We are all digital Hitlers now

No sooner than I wondered aloud if I was a Nazi, I read about Godwin's Law in today's New York Times. The Godwin in Godwin's Law is Mike Godwin, the General Council of the Wikipedia Foundation. And Godwin has authored the most brilliant insight into the logical conclusion of all Internet chat:

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approach one."

In other words, it is inevitable that, at some point or another in an online discussion, somebody will accuse somebody else of being a Nazi. That's how the Internet is refining our intellects. When you don't agree with somebody in an online discussion, call them Hitler. Even I -- the ultimate digital sceptic -- prove Godwin's Law (by accusing myself of being a Nazi).

But Godwin, as the general council of the Wikipedia Foundation, isn't too bothered about his own law. As he told the New York Times:

“In another 25 years, all of our children will have grown up in a world in which media like these are mutable and changeable and people prank each other, and it will seem less important. Part of my job is to prevent restrictive rules from being put in place that prevent people from participating in massively democratic participatory media. And then let the new norms settle.”

So, if "massively democratic participatory media" ultimate ends up in National Socialist insults, what's its point? How are we to stop online discussions terminating in Nazi name-calling? And what evidence does Godwin have that we are becoming more tolerant of online pranksters? (the reverse might actually be true, judging from most of the humorless apres Colbert comments on my anti-blog blog).

Comments

[Godwin's Law]

You're obviously too young or too new to the Internet, but the discussions about Godwin's Law were completed on IRC and Usenet oh, I don't know, 12 years ago?

[Justin Davey]

We must not worry about terminating online conversations with "Hitler" accusations until we can stop initiating them with such name-calling! First things first Andrew.

[Paulo]

It's too late Andrew, you really screwed up.

>> How are we to stop online discussions
>> terminating in Nazi name-calling?

Easy - just don't respond to them. But you took the "Nazis" bait in the first 30 seconds. With such relish!

It was like watching someone be handed a gun ... and commit suicide with it.

As I say, great pity.

[Alex Grass]

I would like to interview Mr Andrew Keen for the spanish newspaper El País, but your contact address doesn´t work.
Many thanks.

[Dan]

STFU NEWB!

[Kingreaper]

Ak, man, you just don't get it.

Godwin's law comes from the natural human tendency to overexagerate combined with the internet's ability to allow conversations to go on indefinitely.

It doesn't say that any given thread will have a hitler reference, merely that if you were to extend a thread to infinity it would. Why? Long threads are either controversial or eventually contain something controversial. In the event of a controversial argument, a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis is a common, if stupid, flame.

This even occurs in real life. It's not something caused by the internet, any more than Rule 34 is caused by the internet, it's merely that the environment of the internet makes it's applicability more obvious.

[Ulicar]

German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer in his book “The Art of Always Being Right” puts forward the premise that winning the argument is more important than revealing the truth. He “recommends”, among other things resulting to personal insults. That book was published after his death, but still it was published far before the internet. Hence, the Goodwin’s Law is just a subset of more general law, which might sound something like “as a discussion grows longer, the probability of using personal insults approaches one”, and your idea that internet is somehow responsible for that is basically wrong.

[Michael Becker]

Kingreaper is right. The "Hitler" theory doesn't just happen online. Any sufficiently passionate argument can hit the Hitler Point, when tempers flare and logic fades.

Comparing your opponent to Hitler is (theoretically) the ultimate non sequitur insult. It's use is caused by our cultural anti-fetish or anti-obsession with Hitler, not by amateur access to the Internet.

[eagle]

too easy, young men, but you're wrong :°

[Vladimir]

Even our politicians in Congress invoke Godwin's Law from time to time. Maybe it's not a problem in other countries, but here in the US comparing your opponents to Hitler or other Nazis is seen as the easy button to victory.

The only thing I can think of that would fix the problem would be a higher general level of education among the general populace; more specifically, in the area of debate and critical thinking. But who knows?

