While I agree with almost everything Alan Jacobs has to say on the topic of Internet anonymity, I want to specifically endorse this section:
The problem is that over the years I have heard from many people who insist on anonymity in order to protect themselves from “reprisals” when in fact all they’re going to suffer is disagreement. And grownups ought to be able to deal with being disagreed with.
Moreover, every protest against injustice is far more meaningful when the person making it is willing to sign his or her name to it. As the literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin pointed out long ago, in his early work Art and Answerability, to undersign a statement with one’s own name is a powerful act — an act of commitment, responsibility: one becomes “answerable” for it. This is a strong witness to others. Anonymous dissent, by contrast, is often empty to others because no one is answerable to it. Anonymous dissent requires numbers to have an effect. When many protest anonymously their position gains weight additively; the single anonymous protester comes off as a crank or a troll.
Anonymity on the internet may be desirable often but it is necessary only rarely, and surely in 98% of the cases in which it is invoked the conversation would be better when conducted by answerable individuals.
It probably won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t have a lot of respect for the opinions of people who won’t sign their name—their real name—to what they write. Sure, I may engage you, agree/disagree with you, thank you for your comment, etc. But I can’t honestly say that I respect such opinions or give them much thought—and why should you expect me too? I put my name to everything I write on the Web (however imprudent that may be). Why should I take seriously the thoughts of someone who isn’t willing to undersign the statements they make?
Anyone care to make the case for why pseudonymous commenters should be accorded a dispensation from having to take responsibility for their writing? I’m genuinely interested in hearing a reasonable explanation that doesn’t rely on the weak, “My boss wouldn’t like it if she found out what I really thought.”
June 28th, 2011 | 9:17 am
If there’s a situation where a person’s individual, first-hand story would be helpful for a given discussion, but connecting it with that particular individual would be hurtful to them or people close to them, anonymity can allow the anecdote to be contributed, and the discussion to be benefited, without damage being done.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:19 am
Many people comment anonymously because they don’t want to conflate their personal political, social and religious convictions with their professional lives, and also perhaps their personal lives in which they shield their convictions from some relatives and friends to maintain harmony.
Without anonymity, employer web searches on job candidate names could turn up legitimate opinions that nonetheless damage the candidate because they are not aligned with the HR individual’s opinions or somehow are deemed to be incongruous with the organization’s objectives. Say for example someone comments on a mental health blog. Regardless of the comment, the employer would wonder what he was doing at the site in the first place.
Or say a person’s political views are a polar opposite of his family’s. And he’d prefer not to surface those differences.
So it’s not disagreement with other participants on the same blog that’s the issue with anonymity. It’s the inferred disagreement with others outside a specific blog and the need for people to legitimately compartmentalize their electronic dialogs.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:29 am
I subscribe to a pay to play site where I post under a pseudonym, but my ultimate identity is known to the proprietors of the site. That seems to me to achieve the best of both worlds: if I say something over the line, I can be chided via email by editors, redacted, or tossed and ultimately my “persona” bears witness.
Some of us operate in very delicate political and parish situations that makes us “sharp as wolves” and we know what will happen if we are too vocal in public. And the Federalist Papers were written by the pseudonymous pamphleteer group “Publius” (Madison, Jay and Hamilton).
You’re entitled to your view, of course, but those of us who live life under the threat of prosecution by “Human Rights Commissions” we’ve learned to be somewhat more circumspect. As to its ultimate prudence, I await Judgement Day.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:37 am
I wonder why you think “My boss wouldn’t like it if she found out what I really thought” is weak. I would say that this is a very valid concern in many cases. After all, I may have very well-thought-out opinions on a matter, but still not care about those issues so passionately that I want to take a public and final stand on them come-what-may.
For instance, I would readily sign my name to an online explanation of why I oppose abortion. Were I to suffer repercussions in my private life for that, I would count it suffering for the kingdom. But I would not see suffering for my stance on Obama’s actions in Libya in the same light.
And we thorough and obstinate conservatives must be aware that we are very much a minority in this culture. We ought to learn the diplomacy and discretion that is the common heritage of minorities throughout history.
Beyond this, though, anonymity on the internet is wise because your name is not simply the shorthand to your reputation any more. It is a piece of identifying information that can be used to gain other identifying information about you. Spammers, crackers, and phishers love it when people use their real names.
And even further beyond this… how do you even know on the internet if someone really is using their real name? I use GeoSmiley as my moniker in part because it is obviously false (and also in honor of LeCarre’s best character). But I could just as easily use “Roger Dennis,” or “Paul Jimenez.”
The fact is that the internet makes the concept of “real name” tremendously problematic. Even if you do sign your real name, no one will actually know (though the phishers may try it out anyway), and most people will not actually care.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:38 am
Totally agree.
