The conclusion of the Time piece is interesting:<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <blockquote>Maybe commenters are just on one side of a cultural disconnect between two incompatible ideas of what the social conventions of the Internet should be. One is based on the standards of real-world, off-line politeness. The other is a kind of communal game in which whoever is cleverest and pushes the most buttons wins.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> This disconnect is probably just temporary. In another decade or two, one side or the other will have won out, and then we'll all be on the same page, and we won't have this kind of misunderstanding anymore. But I know which side I'm rooting for.</blockquote>
posted by Rex at 2008-07-12 13:52:58 
It isn't temporary, because there will always be those who are computer illiterate. This means they won't get the experience.<br /><br /> It's not a communal game, it's human nature. Everyone is competetive and comments are arguments, so everyone wants to be right.<br /><br /> It will change again.
posted by Ironic at 2008-07-12 14:33:52
Remember that hype circle article from n+1, where they were arguing that criticism/hyping had become a sort of performance of cultural capital? I think there'd be a way to connect that idea and commenter culture - particularly if you think of the snark as a defence against being swallowed by anonymity. I'm just not sure exactly how.
posted by Nav at 2008-07-12 23:46:23
