I know, I know: we elected a black president, so we’re supposed to be done with racism.  Also, it’s a subject we all hate to talk about because it reminds us that the world is still full of stupid people that we’re trying to leave behind on our march toward utopia.  But the Internet has a funny way of dragging our trash behind us, and if we don’t pay attention, that trash tends to build up and clog the whole system.

So as much as I’d like to dazzle you with another sarcastic commentary about Twitter trends and bullshit marketers, let’s both agree that we can handle something a bit more complex today, yes?

What Happens When We Let the Trolls Make the Rules?

On Monday, I was Googling Al Sharpton* for an anecdote in my post about the meaningless of certain words.  One of my search returns was Sharpton’s “definition” on Urban Dictionary:

This is actually just one of many definitions listed for Sharpton on Urban Dictionary, but they all share two common traits:

• every single posted definition is racist, and
• every single posted definition has been overwhelmingly voted a “thumbs up” by the users of Urban Dictionary — some by a margin of 7 to 1.

A user-generated site like Urban Dictionary can only ever be a product of its audience — but what kind of audience is it attracting?

Let’s take the author of the above definition, someone calling himself (because I’d be amazed if this was written by a woman) TruthForYou.  The Sharpton definition is only one of 7 entries submitted by TruthForYou, whose suggestions also include the following:

Etc., etc., etc.

Interestingly, TruthForYou’s definition of “osama” is the only one of his 7 suggestions to have more negative votes than positives.  Otherwise, his submitted definitions have been overwhelmingly “thumbs-upped” by his Urban Dictionary peers, which says a lot about the expectations (and usefulness) of the site.

And, naturally, no one visits this site, right?

Wrong. Urban Dictionary has an Alexa ranking of #612, making it one of the top-1000 most-visited sites on the planet.

Yet despite that, not one non-racist definition has been submitted (or, perhaps, approved) for Al Sharpton?  Amazing.  Perhaps this is just an anomaly, right?  For example, things couldn’t be so lopsidedly racist when it comes to a legitimate politician like President Barack Obama, could they?

Wrong. “Obama” has 22 pages of Urban Dictionary definitions, most of which are less-verbose versions of this:

I’ve only looked through the first 2 of those 22 pages, and all but one entry has been negative — although, in this case, the racism is tempered by partisan politics (i.e., including phrases like “nigga” and “monkey” while talking about Obama’s lack of experience).  And, as expected, every definition (including the lone neutral one) has more thumbs-up than thumbs-down.

With support like that, why would anyone be discouraged from submitting racist material to the site?

A look at Urban Dictionary’s terms of service provides an explanation of their stance.  Their TOS reads, in part:

1. Users may not post Content (as defined below) that:
   1. is unlawful, threatening, libelous or defamatory;
   2. violates any party’s intellectual property; or
   3. is detrimental to the quality or intended spirit of the Website.
2. Examples of unacceptable Content or behavior on the Website include:
   1. abuse, harassment, threats of violence, flaming, intimidation of any person or organization, or any other threatening behavior;
   2. engaging in or contributing to any illegal activity or activity that violates others’ rights;
   3. providing information that is false, misleading or inaccurate
3. The Company has the right, but not the obligation, to limit or revoke the use privileges or editor account of anyone who posts unacceptable Content.
4. At any time, the Company can refuse to allow a posting or remove a posting at its sole discretion. However, Urban Dictionary is not obligated to restrict or monitor submissions in any way, or to block users who submit inappropriate content.

So you can’t post inflammatory or inaccurate rhetoric… but if you do, they don’t have to take it down, either?

Sounds straightforward to me.

In fact, like any website worth its salt these days, Urban Dictionary pre-empts all of these terms with an opening statement that abdicates them of any accountability whatsoever for what their users post:

The Website is not suitable for all audiences. Its content is frequently presented in a coarse and direct manner that some may find offensive. If you do not consider yourself an appropriate user or are offended, please do not visit the Website.

So there you have it: if you’re offended by the content on Urban Dictionary, you should go elsewhere.  Which makes sense, because that’s freedom of speech, and that’s something we Americans value more than (almost) anything else.

Which brings us to the big question:

Does Racism Matter?

Look, I know we’re not here to talk about “issues.”  We’re here to talk about ourselves, and to convince each other that we’re right, and to sell stuff — preferably ourselves — to anyone who’ll listen.  That’s why Al Gore invented the Internet, and anybody who tries to tell you differently is a dirty hippie who’s trying to curb your right to free speech and unlimited puppies.

But just on the off chance that you’re concerned about the rest of the web’s obvious indifference to creeping racism and intolerance, you might want to think about what everybody around you is saying, and then ask yourself:

What happens when the only people who speak up are the ones with the time to hate?

Again, I know: talking about race is uncomfortable, and actually talking to people of different races is even more uncomfortable.  Hell, even Twitter refuses to tackle the issue head-on:

If Twitter can’t bridge the racial (or cultural, or class) divide, what hope do we, the normal people, have when it comes to understanding each other?  Can’t we all just stay in our own little pools of similarity and hope that this whole “racism thing” blows over?

After all, we elected a black president.  Isn’t that enough?

*  I’m well aware that Al Sharpton is no angel either, but let’s deal with one problem at a time.  (Unrelated: “Googling Al Sharpton” is among the worst potential euphemisms I can imagine.)