Did you happen to see an article citing a new study that found anonymous web users experience the same feeling of abandon and power as alcohol intoxication.
Anonymous alcoholics? Study finds web trolls get a feeling of abandon similar to drunks
Fascinating and explains a great deal!
As for me, I have become progressively more open with my identity. As a blogger – and commenter – this really helps me to be more balanced and careful.
I only say what I would be prepared to stand up in public and say.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:39 am
This certainly changes my sense of what I have been doing by participating in the comments blog of First Things.
My comments have been (with some regrettable exceptions) carefully considered responses to posts and other comments. I thought that the process of objectively reasoning through an issue, making one’s best effort to explain an alternate point of view, had some value.
It has been at least two decades since I have signed my full name to my communications, although I did do so in written “Letters to the Editor” (Father Neuhaus) and received signed replies from him. That seems a very long time ago now.
What has changed since then? Our common life has radically changed. Harassment of those who disagree is commonplace and, apparently, not taken seriously. One’s personal information – address, telephone number – is easily obtained and there are those who do not hesitate to use this information for abuse (Proposition 8 defenders come to mind). Archbishop Dolan’s blog had to close the comments section because of an overwhelming number of posts containing vile language and more.
Still, when the person bringing up this issue is Alan Jacobs, I take it very seriously to heart. I will be asking myself the question: “Is posting anonymously a mark of prudence or cowardice?” I have not yet decided on an answer but will not post another comment until I do.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:45 am
Joe, you (and Alan) make some great points. And, in an ideal world, everyone would sign their real name when they make comments or criticize. But you are also lucky enough to write for a living. You get paid to have a creative outlet. I don’t have a paid writing gig. I’m a public school teacher (without tenure yet). I don’t have the freedom you do to speak out against the excesses of secular culture since I work in the outside world and constantly worry about my current employer (or potential future employers) doing a Google search and saying “ahh, this guy’s too Catholic for me” or “oh, this guy sometimes uses a bad word or two on his Twitter feed.” (risks I take since I choose to use my real name when I comment on blogs or Tweet)
Yeah, anonymity allows for cruelty and maliciousness. That’s the bad part. But it also allows aspiring writers to find their voice and write about controversial issues without fear of reprisal from their day job bosses. For one example, there’s the football humor blog Kissing Suzy Kolber. When it started in 2006, each writer had a pseudonym. Around 2008, when the blog started making lots of money, they all started coming out of the closet, so to speak. And one of them, a reporter for the Washington Post, got fired, which was okay for him at that point, since the football blog was making money.
And for a better example, I’ve recently been reading a sports/politics/pop culture blog called Et tu, Mr. Destructo where all but one of the writers writes under a pseudonym. It’s left of center, but very literate and entertaining. The writers all have careers (in fields such as law, engineering, economics, public policy) they don’t want to risk.
And, finally, my name really is Sean Pidgeon. I am not anonymous (although sometimes I think I should be).
June 28th, 2011 | 9:46 am
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you have said. (When have you heard that from me before?) There are rare cases when commenters’ points of view are valuable because they are telling an “inside story,” and they might suffer real consequences, or invade other people’s privacy, were they to use their real names. What I find particularly annoying are those who self-righteously defend traditional or popular opinions under pseudonyms, harshly criticizing people who are taking unorthodox or unpopular opinions and using their real names.
I think it should be up to those who control the forum to make the decision whether to grant particular participants anonymity. A commenter’s real name, real e-mail address, and other contact information should be known to those who control the forum.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:00 am
I don’t know why you would need to know my name in order to take my thoughts seriously. I would think that if my thoughts were reasonable and well expressed, that should be enough for you to take them seriously.
As for the “weak” excuse that one needs to be anonymous out of professional concerns . . . people have families to support. Concerns about the impact of one’s written opinions on one’s job or career seem valid considering the increasing use Internet searches by employers on current or potential employees. If one had posted often and strongly about Prop 8, for example, one ran a real risk of suffering professionally.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:02 am
“Why should I take seriously the thoughts of someone who isn’t willing to undersign the statements they make?”
Perhaps because the thoughts expressed are true.
Isn’t it the thoughts that matter more than the name? If I argued that 3+4=12, or that say, the NY state legislature has the power to decree that apples are now the same thing as tomatoes, would my statement make more sense if I signed my real name?
Anonymity often allows a more open and free exchange of ideas. In an ideal world everyone could express themselves openly on every topic. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:09 am
Brian If there’s a situation where a person’s individual, first-hand story would be helpful for a given discussion
Good point. I’d consider it legitimate for them to have a one time exemption in order to provide such an anecdote. It just wouldn’t give them a blanket excuse to do it all the time.
