst=1032042 Torture, Topic: Rights groups criticize CIA immunity on interrogations http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=156&pst=1025023