Digital Civics: Concepts & Human Interaction (Part 1)

We seek people out on a URL instead of IRL pretty much all the time. So we need to know what is considered good behavior, bad behavior, and digital hygiene to practice on the internet.

I love the similarity between the terms URL (unified resource locator, the website link) and IRL (in real life, the person). It is defining our social structure, and both facets have brought out unique behaviors and concerns for URL life and IRL life.

Just like civics is about the rights and duties of a citizen in a country, digital civics is about the rights and duties of a citizen on the internet, with a strong focus on digital hygiene and good behavior. This article is part 1 of a 2-part series, and you can also hear about it on this podcast.^[1]

This means how we act on WhatsApp, how we respond to people in comments, what and why we share a post, who we like, how people respond, when is it ok to make information public, etc.

And it also means how we manage our behavior on the internet to safeguard ourselves from scams & threats.

Birth of the field

Academically speaking, Estelle Clements, a Ph.D. scholar from the Dublin Institute of Technology, wrote a thesis^[2] in the 2010s with the first definition of digital civics and created a scope for the term. Digital civics, in that context, was about the rights and responsibilities of a user of the internet. Estelle insightfully says there is an emergent organic set of “virtual ethics” that appear on the internet. You’ll see these virtual ethics in how early social media functions. Digital civics begins there.

The field continues to develop with industry collaboration in its original formulation^[3].

Since 2010, the internet has changed – figuratively gone ahead by 2 generations. The first generation was of social media dominance and higher internet speeds. And, the second generation was the post-covid generation which gave the largest push to conduct everyday activities and business activities via the Internet.

Estelle’s outline gives a guiding philosophy to create digital civics frameworks to implement in IRL & URL life. Here is a psychology-centric implementation.

Scope of digital civics

Original Definition

The study of the rights and responsibilities of citizens who inhabit the infosphere and access the world digitally.

– Estelle Clements

Psychological extension of digital civics

A framework of concepts & human interactions in internet-based ecosystems that highlight good behavior, responsible behavior, and protective behavior, within the rights and duties of a digital citizen.

– Aditya Shukla

Scope

1. Create an evolving list of good civic behaviors with explanations based on research and social dynamics.
2. Train teachers and students on key concepts from psychology and technology that alter human behavior.
3. Embed protective factors into digital ecosystems and habitual human behavior.
4. Create boundaries around key civic behaviors catering to specific demographics: Gen Alpha, first-time internet users, technology creators, teachers, parents, etc.
5. Create core values for different industries with unique human behaviors like: The education industry, content creator industry, e-commerce, social media, etc.

Digital civics is not for the internet, it’s for the humans on the internet.

The simplest form of digital civics (how forums do it)

Let me introduce something straightforward. The internet has entities called forums, where people share and discuss things. To maintain the sanctity of the forum, there are rules, often created by the organization running the forum or moderators and administrators who function like the peacekeepers of the internet.

Quora & Reddit are quite famous. Quora, a question-answer forum that welcomes pretty much any kind of content, has a simple rule they call the BNBR policy. It stands for Be Nice Be Respectful. The idea behind the policy is to ensure digital civics – good behavior – on the internet and guide people to respect the platform’s citizens (the users). Similarly, Reddit has Reddiquettes. Reddit is a massive forum in which different topics (literally any topic under the sun & even beyond) have specialized forums where people post content, comment, upvote, downvote, etc. People can rant anonymously, seek relationship advice, or figure out which electron malfunctioned during a massive power outage. Anyone can belong to any discussion. Looking at the diversity, Reddiquette is elaborate. There are forum-wide rules like no spamming, minimizing self-promotion, prohibiting illegal actions, etc. Then there are sub-reddit rules like “content must be labeled accurately,” “no doxxing,” etc. These rules are specific to the main theme and purpose of a subreddit. For example, the science subreddit only allows posts containing peer-reviewed research from the past 6 months. Subreddits on a game often do not allow posting cheats. Reddit also has a zero-tolerance policy for certain things, and users will get permanently banned or soft-banned, which restricts them from participating. These rules set the expected and acceptable behavior standards for users.

All of this is to ensure people behave online. Forums are structured, so following rules is easy. But what about WhatsApp and Gaming? Or any other unmoderated social media like Snapchat? Or casual phone use during in-person conversations?

Who is digital civics for?

Here on, we aren’t catering to students who are migrating to the internet. Gen Alpha is born in it. The internet, AI, social media, etc., are native things. Just like millennials had native experiences like using wired telephone lines and dial-up internet.

This is a very important boundary in digital civics. It’s not about moral rights or wrongs. It’s about the current nature of technology and its users and how they can maintain healthy activities on it.