SteveM Many people comment anonymously because they don’t want to conflate their personal political, social and religious convictions with their professional lives, and also perhaps their personal lives in which they shield their convictions from some relatives and friends to maintain harmony.
Well, sure, who wouldn’t want to do that. That’s simply restating Jacobs’ point that some people want to be able to express and opinion without having to take responsibility for it.
Without anonymity, employer web searches on job candidate names could turn up legitimate opinions that nonetheless damage the candidate because they are not aligned with the HR individual’s opinions or somehow are deemed to be incongruous with the organization’s objectives.
I can appreciate such concerns and would suggest that the price for wanting to protect one’s future employment prospects is that you have to forego commenting on blogs.
GeoSmiley I wonder why you think “My boss wouldn’t like it if she found out what I really thought” is weak. I would say that this is a very valid concern in many cases.
Let me clarify that I don’t think its an illegitimate concern. Some people certainly should be concerned about how their employer would perceive their commenting activity. But there are things you owe your employer and things you owe people to whom you debate. Why does it relieve you of your responsibility to own your words simply because your boss might not like it?
It is a piece of identifying information that can be used to gain other identifying information about you.
Unless someone has been able to keep their name off the Internet completely, then that that’s not a serious concern. Also, the problem is not using a “handle” (a shorthand identity that is used in place of the known name of a person) but anonymity.
And even further beyond this… how do you even know on the internet if someone really is using their real name?
You don’t. But that’s sort of the point. All we can do is hope that people are being honest. If they aren’t even willing to use their real name (or at least what they claim is their name) then why should I trust them?
Sean Pidgeon But you are also lucky enough to write for a living.
That wasn’t always the case. When I first started writing regularly on the Web in the mid-90s I was still in the Marine Corps. I started a regular blog in 2003. I only have a job writing for a living because I was willing to put my name to what I wrote.
But it also allows aspiring writers to find their voice and write about controversial issues without fear of reprisal from their day job bosses.
I can tell you from experience that if you are an aspiring writer then anonymity works against you. As an editor I would be very hesitant to ever allow someone who won’t “come out of the closet” to write an article for me. In all the time I’ve been blogging, I can only think of one person who got a full-time writing job and yet never revealed his name (Allahpundit from HotAir).
The writers all have careers (in fields such as law, engineering, economics, public policy) they don’t want to risk.
Here’s what it boils down to: I don’t understand why we should reward people for their failure to be courageous. I’m not saying that we should mock or chastise them. If a person can’t accept the consequences for what they write then they have a legitimate reason for not writing in public. I don’t fault them for that. But the idea that people should get a pass because they want to avoid the negative aspects of their decision (who doesn’t!) is an explanation but not an excuse.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:09 am
I agree, I don’t have as much respect for someone who won’t sign his name to a comment. I also believe that people who honestly sign their names don’t engage in insults.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:14 am
Joe Carter: thank you for making your thoughts known. You say: “It probably won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t have a lot of respect for the opinions of people who won’t sign their name—their real name—to what they write.”
I would prefer that you engage what is written rather than who I may or may not be; if who I am gives a patina of respect or disrespect to what is written . . . that is unfortunate. I’m not sure one can read well if one is a respecter-of-persons.
A point about names: How would you know what is my “real” name? Indeed, how do I know that “Joe Carter” is your real name?
Finally I do respect your point of view and thank you for being one of the remaining blogs which accepts commentary with a minim of hassle.
Signed,
The commenter formerly known as SteveP
June 28th, 2011 | 10:20 am
How would a boss know it is you writing, unless you had some extremely unique name? And what employer would have time to search the internet for a person’s comments? Do they hire someone to do this? If so, who searches for that employee’s comments?
By the way, I am one of the thousands of “Timothy Ryan”s in the United States. Even using my real name, I’m still anonymous to an extent, at least within the group of people named Timothy Ryan.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:21 am
Posters like myself, Mr. Carter, are the proud inheritors of a decades-old tradition of anonymous posting that harkens back to the days of BBS chat boards and Usenet news groups. I find your inability to take the ideas in a post seriously merely because you cannot assign a Christian name+Surname to them to be incomprehensible. May I ask, why should I take more seriously the thoughts of someone who is willing to undersign the statements they make, and less seriously the thoughts of someone who isn’t willing to do so? Thoughts is thoughts, arguments is arguments, and the addition of someone’s name to a post won’t make the ideas expressed any more valuable (or any less vapid).
June 28th, 2011 | 10:27 am
I’m not sure what the issue is here. Ideas stand or fall on their own merit, and the real names of most blog commenters would be meaningless to most people anyway. Who cares? “Lewis Carroll” was not the real name of the author of “Alice in Wonderland.” So?
