Let me start by shining a light on an odd phenomenon we've all experienced online. Lots of people on mailing lists, forums, and social networks react with great alarm when they witness heated arguments. This reaction, in my opinion, stems from an ingrained defense mechanism whose intensity verges on the physiological. We've all learned, from our first forays to the playground as children, that rough words easily escalate to blows. So we react to these words in ways to protect ourselves and others.

Rationally, this defense mechanism wouldn't justify intervening in an online argument. The people arguing could well be on separate continents, and have close to zero chance of approaching each other for battle before they cool down.

When asked why forum participants insert themselves between the fighters —just as they would in a real-life brawl— they usually say, "It's because I'm afraid of allowing a precedent to be set on this forum; I might be attacked the same way." But this still begs the question of what's wrong with an online argument. No forum member is likely to be a victim of violence.

We can apply Goffman's frame analysis to explain the forum members' distress. It's what he calls a keying: we automatically apply the lessons of real-life experiences to artificial ones. Keying allows us to invest artificial circumstances--plays, ceremonies, court appearances, you name it--with added meaning.

Human beings instinctively apply keyings. When we see a movie character enter a victim's home carrying a gun, we forget we're watching a performance and feel some of the same tightness in our chest that we would feel had it been ourselves someone was stalking.

Naturally, any person of normal mental capacity can recognize the difference between reality and an artificial re-enactment. We suspend disbelief when we watch a play, reacting emotionally to the actors as if they were real people going about their lives, but we don't intervene when one tries to run another through with a knife, as we would (one hopes) in real life.

Why do some people jump eagerly into online disputes, while others plead with them to hold back? This is because, I think, disputes are framed by different participants in different ways. Yes, some people attack others in the hope of driving them entirely off the list; their words are truly aimed at crushing the other. But many people just see a healthy exchange of views where others see acts of dangerous aggression. Goffman even had a term for the urge to flee taken up by some people when they find that actions go too far: flooding out.

On the evening of Nov 2nd, I tweeted from my phone about a local DC restaurant, Co Co Sala, just as I was leaving. We had a nice experience, but the hostess had been a little, shall we say, disinterested in helping us? So I commented as much.

Less than a week later, the co-owner of Co Co Sala sent me an email and cc'd his general manager. He apologized for the treatment I experienced, assured me it was not policy, introduced me to the manager, and said he'd talk to his staff. It was a four-paragraph email. I've never met him before, and furthermore, my personal email is discoverable but not the most easy thing to find.

This is what real social innovation looks like. This is what customer service looks like. This is what true engagement with stakeholders looks like. I want to give this great lounge Co Co Sala a hearty shout-out for not only having a great product, but also really caring about their customers.

Now, imagine we weren't talking about a restaurant here. Imagine we are talking about the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the Patent and Trademark Office, or your Congressman. If you tweeted, would they see it? Would they care? Would they react in any way? I think the answer in many cases is no. And when was the last time you gave the DMV a shout-out for a job well done?

(...)

If a goal of Government 2.0 is to provide citizens better services, and a strategy towards reaching that goal is to use social media tools to communicate better with citizens on multiple channels, it seems to me that listening and responding better to comments and complaints would be a great tactic.