On Internet Opinions

Let's start from a corner here. Reviews. I use the term defined as an evaluation of some sort of publicly-available material or performance, such as a book, movie or audio compilation. Back before the Internet turned into a superhighway, these would have been available chiefly in print form, in newspapers, magazines and journals. While these circulars would have had an audience, even a large one, it certainly would not be at a level comparable to that of online reviews today.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Reviews. They are, if you think about it, a rather presumptuous means of communicating an opinion. While an evaluation of a creative work can be relatively objective - "This movie earned $60 million on its opening weekend" - reviews tend to include an opinion to mesh the evaluation together - "This movie is excellent." Or several opinions, if the review goes into more detail. However, in spite of being a collection of opinions, reviews also include a instruction, either implicit or explicit - "Therefore, you should go watch this movie" - they have to, otherwise there would be no point in writing the review in the first place. In other words, I say reviews are presumptuous because not only do they state the opinion of the writer, the reader is expected to agree with the recommendation of the reviewer.

This is not necessarily true, of course. Since the review is made up of opinions, it is perfectly acceptable that there would be people who disagree with it, perhaps even strongly enough to communicate this to the reviewer. For a review published in print however, it is possible that the reviewer would know their audience well enough to anticipate their reactions to the creative work. It is also possible, especially when communications were more limited, that readers would have been more willing to accept a single review of a work and take that as the truth, instead of buying more magazines and newspapers to see what other reviewers thought of it, or even going to look at the creative work to judge for themselves. Thus it would appear, in the era before the Internet, that dissent towards a reviewer's opinion would, while present, have been limited in most cases.

You see where I am going with this. The Internet. Oh, the Internet.

The Internet revolutionised communications - not only did it enable people from opposite sides of the globe to talk to each other, it enabled them to do so rapidly, in real time even. Suddenly, people with niche interests could find other people with the same interests. Communities based off the smallest, quirkiest things were able to take off. And with the ease and anonymity of communication over the Internet, suddenly far more opinions would have been available to a wider audience.

Reviews, of course, found their place on the Internet. But now it wasn't just reviewers who got paid for their work - someone typing a review out of their bedroom could potentially gain an audience of millions. And someone looking for a review for a particular work would be able to find hundreds for all but the most obscure of productions.

In spite of being available on an entirely new medium, reviews haven't changed in form very much. They are still collections of opinions, sometimes with a logical, reasonable basis and sometimes just pure personal judgement. They still contain that implicit instruction - "If I say it is good it is good and you should go look at it, but if I say it is bad you should not, otherwise you have wasted your time reading this review."

However, since the audience for any given review on the Internet is potentially massive, and would consist of people with wildly varying opinions of their own, the possibility of a clash is not just incredibly large, it is a certainty. Think about it. Reviews consist of opinions. They are written in such a way that you, the reader, are expected to agree with them, at least partially. They can be written by practically anyone and about any creative work including video games, webcomics and fanfiction. And since this is the Internet, almost anyone from any background can access them.

Look up the reviews for any movie or book. No matter how incredibly good or bad it seems, there will always be those who consider it the exact opposite. Furthermore, they are entirely sure that they are correct, that you are an idiot if you disagree with them, and they are willing to use profanity or threaten to kill you if that's what it takes to convince you. Indeed, it appears to be standard now to be arrogant and rude when defending one's views over the Internet. A by-product of anonymity and a lack of accountability, perhaps?

Whatever the reason, it leads to often brutal arguments wherever such arguments can feasibly occur, be it tagboards, comment boxes or forum threads. Bad arguments lead to flame wars which may even spill beyond words and into downright malicious behaviour. Clearly, opinions deeply matter to people, certainly enough to induce violence against other people from an entirely different part of the world whom they'd never meet in person.

All of this brings me to freedom of expression.

I was reading a review of a webcomic which the reviewer considered to be atrocious beyond belief. For that matter, I considered it atrocious beyond belief, and completely irredeemable. It seemed impossible that anyone could defend it. Indeed, most of the comments on that article were some variation of disbelief that the webcomic creator had not been struck down by lightning for his crimes. And then there was one comment which defended the webcomic creator's right to freedom of expression, even if most would find that expression repulsive. Said commentator was immediately shot down for disagreeing with common opinion.

As you can see, it got me thinking.

Because reviews have that implication that the reader should agree with them. Because reviews act as an instruction, to tell someone whether they should or shouldn't sample a particular creative work. But reviews are, at the end of the day, opinions. And they are never representative of everyone's opinion. No matter how bad a book or webcomic or video game might be, there is probably someone, somewhere, who would enjoy it.

But what if the review includes critique intended for the creator of the work? It's the same thing. This time the instruction is to the creator, whether they should change what they are doing or simply keep it up. Again, it is still an opinion. And even if a hundred readers tell a webcomic author that they are terrible, there are probably at least another hundred who enjoy the webcomic thoroughly. Does this give either group of a hundred the right to think that the other group consists of idiots? Certainly not. Does this give the webcomic author the right to consider either group idiots? Certainly not, not that it's going to stop them. Should the author break down weeping at the fact that a hundred people think they are terrible? Well they could, or they could continue pandering to the other hundred people who actually like them. Their choice. It is the right of the author of the work to choose what they do with their art, especially on the Internet where there are few to no laws limiting the expression of such art. Should the hundred people who consider the author an idiot, act in a disdainful manner if said author does not alter the work to suit them? They could do that, but it would make them ridiculous for even expecting the author to accede to their demands in the first place.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that it is certainly alright to express opinions of creative works on the Internet. It is definitely acceptable to write reviews and explain in detail why something is good or bad. And there is no crime inherent in reading such opinions or reviews and either agreeing or disagreeing with them.

But calling someone an idiot (or worse) because they don't agree with you? Demanding that a particular work be taken off the Internet just because you and your friends find it offensive? Threatening other people for having an opinion which just happens not to be the one you possess? That is not fair at all.

I'm afraid the tired old "don't like, don't read" directive appears to be the best approach. Yes, one may find something horribly offensive. The fact that it exists in a location where others of a similar opinion may run into it and, in turn, be offended in themselves, may irk someone beyond belief. But really, all they can do is avoid it and the people who like that sort of thing, and perhaps write a review to warn others about this abomination to their principles. However, in the interests of fairness, if someone else describes a favourite work as an abomination to their principles, one has to be able accept it too.

Unless of course, one manages to become Supreme Overload of the Internet, in which case one may do as one pleases. And, uh, disregard this post. Er, Mighty Overlord. Sir.

Please don't put me in the Internet Dungeon.

Wind and Rain

I stayed at home to do some work instead of going to the lab as I usually do.

Am I ever so glad I did. This is the time I'd normally walk back and it's raining heavily. Not just that, but we've had heavy winds today. Put that together with the unusually early sunset and it looks like we're caught in a cyclone here.

Wondering how everyone else is planning on getting home.

Rose