I do use my real name if I sign an online petition, and on a blog that is directly connected to my profession. In those contexts it matters.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:28 am
CFKS I would prefer that you engage what is written rather than who I may or may not be;
Imagine if you were to meet me on the street and strike up a conversation and I found my thoughts worth engaging. The next day you see me again and engage me in a discussion. When we part you say, “By the way, my name is Jon Doe and you are . . . ” I reply, “I’d prefer not to say, my employer might hear about our talk and not like it. Just call me Anon1492.”
I suspect you’d probably not consider me a serious person. If that is the case, why do we have a different standard on the Internet?
I don’t know about other people, but when I engage someone in a discussion, I want to engage them, not just their words or ideas. Ethos plays a strong role in such conversations. If I don’t know who you are, if you are unwilling to be yourself, then I can’t even know you enough to respect you.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:43 am
“You don’t. But that’s sort of the point. All we can do is hope that people are being honest. If they aren’t even willing to use their real name (or at least what they claim is their name) then why should I trust them?”
I’m not following this at all. You judge people’s credibility by whether they use two names that are probably a person’s name on their posts, but you admit you have no way of knowing whether they’re just making those names up? Yet people who use two names that may or may not be made up (so they might well be absolutely lying about their identity) are automatically MORE credible than people who make no bones about the fact that they’re not sharing their actual names?
June 28th, 2011 | 10:45 am
“I don’t know about other people, but when I engage someone in a discussion, I want to engage them, not just their words or ideas. ”
But even with a “real name,” there is no more “them” behind the name from your perspective, than what the person chooses to tell you about who they are. So I don’t get this, either. We might all like to know a person more intimately and comprehensively in order to have a discussion, but with Internet-only interactions, that is simply not an option no matter what people call themselves.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:54 am
Imagine if you were to meet me on the street and strike up a conversation and I found my thoughts worth engaging. The next day you see me again and engage me in a discussion. When we part you say, “By the way, my name is Jon Doe and you are . . . ” I reply, “I’d prefer not to say, my employer might hear about our talk and not like it. Just call me Anon1492.”
This is not really a serious analogy, simply bc the Internet is a very different social space than in-person conversation. Namely due to the fact that we are separated by time and distance and communicating by text only. Trying to apply the same standards that you (and I) might expect face-to-face just doesn’t wash.
For commenters that appear frequently on blogs that I follow, one comes to recognize their handle/name, philosophical disposition and forms of written expression. This is as close as I (or you) are likely to come to “knowing” these persons and, for me at least, is sufficient to facilitate a (sometimes) interesting exchange of ideas or dialog.
It can obviously turn problematic, in the sense that anonymity can lend itself as an excuse to engage in inflammatory language, but this is mostly a function of the personality of the poster not of how they choose to name themselves online.
June 28th, 2011 | 10:54 am
Pentamom I’m not following this at all. You judge people’s credibility by whether they use two names that are probably a person’s name on their posts, but you admit you have no way of knowing whether they’re just making those names up?
Don’t most of us assume that when someone tells us their name that they aren’t lying? I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are being straightforward with me. But if someone starts by giving me a knowingly false name (a pseudonym) then I start with reason to discount their credibility.
But even with a “real name,” there is no more “them” behind the name from your perspective, than what the person chooses to tell you about who they are.
Sure there is, if there weren’t this wouldn’t be an issue for debate. The fact that someone is part of an offline community and that I could know that community (even if I never do) changes the dynamic.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:01 am
GingerMan This is not really a serious analogy, simply bc the Internet is a very different social space than in-person conversation. Namely due to the fact that we are separated by time and distance and communicating by text only. Trying to apply the same standards that you (and I) might expect face-to-face just doesn’t wash.
I honestly don’t see why communicating by text changes the need to be open about who you are.
But you do have a point about the Internet being “a very different social space.” Many people who prefer to be anonymous use the Web as a place to engage in fantasy. Now admittedly, pseudonymous commenting on a blog is a rather dull (though mostly harmless) way to engage in fantasy. But it’s fantasy nonetheless. It allows people to be someone else, say things that they wouldn’t want to be held responsible for In Real Life.
Others of us, though, view the Internet as a place for honest and open communication. When we cross paths with the fantasist, we are polite but less engaged then we would be if the person were meeting us on even terms.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:03 am
Although, I appreciate the sentiment, you must realize that most of us don’t use our names because the Internet has taught us to write that way. Sites expect user names. We try to use our names, we really do, but the names are already being used. “Try again,” we are told.
We also try to use our names with our emails. Nope, the soulless machine tells us, “Name is being used. Try another name.” Then Mr. Machine tells us to try our name adding a strange, meaningless number.
“Nope, too hard to remember… I know,” we say, “I will come up with a clever pseudonym.”