[TAR ART RAT]

Too true, and perhaps tossing the term "nazi" around is so overused that its meaning is now completely watered-down as an insult and useless as a trump card... (ooh, unless you are in germany). Nevertheless, there are still plenty of WikiNazis swarming around out there.
So, what else is there- HST's "Pigfucker", -I don't think that one is exhausted yet...

[Nicholas Padgemore]

One must pause to wonder about the epidemiology of such juvenile name calling. They should fancy to call themselves libertarians, but in reality they care little about liberty in any capacity whatsoever. More properly, we should reckon them to be anarchists; ignorant lovers of chaos: they sew seeds of malcontent with epithets suggesting Nazism, without contemplating the merit, beneficence, or ultimate outcome of their actions.

These anonymous libertines nether see nor hear, but their arrogance lends themselves to believe they do, and like an arctic bear encountering for the first time apples encapsulated in ice, it tries to gnaw through the ice to reach its meal. However, this begs the question: how does a polar bear even know what apples are?

[Arty]

You have got to be the most egotistical, narrow minded, hypocritical human being I've ever seen. First and foremost, you write a book about how bad the Internet is, and yet-

You have a website. And not just a typical website, you have a blog. A blog is something you speak out against. you can say things like " My own pathetic little blog ", and things much like that, but it still doesn't take away the hypocrisy. You make arguments with weak foundation, and you use the exact same item you claim to hate to get publicity.

You, sir, are a disgrace to your own kind, and should think about finding something more founded to rally against.

[Nevadi]

Hi. Where can I download your book?

[NaziBoy]

I think you accidentally excluded the 16 exclamation points from the title of your latest book. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cult-Amateur-Internet-Killing-Assaulting/dp/1857883934/ref=sr_1_1/202-0191364-2131000?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178650376&sr=1-1

[Johnny Law]

I believe this is just a pre-amble to the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory"

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Though in all seriousness, real world discussions also devolve into this sort of nazi-chatter. One of your media heroes Bill O'Reilly invokes nazis and hitler constantly when speaking of the left.

[madame l.]

You pompous colonialist pigfucker. May i suggest that you re-watch your "debate" with Weinberger and see how kindly he served up your ass with a deftly sautéed fennel and celeriac matchstick mélange. Perhaps your preconceived opinions or notions of Americans have completely blinded you. You, my good man, are fucking deluded.

You read about Godwin's Law in the NYT. What's next Einstein? The Star Wars kid? All your baseless thinking are belong to us. Expert Clownshod Asshat.

[wsanders1]

My dear Sir, you dipshit asshat f-tard cuntli.. oh wait, never mind.

Thanks to all for invoking Godwin's law before my head exploded!

Now, what was I going to rant about ... oh, yes: Actually, I find it hard to believe that Keen only seems to have found out this week about Godwin's Law. Is he not spending enough time web surfing, or is he just messing with us?

[Michael]

just saw the Colbert rerun (again)... hmmm...

I agree with a couple of posters above: trying to draw something insightful from Goodwin's Law is a falacy. I could just as easily say, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of discussing strawberry cheesecake approaches one."... and over time, I'd be right... case in point (it is yummy though isn't it?).

[iLEZ]

Monday, 20 August 2007. Andrew Keen discovers Godwins law.
You are a bit late for a book-writing elite expert on these subjects. About 17 years late actually. Wikipedia it! That is, if you can trust normal people without proper clearance to write on the internet.

[Ping Sun]

I expect to see your next book "death of the cult of the amateur", say 10 years from now. What's going on is actually a revolution, people are not happy with the current establishments. When some C monkeys get onto the top by riding the current hierarchy, you should expect at lesat some A and B monkeys to do something about it.

What's the difference between an amateur and an expert? If getting into an established institution seals the expert title, then such new institutions will be established and some amatures will become experts. These new institutions will take the power from the old ones. Unfortunately, they will corrupt over time too and new powers will replace them when the opportunity comes.

That's how human organize increasingly sophisticate activities, move on, and produce miracles.

As always, any correction is painful, sometimes choatic, and naturally with casualities.

Your current book should help people to think about different forces, choose and participate wisely, just don't appear to hold on to yesterday.