Can we really have constructive dialogue online?

While social and online media has made it easier and faster to communicate, it’s less clear that this is always a good thing. It often seems that the increase in sheer quantity of discussion is at the expense of the quality of real dialogue. DebateGraph is an interesting online tool which attempts to counter this trend, doing its best to reap the advantages of online engagement while avoiding some of the pitfalls.

Debategraph is like a giant spider diagram which connects all topics together and is created by participants. There are a few features which make it particularly effective. Firstly, it formalises the arguments. Debategraph observes that ‘Public debate is all too often characterized by repetitive contributions, digressions, argumentative fallacies, rhetorical flourishes, manipulative framing, obfuscation and personal attacks that result in a high noise-to-signal ratio and confusion rather than clarity.’

The mind map format allows viewers to quickly understand the overview and to visualise how different issues shape, and are shaped by, each other.

Secondly, its structure forces the participant to consider the other side of an argument. In order to contribute, you have to at least read other opinions, if only to decide where to place your own on the map. This is particularly important as research shows that communication on the internet often encourages people to network with others who think like them and thus reinforces views to create well-fortressed but polarised groups.

Thirdly, each point on the map can be rated, turning it into a kind of multi-dimensional poll, and the map changes automatically to reflect the support of an argument from other readers. This helps to get round one of the key problems in online deliberation – that it can result in a game of who can shout the loudest. We’ve all seen discussion threads which end in name calling, usually around a few contentious issues which had nothing to do with the original topic. It is this tendency which lies behind ‘Godwin’s Law’ which proposes that as an internet discussion thread grows longer, it also grows angrier and the probability of someone comparing someone else to Hitler approaches. A rating system is one way to combat this rather boring pattern.

Debategraph isn’t perfect or the only model for online debate by any means. But many consider it a step in the right direction. In particular, it is robust enough to deal both with very complex, and very sensitive issues which science research throws up. It has already been used effectively by The Independent to map the Leader’s Debates and by the Foreign Office to map appropriate responses to Iran’s nuclear programme. While it may never be able to replace the face-to-face experience of deliberation methods used in world wide views or the nanodialogues, it suggests that the online sphere can produce genuine deliberation and doesn’t always need to be a sham.