It goes on and on until we forget where we can or cannot use our real names. The habit is formed. I have friends who actually call me by my email name because, like it or not, it is unique. I feel like it IS my name.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:09 am
I really don’t see how the fact that you potentially, if circumstances were significantly different than they are, could know something, but in reality do not and have no way of actually knowing that thing, changes something that is actually dependent on your knowing it.
Yes, you might normally “assume” that someone is telling the truth by using what appears to be a name, but that would be an assumption that is right only some of the time.
If you assume that someone who chooses to use a handle (and a handle that is obviously not a name is not a “false name,” since you and everyone else knows it’s not my name) is not lying about their name, you are right 100% of the time. I could start posting as Susan Cameron tomorrow, and you’d think I was credible. But I wouldn’t be, because that’s not my name. But as long as I’m pentamom, WYSIWYG. I fail to see how that’s less credible than Susan Cameron, who isn’t.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:13 am
@ By the way, I am one of the thousands of “Timothy Ryan”s in the United States. Even using my real name, I’m still anonymous to an extent, at least within the group of people named Timothy Ryan.
Some of us have “unique” names – when I google myself I am the only person with my name I find. Discretion has its place. Our culture (and employers) are quick to jump on any non-politically-correct comments (I got told off for inappropriate views in our anti-discrimination, anti-sexism etc training – apparently religious views must always yield to pro-gay views, don’t you know). We conservatives know that our opinions arouse the bitterest hatred in those liberals who preach tolerance (of all ideas they agree with) and so we choose not to fight every battle in the open.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:25 am
I have friends who actually call me by my email name because, like it or not, it is unique. I feel like it IS my name.
That’s a good point. Often, our email address is more unique identifier than our given name. Maybe in the future our surname will be a unique .com and parents will give firstname@ to distinguish children. (I have to admit that would be pretty cool. If you knew someone’s name you’d know how to contact them.)
Strong> I fail to see how that’s less credible than Susan Cameron, who isn’t.
Because of the signaling effect associated with a personal name. The difference between “Susan Cameron” and “Anon1492″ is that the latter is signaling that they do not want to be held responsible (at least In Real Life) for the comments they are making.
Now of course someone could be lying, and not really named “Susan Cameron” at all. But its not unreasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Ian We conservatives know that our opinions arouse the bitterest hatred in those liberals who preach tolerance (of all ideas they agree with) and so we choose not to fight every battle in the open.
Essentially what you’re saying is that many of my fellow conservatives simply do not have the courage to deal openly with those that disagree with them. I’m not sure that is something to be praised. I don’t want to pick on you by pointing this out because it is a theme that has surfaced before here on FT. But I simply don’t understand the idea that cowardice should be excused because being brave has consequences. Of course it does. If it didn’t, then it wouldn’t be bravery.
One of the biggest problem we have both in conservatism and Christianity is a failure of nerve, a cowering in the face of opposition. I can appreciate the honesty of people who freely admit that they don’t have the will to suffer the consequences, but I don’t find it excusable.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:28 am
I’d say a few things:
a) As has been mentioned above, it is highly unlikely that an employer could pick someone out from their online postings (especially in a comment section rather than via their own blog) unless they had a highly distinguishable name. So this concern is (in general) overblown, but not without real-world consequences in some cases, see Dreher, Rod.
b) It depends upon how one approaches the comments space. Given the informality of the exchange, it feels (to me) more like conversation. However, unlike conversation, it is archived permanently and is searchable globally for an unspecified period of time into the future.
This is very much UNLIKE a conversation that you/I and others participating here may have at a cocktail party. Given this, I again maintain that it is unreasonable to expect the same social standards to develop as in face-to-face interaction which is, by its very nature, ephemeral.
c) It is interesting to me that you see the creation of a handle as an effort to engage in fantasy, whereas if I were to use my real name the presumption is that I am therefore not still engaged in a very conscious effort at self-presentation. In some cases, the self-selected moniker may be more revealing about the individual than their birth name. Mine is a reference to the GingerKids episode of South Park, since I also have red hair.
d) Your position and mine are not the same. You have an institutional platform on the Internet which would be undermined (and I agree with Jacobs in this case) if you were writing anonymously on First Things. The institutional backing of your writing is “public” in a way mine is not, even if it is publicly accessible.
But I guess this is what it comes down to:
It allows people to be someone else, say things that they wouldn’t want to be held responsible for In Real Life.
You seem to feel that the usage of a handle is driven by a desire to avoid responsibility. I don’t view it that way, especially in cases (most) where people use the same handle consistently.