• There are about 5 billion smartphone users in the world^[4] (8 billion population).
• Avg. screen time is over 6 hours a day^[5].
• 25% of the population is under 15 years of age, all born in the digital age. 65% of people are in the 16-64 age range^[6] who typically publish content on the internet, interact on it, and technologically maintain it.

Digital civics is for all of them, but with a different set of concerns for all. It’s for entrepreneurs, educators, content creators, lurkers (those who passively consume without showing explicit online engagement to the world), parents, and children. Basically, it’s for all users.

This 2 part-series is organized as per the definition above. Part 1 will cover the concepts & human interactions that highlight good, responsible, and protective behaviors. Then I’ll move on to Part 2, which highlights bad behaviors and a set of norms for overall good digital citizenship & digital hygiene.

Concepts & Human Interactions

We’ll begin with some basic concerns about digital engagement teachers and parents see in their children. That will create a foundation.

1. Video Gaming

Speaking from a cognitive point of view, there is almost a unanimous agreement between researchers that games improve many aspects of cognition. Video games, in all their simplicity or complexity, hone cognitive skills and improve them. As for mental health and aggressive behavior, the stories are sensationalized, and extensive research says that violent video games do not make children violent. Almost all cases of gaming leading to violence have been about a child being in a poorly adjusted environment with fewer safety nets than most other children. More than the violent content of a game, it’s the frustration of failing in a game that leads to aggressive behavior. In some cases, games do induce aggressive tendencies, but they are known to only last for a short duration after the game – very similar to how people are pumped up after watching a thrilling movie. From a mental health point of view, gaming is not the cause of children having worse mental health. In most cases, it is a safe way to engage with their own development and likes. Games also have a social component and sense of achievement, which dramatically helps them grow.

Supporting behaviors

1. Maintain a healthy balance of real-world interactions and online interactions in gaming.
2. Compartmentalize gaming behavior and separate it from other everyday interactions.
3. Develop emotional regulation to deal with the frustrations that emerge while gaming and manage the need to draw satisfaction & achievement from gaming.

2. Phone use (screen time)

Enough research says phone addiction is related to virtually all psychological and lifestyle physical issues. But so is consuming water. Between the two, there is a thin separation between excess use & addiction – addiction means you have a relationship with some object and have lost control in using that object, while excess use can simply mean too much use that the cons outweigh the pros. The phone is a source of random rewards (apps, notifications) at random times. This is a universal method of giving random good reward sensations at unpredictable times that increase the behavior to seek those rewards. Social and stimulation needs have to be managed virtually and physically now. So as parents/teachers, there is some work to be done to ensure a kid gets all of it. Else, there is a severe risk of feeling disconnected from the world and losing social status and peer acceptance. Cognitive growth toward new phenomena and technology will also hurt. One thing to look out for is when people need their phone as a security blanket (they get restless without it) and experience NOMOPHOBIA (no mobile phone phobia) or low battery anxiety.

Supporting behaviors

1. Delete apps & set multiple time slots in the day for no phone use.
2. Engage in alternate social activities that provide a sense of reward and also a passive way to spend time.

3. Phubbing

Phubbing is kind of a new social problem when people meet. When you are bored in face-to-face conversations or don’t want to interact with others, do you slowly start using your phone and divert your attention away from the person? Snubbing another person in favor of your phone is called phubbing (phone + snubbing), and it is a common complaint in relationships.^[7] Phubbing your partner is called Pphubbing or Partner phubbing, and it is likely to strain relationships because it can be interpreted as not prioritizing the person in front of you. All people could show phubbing behavior, but managing it isn’t difficult.

Supporting behaviors

1. Ask for 100% attention because phubbing leads to multi-tasking and low conversational engagement.
2. Synchronize phone use so either all are phubbing or none.

4. Age-restriction

Some places on the internet are obviously unsafe. The COPPA act^[8] mandates that only 13-above children can engage independently on social media and forums. Accounts of younger people have to be managed by guardians. These are the rules, but there are special considerations – the generation is AI and Digital-first. Their sense of technology is different form those who created the rules. So it isn’t that a child should be exclusively monitored for every phone use, but there has to be digital literacy to know how to use the internet safely. YT understands this and has created YT for kids, which prevents commenting and mitigates many risks.

Supporting behaviors

1. Teach children about bad actors and how to not disclose vulnerabilities
2. Parents/Teachers open-mindedly but cautiously regulate digital interactions

5. Linguistic & meme culture

Every new generation will have its own words and concepts (Gen Alpha today) that create a social in-group bonding for that generation. We have no option but to accept that the internet is the glue for their development. Our job as adults is to keep it safe and ensure they learn the good/bad sides before their brains develop their understanding of risk and consequences and reach maturity (at about 25 years of age^[9]). I know the irony, we can get married and drive at an earlier age. Slang and new language use have been a concern for parents and teachers. However, it’s necessary to know that a shared language between a group is fundamental to their identity. Language itself evolves over time, words loose meaning and context and gain new associations. This natural flow manifests differently, but it isn’t an indication of low language skills.

