There are a few things that can ensnare me in a passionate argument at a party. I generally try not to be the person yelling about subaltern network cultures in the middle of a room. This happened over the weekend, however, when I was speaking to someone who tried to convince me that "a rational form of discourse" should be imposed upon web-based communication.

I am no fan of the hundreds of spam comments this blog - and that's not much compared to blogs with better traffic. Nor am I a supporter of folks who use message boards as tools to degrade their fellow users. At the same time any sort of call for "a rational discourse" is very troubling.

The point I take most issue with is the singular nature of the clause. To imply that there should be one, or even several, accepted modes of discourse in online communication would serve to do nothing more than sterilize a large swath of activity. Message board trolls, spam blogs, and rickrollings may not be desirable, but they represent the relative fluidity of the medium that has also allowed the development of peer-to-peer networks, social network sites, and even the World Wide Web itself.

What makes online communication and development so wonderful is not simply the broad access to information, but also its ability to nurture subaltern communities and projects. It is in the holes of the facade that nearly every successful online venture we see today had their start. We are dealing with a medium whose cracks offer as much - if not more - potential than its surfaces. To ask for "a rational discourse" is to ask for the denial of this central appealing property.