In some cases, (as Benighted Savage notes) it may spring from prior social standards of the blogosphere, it may be a harmless bit of wordplay (my case), it may be driven by a fear of repercussions (real or imagined), or it may be a desire to avoid responsibility for one’s own words, as you say. I just don’t think the latter HAS to be the motivation.
e) My name is Josh Dailey. But I don’t expect you to take my thoughts above any more seriously because of this information. In fact, I’d be a little disappointed if you did.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:40 am
I try to engage with the ideas people write, whatever their name or pseudonym. If they make a good argument, that’s what matters. (There’s a long tradition of that, anyway. It’s generally agreed in philosophical circles that the earlier Dialogues represent Socrates relatively accurately, but in later ones Plato was putting some of his own words in Socrates’ mouth. Depending on your theological stance, there’s some dispute about the authorship of certain books in the Bible, for that matter.)
On the other hand, I don’t feel like concealing my own name. I have reasons for believing what I believe, and if a potential employer has problems with my positions on things… well, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t enjoy working for them.
I’ve got a long history on the ‘net, and I’ve never used pseudonyms unless the site insisted on it – as Mark Donovan noted above, some do. Even then, I’ve included a link or something that made it easy to find me.
Besides, that imposes a certain useful discipline. I don’t post swear words or vitriol precisely because I’m taking responsibility for what I write.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:44 am
Joe,
Here’s a response from a pseudonymous commenter: The proposition that “pseudonymous commenters should be accorded a dispensation from having to take responsibility for their writing” is indefensible. If you write something, you should take responsibility for it. Period.
Not all pseudonymous commenters, however, are hiding behind their pseudonyms. Perhaps it’s just part of them, part of their creative process — like stage names. “Father Goose, starring Archibald Leach” might not have had the same screen appeal, but Archie (and Cary) put on a fine performance. Of course, using a man who was married five times as an example may not be the best approach with this crowd; but I couldn’t dig up any of pen names of Thomas More. Go figure!
Or perhaps a pen name or a stage name is a manifestation of a particular character flaw in the writer or performer (“I’m afraid of my boss,” “I care too much about what these superficial Hollywood folks think about my image,” “My creative genius is trapped inside the body — and name — of a bloody actuary,” “I hate the ‘real’ me,” or “I’m paranoid about creeps, perverts, and frauds getting a hold of my personal information” — the last one has some legs).
My pseudonymous-internet-commenter-name is a little piece of personal nostalgia. I was in high school/college when AOL Instant Messager was big. Most people had a “fake” IM name known universally to friends and acquaintances. Mine was “Tom Never” (I was a nutty “Wings” fan). I don’t know why I picked a fake name. Fear of creeps and perverts? Probably not at that age; I was reckless. The thrill of the pseudo-anonymity? Maybe. Everyone else was doing it? Probably some of that. I considered it poetic and suitable for someone of my creative genius? Bingo; I think highly of myself (well, not the real me, but certainly the pseudo-me). Now, I still like to use it. And I still don’t know why exactly.
But I don’t think that I can hide behind it; nor do I think that I should get dispensation from having to take responsibility for my writing. Nevertheless, I hope that readers respect my posts (if they deserve respect) and give them thought (if they’re worthy of consideration).
Sincerely (no accidental salutations here),
Tom N (Stephen P)
PS, Joe, you have my “real” fake email address. I mean, it’s really one of my email addresses, but I don’t use it for most business or personal purposes. PPS, in your experience, do all pseudonymous commenters use so many parentheticals (or is that just me)?
June 28th, 2011 | 12:14 pm
I’ll be your Huckleberry.
Why do you care who utters an opinion or argument? Do you need a face behind it in order to endorse or condemn it as good or bad on its own merits?
Do you not know that Anon has uttered more memorable, timeless truths and poesies than Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and Dante combined (if those are their real names)?
Personally, I have little regard for those who are so arrogant as to sign their name to every little note or passing thought that occurs to them (as if what they say is actually theirs, emerging ex nihilo from their own unique genius; and not simply pieced together regurgitations or restatements of something others said it better (all of whom, even the most responsible, magnonymous writer cannot fairly be bothered to cite or name).
I would much rather be considered a cowering, faceless coward by any of the self-advertising name-touters than actually be so overbearingly vain as to insist that my identity somehow be attached to my opinion through my family name. Usually my arguments can stand or fall on their own.
Likewise, it makes no difference to me whose ideas I am actually agreeing or disagreeing with. The names of credit-seekers are just superfluous, comforting distractions that, in the realm of truth and ideas, usually just get in the way of their arguments. And, in my (anonymous and irrelevant) experience, the delusional identification of credit-seeking signatories with the words they happen to piece together can often infect or compromise the words themselves – pride or responsibility holds them back from thinking through or stating the full ramifications and truth of what they only begin to say “in their own name.”
Self-interest is essential to survival, social mores, law, and order, but is poison to truly honest argument and discourse.
