The Ambivalent Internet: Mischief, Oddity, and Antagonism Online

Every college student should read this book! It offers insight into the world ahead.

You might approach this book thinking, as I did, that it is about the Internet. It is not. It is about "everyday expression online": memes, remixed images and stories, on a variety of platforms. The authors analyze such expression as folklore and, essentially, they want to normalize it instead of the more typical reaction, which is to pathologize it. This leaves them in a bind because so much of this expression, they know, is in fact "weird." They attempt to deal with the "weirdness" by arguing that, well, online expression is "ambivalent" (the book's key analytic): online expression is both old and new, both strange and familiar, etc. etc. The problem with such an argument is that -- to be blunt -- it's not much of an argument. You might even say that it's an analytical failure with little explanatory benefit.It reminds me a bit of danah boyd's book. In fact, this book could have had that book's title (It's Complicated). Both books cover a lot of ground that will be familiar to many readers, since many of us are swimming in these streams. But, unlike journalists, they contextualize their observations in relation to previous academic work and their research is more drawn out. Yet, out from behind the plodding scholarly framing, very little analytical light emerges. Boyd's book suffered from coming out too long after after the author's research, whereas Phillips' and Miler's is much more timely (finished in November 2016). Given that timeliness, it is impressively accomplished. It rises above the "quickie" feeling of Angela Nagle's Kill All the Normies, which felt like it went straight from her computer to the printing plant without any intermediaries. In contrast, The Ambivalent Internet is a respectable professional production.The main problem is that the authors just haven't yet landed upon the analytical significance of what attracts them. In other words, they just don't quite know what to say. One might sympathize with them, given the fast-moving, multi-headed hydra of a topic they've chosen, but then again, they chose it. If they want to approach "everyday online expression" as folklore, why not then perform a folkloric study such as those they cite: where they focus on, say, one meme or group of meme-makers? With a narrower focus, they might end up having more to say. Otherwise, they can only swat a few flies.One might also question their central conviction: namely, that we need to describe the "norms" of everyday online expression. What if in fact there *is* pathology at work here, alongside the "normal"? The authors (characteristically) want to have it both ways: they want to normalize online expression but they also want to let their readers know that they abhor its occasional racism (and other hateful tendencies). Such a shruggie-as-argument just doesn't cut it. That said, I commend the authors for trying. Please try again.

Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on the internet knows that it is full of, well, jerks. And anyone who has been online more than 10 minutes has probably been a jerk at least once. It is one of the great constants of human nature. Ryan Milner and Whitney Philips make the case that much of this sort of communication is “ambivalent”.The authors define ambivalent very carefully, and if I can paraphrase it correctly, it is that the same phrase may be funny, insulting, rude, nasty, encouraging, any of another 25 adjectives, all depending on who, when and where it is stated and with what intent. And while the internet certainly didn't create these sorts of behaviors, its ability to deliver anonymous communication to large audiences certainly facilitates them.From this opening, the authors attempt to define types of behavior and discuss their use in everyday online events.=== The Good Stuff ===* The authors make about as serious an attempt as possible at this task. Their work builds upon previously published work, and they attempt to classify and analyze various types of online behavior.* The writing style is borderline academic. Not the usual intellectual self-aggrandizement common among “serious” authors, but not exactly 8th grade reading level either. There is some jargon and 15-letter words, but mostly they seem appropriate to the need to precisely communicate. I read the book in one or two sittings, and the pages went by quickly.* The book takes on a number of common areas of online mischief making, including misogynists, those cheering violent behavior, making fun of others’ misfortune, racism, and off-color and downright rude humor.* The authors are careful to ground human behavior in the “pre-internet” days. While technology may have enabled our anti-social behaviors to reach broader audiences, there are plenty of examples of equally tasteless and rude behavior long before broadband became ubiquitous. I believe this to be an important point that often gets lost in the worries about “technology” ruining our lives.=== The Not-So-Good Stuff ===* I certainly don’t have the academic credentials that the authors possess, but I believe that some of their work is overkill. For example, the book analyzes the saga of “Erin Esurance”, a cute little animated teenager created to sell us auto insurance. Erin’s career was cut short in a blaze of obscene and tasteless parodies and memes, and the authors spend a bit of time analyzing the various fetishes and antisocial behaviors which drove this. But they missed what I would consider the most obvious-people were rebelling against the over-exposure that this character received in televised and online advertising, and were rebelling in the only way possible.* The authors are not always impartial. For example, the authors certainly make their feelings known about inappropriate sexual and racial insults on the internet. Fair enough-much of that behavior is revolting to many of us. But most of it is not illegal, and protected under the right of free-speech. As academic researchers, I feel it is important for them to understand and explain how racists communicate their viewpoint and intimidate others-without offering judgement. Or to state it another way, individuals with more politically correct viewpoints are equally capable of online misadventures.=== Summary ===The book is an attempt to add intellectual structure and discipline to the analysis of online misbehaviors. The authors are fairly rigorous in looking at what makes such behavior so common, and what the motivations and strategies of its practitioners might be.If you have spent time in any sort of unmoderated internet chat space, I doubt there is much here to surprise or shock you. It is amazing what people will say online. The authors provide a framework for analyzing that behavior, and suggest some possible motivations.The book stops well short of making any sort of recommendations of limiting such behavior, or minimizing its effects on its targets.=== Disclaimer ===I was able to read an advance copy through the courtesy of the publisher and NetGalley.

Although I grow up in the Internet age, things like memes still elude me: of their purposes and origins, for example. (Hence, I too fall into the 'outsiders' group mentioned by the authors.)This book gives an engaging yet simple-to-understand analysis of some of the movements. My takeaway is that humans are really irrational beings - but terribly creative by the way they twist things up.I love how the authors admit that understanding the ambivalence was a bit difficult even for them. After reading this wonderful book, I understand why!I got a free copy in exchange for an honest review from NetGalley

It's a mean world out there online, and this book is an essential reckoning of it. From strange photoshops to the creepiest creepypasta to the horrid trash fire that is twitter politics, this book has you covered. If you're trying to chart the brave new world of online interaction--while appreciating everything about it that's not really all that new--this book is for you.