Supporting behaviors

1. Allow newer generations to continue their linguistic journey and internet culture.
2. Do not punish or prohibit others from participating in new internet cultures and linguistic changes by wrongly assuming it is bad or toxic by default.

6. Online disinhibition effect

Generally, people tend to disclose more information online and reduce their inhibitions. Sometimes this leads to sharing sensitive details in a private, safe manner with detailed discussions with other anonymous people. But it also leads to people acting more aggressive & unfiltered. This happens because in-person feedback (facial expressions, touch, same space, same timing, etc.) is not there online, and the shield of anonymity reduces ownership and accountability. This is dubbed the online disinhibition effect.

Supporting behaviors

1. Increase empathy and monitor your responses online
2. Avoid making assumptions about who you are talking to

7. Self-presentation & social comparison

People on the internet will present themselves online with a persona – they may have a different personality on the internet. This isn’t a problem. Our behavior is affected by the environment and situation. Neither real-life behavior nor internet behavior is someone’s “true” personality. Both are context-dependent. However, on the internet, it is easier to portray yourself better (positive self-presentation). This heightened positive self-image often gives others self-doubt through social comparison. Knowing this isn’t enough to counter it, active effort in maintaining confidence, self-image, and self-worth is needed because the human’s are fundamentally creatures who compare. Their wins, achievements, appearances, and good behavior can be dramatically exaggerated in ways that look authentic. Research shows being popular online^[10] can build self-esteem, but wanting to be popular (and likely not getting that) can break self-esteem.

Supporting behaviors

1. Defend your self-esteem and self-worth even in the presence of people doing far better than you.
2. Minimize comparison and recognize not everything you see is as is, and not everything is as grand or bad as it looks.

8. Misinformation and irresponsible sharing

One of the biggest threats to the sanctity of the internet and online experience for people is that information spreads fast, but misinformation spreads faster. The mechanisms for why it is easier to spread are abundant – misinformation evokes stronger emotions, it is narrated to align with people’s personal philosophies, it is often repeated, it is irresponsibly shared by someone famous, etc. A lot of content is unverified, made-up, or misreported, and users typically look for quick trust signals like – does it sound believable? is it shared by someone you know? Possibly one of the oldest guidelines on the internet – read & watch before you comment and share – is of the highest importance today. People often share content just by reading the title or looking at the image. They often comment saying “i just glanced at it”. And when they receive something as a forward/share, they feel less responsible in verifying it when they reshare. One reason is – social proof. We tend to assign credibility if something is shared by many people. A “civic” behavior would be halt this spread by being more responsible about what one shares.

Supporting behaviors

1. Read and listen before you share and comment
2. Judge when something should be shared privately or publically
3. Judge if something is worth sharing, regardless of who asked you to
4. Assess if a post share is a threat to your personal credibility or value system

9. Managing communication channels

With so many WhatsApp groups, email threads, and public and private forums, it’s likely that some messages will be sent to unintended recipients. Since messaging has become a daily high-use habit, our autopilot mode can make errors. This is an area where one needs to be mindful and do a quick check – group name, recipients, clarity of the message, etc. On top of this, not all messages can be edited or deleted after being sent. This means a user has to know what features the messaging tool has and then use them enough times to make them enter their auto-pilot mode to prevent miscommunication and inappropriate behavior.

Supporting behaviors

1. Check the group name
2. Check who the recipients are
3. Check if something can be edited or deleted

10. Impulse control

People know how to lure others on the internet. Ragebaiting is a common new phenomenon where someone says something very wrong and enraging. Preventing this needs impulse control (self-control) and monitoring how and why we engage with others and whether it is useful. Your response to a ragebait is likely a reward to the ragebaiter. E.g., someone denies a physics discovery and makes outrageous religious claims. As a result, there is an influx of votes & likes and hate comments. All of the interactions are a reward to someone or a moment of rage for someone else. This makes conflict a rewarding behavior on the internet.

The nature of reward on the internet – views, upvotes, likes, shares, visual & auditory imagery, attention-grabbing ads, and interactive features appeal to us and create a craving. They feed our impulses^[11]. The semi-random high-rewarding flow of these stimuli tends to maximize our engagement with the stimuli. This often leads to impulse control problems like unplanned shopping, scrolling Instagram while working, going down rabbit holes, getting into pointless debates, etc.

Supporting behaviors

1. Recognize ragebaiting and exercise caution while engaging when it happens.
2. Monitor the whole Amazon jungle of reward sensations that subtly nudge a craving.

Sources