It is a strange modern obsession to sign one’s name or ascribe everything that I suspect at its best stems from ideas of individual responsibility and legalistically scrupulous record-keeping of ownership; and at its worst reflects a loss of the ability to argue on the plane of ideas with ideas, without recourse to ad hominem ascriptions of bias, interest, historicity and the like to those uttering them. So much easier to just chalk up arguments and ideas we find discomfiting to the writer’s limited point of view. We don’t even have to utter the actual opinions or arguments if we have a legal name to label them with and lump together with those we already have tidily filed away according to more familiar opiner’s official handles.
I refuse to indulge your need to label and ascribe my opinions whenever I can. If you are unable to deal with and argue with ideas and arguments without an owner you can personally address, then just imagine them the Trollistic opinions of a cowardly Troll (call him what you like) to make it easier (as you already have in your post). I see no real difference (in most circumstances) between arguing with a figment of your imagination and arguing with whom you imagine a person (or name) to be. The arguments remain right or wrong regardless of who recited them.
June 28th, 2011 | 12:28 pm
In thinking about several who have said that their comments should be evaluated solely by the standard of truthiness and not by whatever name or identity is attached… I think they miss the point.
Comment anonymity reflects an emotional need to join with and be heard by a community while at the same time wanting to be invisible. As an introvert, I’ve often felt that same thing at parties and have to resist the urge to disappear into the dark corners of the room.
Anonymous commenting is the act of pursuing fellowship while at the same time holding others at arm’s length. Fellowship, openness, revealing oneself to others, these things are risky. Yet humans thrive in community and wither in isolation, because we were designed to be members of a community… and just as Christ came to reveal the Father, we have a deep and real need to be known — and not merely by our Internet handles, but known for who we are are inside.
I suppose there can be some necessary reasons to be anonymous from time to time, but on the whole it seems to me to reflect a radical individualism that is opposed to, or deeply afraid of, joining with a community of others.
The Internet encourages isolation and the fake, at-a-safe-distance sort of community offered by Facebook, et al. Internet anonymity seems to me to invite us to seek out the dark corners of the room where no one will see us. It seems to be about denying an essential fact of human nature: that we were made for relationships, and all relationships start with an introduction and a name.
June 28th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
Charlie Comment anonymity reflects an emotional need to join with and be heard by a community while at the same time wanting to be invisible.
That’s a brilliant line, Charlie. Well said. I wish I had thought of that.
June 28th, 2011 | 12:41 pm
“The difference between “Susan Cameron” and “Anon1492″ is that the latter is signaling that they do not want to be held responsible (at least In Real Life) for the comments they are making. ”
Only, Susan Cameron is signaling falsely, but she is accorded more credibility for doing so, than if she honestly decided she didn’t want to use a human-sounding name and made that plain to everyone. Is there any reason, given the widespread perfidy of the Internet, *to* give someone the benefit of the doubt for no other reason than the unverifiable use of a human-sounding name?
And you know Joe, you do know my real name. I don’t mind being “held responsible” by you for what I write, but yeah, I do mind being “held responsible” by every wingnut who might click on any site I might post on, without ever having earned the right to hold me responsible for anything, but may just use the information to harass me or slander me (by misquoting me on other sites or the like.)
June 28th, 2011 | 12:46 pm
I think your complaint is about anonymity where no risk or “danger” is involved and, in that regard, I agree.
However, I’ve written quite a few things anonymously or under a pseudonym regarding unions – and for good reason. My observations are from the trenches of public education and I truly do fear for my safety and the safety of my family as far as reprisals go.
Are you unaware of the long tradition in this country (and elsewhere) of prominent folks such as Ben Franklin and others sending letters to the editor under a pen name?
June 28th, 2011 | 12:53 pm
From the link provided: “While I knew that the Founding Fathers were fond of cloaking their political commentary with pseudonyms, “Infamous Scribblers” filled in the detail by providing their bewildering variety. Hamilton like to employ a nom de plume that revealed what he regarded as his philosophical roots in classical Rome: Publius, Pacificus, Cattalus, Horatius and Philo Camillus, for example. Newspaper publisher Benjamin Franklin displayed a mastery of evocative names such as Silence Dogood, Alice Addertongue, Fanny Mournful, Obadiah Plainman and the delightful Busy Body. The champion in terms of sheer numbers appears to be John Adams, whose 25 or so pen names included Populus, An American, A Son of Liberty and the vaguely Wrestlemaniacal “Vindex the Avenger”. ” http://epaper.jdnews.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=SkROLzIwMDYvMDkvMTcjQXIwNDIwMA==&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom
June 28th, 2011 | 12:57 pm
Thank you, Joe Carter, for the favor of a reply. I think you have hit upon the difference between oral communication and written communication: the exchange of names in face-to-face interaction is a very old mystique. Rarely do I ask a person’s name as I know them by sight, sound, and in some cases, smell. The auditory label of another’s name is subordinate to the other sense’s registration – the old Emerson quote about “Who you are speaks so loudly . . .”
