Online Sphere Of Influence

After some "discussions" on Identi.ca and IRC this week it's led me to write this post. How do you try to live your life? Do you try to average a positive influence? This is not about assuming a Mary Poppins like view of the world, it's about something that really should be obvious; life is too short.

We all have multifaceted lives, where we come across all sorts of issues, causes and decisions that we may agree or disagree with for all sorts of reasons. The key is how we approach them. It applies just as much to the things we agree with and would like to influence others to join our camp, as much as the stuff we disagree with and would like to influence others to leave that side and / or join ours.

A vital part to any of that is to be listened to, which relies on not being ignored. So if you behave in a away that leads people to ignore you, you've lost before you can even begin to lay out the reasons that make you so passionate about it. I am reminded of the Tea Party extremists who send "supporters" in by the busload to meetings where they just shout to drown out the voices of people who disagree with them. That does nothing to win people over.

This post is about behaviour on the internet, in chat rooms, PMs, forums, blog posts, comments etc. Sitting behind a monitor does give a level of separation and give people an online alter ego. This is not a problem as such and can be a good thing, giving people a chance to make friends and socialise when real life issues may not allow them that freedom. It can be a problem if it brings out a negative ego who simply seeks to belittle, attack and destroy for whatever flimsy reason they think validates their actions.

The first part that inspired this post is the GNU people's behaviour on Identi.ca (again). Their cause may be valid, I generally agree with the FOSS agenda, I do advocate it wherever possible but their ways of furthering the cause are a problem. By feeling they have the right to butt into people's conversations to insist on telling people how they should and shouldn't talk, which words they are allowed to use or not use they become nothing more valid than trolls. The positive GNU cause is turned into a negative by the actions of it's supporters.

Will they get the GNU brand recognised in peoples minds? From the tech crowd, I don't doubt it, but it will be associated with the actions of annoying, condescending, lecturing trolls who seem determined to butt in and continue to lecture regardless of how many people tell them to just fuck off. This is why I quickly unsubscribed from the GNU group, yet the determination to butt in means that I see the same trolling behaviour almost every day. The people who do this seem to think that because the cause is just, that it excuses their trolling actions. It does not, it just gets them ignored.

The second part started from a conversation I witnessed between Jono Bacon, the Ubuntu Community Manager and someone who would never use Ubuntu, hates Canonical and thinks Ubuntu is bad for Linux and FOSS in general. What starts out as a difference of opinion over various decisions Canonical have taken quickly turns into trolling and attacks on Jono. Even after Jono spots that they're not gonna agree and tries to let it drop, the attacks on him continue. At this point I tried to point out what it looks like to someone reading the conversation.

If you don't use something, have no intention of ever using it, and feel strongly that it's a bad thing, why not ignore it? Why not be neutral towards it? I don't have any interest in what Fedora or Sabyon do, so why would I want to join their groups just to attack them at every turn? There's a difference between pointing something out in an article or blog post with the reasons why, in a logical way, than intentionally spending your time flaming people who are trying to do something positive. You may not agree that it is positive, but at least they're trying to do something. If you believe the GNI / Whatever way is the way forward, then by all means put your focus into making that happen, add a positive influence to achieve that goal. Encourage people to come over to your way of thinking. You don't do that by demonising and trolling others.

I use Debian on my desktop and my netbook, I have a Linux Mint install for screencasting. Both are kinda connected to Ubuntu in different ways, but I doubt I'll use Ubuntu itself again. The last time I used Ubuntu was 9.04 maybe.

I don't like the edicts Canonical hand down on their users like switching the buttons from one side to another, or the announcement to switch to Unity and Wayland. I can use the buttons on either side, it's not the effect I don't like, it's the decision made without the communities involvement that's the issue.

On one hand people attack Canonical for just imitating OSX and claim they don't innovate and be original, yet when they do make major changes such as the button positions or Unity they are blasted for not doing what every other Gnome distro do. Unity appears to be an Ubuntu exclusive future, is that not innovation? Is that not making themselves original? Unity and Wayland may turn out to be a great thing, or it could blow up in their faces, time will tell. Whether you like the direction Ubuntu are taking or not, it's no excuse to troll them as they try to do something positive.

The third part was an IRC conversation with someone attacking Jono Bacon (again) over using Windows in his home recording studio, and the fact that he mentioned that on his blog. I am a musician myself, I've played the guitar around half my life. I've spent way too much money over the years on that type of stuff. I've jammed in all sorts of locations with lots of local musicians I've met over the years. The idea of "choosing hardware which has good Linux support" is a complete non-starter. Frankly I'm surprised that any of it works with Linux, let alone building a studio on a budget with that layer of complexity and compatibility.

Musical technology is not cheap, it's also very proprietary. The reason video card manufacturers don't open source their drivers is to protect their R&D from their competition. It's why they do binary blobs for OS's like Linux. Musical technology is the same idea with one difference.

Musicians and sound technicians don't know what an OS is, they use what comes with the PC which is Windows, and they use the applications they spent a fortune on like Cubase. Their priority is installing the applications, then running the applications as a means to an end; the goal of recording the music. For musicians, the only thing that matters is the music; everything else is a peripheral issue that figures somewhere vaguely into the equation. So using Windows where it's needed, is fine.

When I'm playing, my focus is channelled through my fingers as I try to get the notes, timing, and attack right, with part of my mind aware of what part of the tune I'm currently at, where it goes next and where I have problems with some part of it in not getting it right enough consistently enough, and the determination to get it right this time round. I'd imagine almost every other musician has a similar mental pattern going on while they play.

While home and business users have enough numbers and momentum to force companies to at least offer binary drivers for their video cards, there's little to no momentum or numbers doing the same to pressure the musical tech manufacturers to do the same.

Most FOSS advocates have to use Windows at work, college or school because of the policies of the IT department and it's buyers. Do they refuse to work in those jobs because it's not Linux? Of course not, it's a job that brings in the wages. When they come home, they use Linux, they advocate it's use, they often do something positive to help the general FOSS goal.

I have no time for people who insist on trolling, flaming or arguing regardless of the justness or otherwise of their cause. People can lash out, people can have bad days, or bad moods. Arguments can break out with misunderstandings even between people who broadly agree on a lot of things. When this becomes the norm, it becomes an issue. The same applies to people who insist on trying to re-stoke the flames of an argument after it's calmed down.

None of us can do multiple things at the same time. So continuing to argue, fight and troll saps people's time and attention from doing what they were doing. I've found myself drawn into arguments like that until I decide it's a waste of time and pull out of it. Basically, I have better things to do, and at the risk of repeating myself; life is too short.

When a large part of your focus is negative, it pulls others down with you. When a large part of your focus is positive, it pulls others up with you. To quote Terry Pratchett, it's the crab bucket. When one crab tried to escape the bucket, the others will claw it back, which results in none of the crabs escaping. A positive outlook encourages others to help each other, which can often reflect back and help you when you need it.

The more respect you show to others, the more mature your ability to debate with people is, the more people you'll be able to reach, some of whom can be influenced by your arguments. Some of those will go on to use your approach as an example for them to follow, which in turn wins more people over.

So overall, is your behaviour online positive, neutral or negative? How does it reflect on the projects you've attached yourself to?