Written communication, on the other hand, is quite anonymous. The only sense data available to me is symbolic to be made “real” via recollection. In reading one cannot engage a person as that person, flesh and spirit, is only a shadow on the page. Put another way, humans cannot make a word become flesh.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:08 pm
Anyway, getting back to the main point of the post:
It’s quite true that using pseudonyms (which is different from either using a false name or being anonymous) enables all of the unfortunate behaviors and situations that Carter and Jacobs describe. Therefore, I can easily understand someone being suspicious, distrustful, or just plain antagonistic to the practice in general.
But it is a failure of both logic and charity to believe and act upon the belief that using pseudonyms *is* or *entails* those things in any given case. That’s why I don’t buy the “person who uses pseudonym lacks credibility” argument. Using a pseudonym enables a dishonest person to hide, but using a pseudonym does not detract from the credibility of any writing that reflects honesty, accuracy, and consistency. At least, not more than it detracted from the credibility of Thomas Paine, or C.S. Lewis.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:16 pm
Sorry, but it is not true that “all” a person is going to suffer “is disagreement”.
Two separate members of my family have been attacked by anonymous trolling. (One is a liberal and the other a conservative, so it’s not a left-right thing. It’s a some-people-are-addicted-to-power thing.)
It’s not fun or cute. When you go for a job, your employer is going to look you up on the Internet.
Real names are for finite communities.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:29 pm
Joe, you’d be surprised at how much forum users can tell from your posts. When Blizzard, maker of World of Warcraft, decided to use RealID’s to link forum posters to their real names in order to encourage civility and owning your idea, one community rep named Bashiok put his real name as an example.
The WoW community tracked down his real address, family members, phone number, facebook page, and found out he was still living with parents. This from a relatively common name.
If you want people to use their real names, change FT’s comment system over to Facebook Comments, and start banning fake profiles. You’ll force people to own their comments, but you’ll find the number of people doing so will sharply drop off, and mostly will post just to agree with you.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:32 pm
Historically and presently, there is a time and a place for owning your words and speaking anonymously. Most of the relative points have already been made. Publius could be anonymous – it was about the ideas. The Declaration of Independence could not be anonymous – it was a statement of intent requiring accountability.
I try to bridge the world between anonymity and identifiably. I want to present an online image that is true to life, consistent and recognizable. Those who know me well in everyday life can recognize my commenter name(s). At the same time, my online identity is not available to anyone who would google my name, which is pretty unusual.
Why? Well, for a good part of my professional life, I’ve worked for public figures, often associated with their public relations to one degree or another. I have my own opinions but I represent their opinions. Neither of us want my opinions mistaken for those of my bosses when they differ. I am not generally allowed to make a public comment without having it cleared in my professional world. Some might want me to refrain from expressing any opinion online. I don’t want to do that, so I preserve some degree of anonymity to protect my employer(s) and my own professional role(s).
If someone wishes to accord less weight to my viewpoints based on that decision, I totally respect their decision.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:33 pm
Joe Carter said: ‘In all the time I’ve been blogging, I can only think of one person who got a full-time writing job and yet never revealed his name (Allahpundit from HotAir).’
What about Spengler? I know he did eventually reveal his name, but he wrote for many journals, FT included, for a long time before he did. And he was and is an excellent writer.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:36 pm
Well, here’s one reason.
I usually post here with my name, but this is just about the only place I do so. I’ve been viciously stalked on the internet for years. The stalker tracked down relatives and children, contacted my employer and then defamed my boss.
I take a low profile on the internet and I recommend it for most people as well.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:39 pm
Charlie,
Comment anonymity could reflect an emotional need to join with and be heard by a community while at the same time wanting to be invisible.
But it could also reflect something else – perhaps not even an “emotional need” (the ascribing of which – especially to those you do not know – is as unnecessarily condescending as it is psycholgizing).
You mean you don’t like it if you cannot put a name or face to a comment or argument. I get that – of course no one talks to me at parties when I wear my ski mask. It is a different social context you want to impose on all civil discussion.
Different venues (courts, finance, etc.) and situations in which we converse do require that we have set and stable identities behind our statements, and it for the most part it makes for a more civil “community.”
But in the highest contexts, where what we are interested in the truth or brilliance of a statement, and not the brilliance or noble motives of he who wrote it, ownership of words is an unwelcome encumbrance.
I have always thought that the greatest thing about the internet is the possibility of at least presumed anonymity to free us from all those social contexts and formalities of “community” and sociality to engage with each others decontextualized thoughts alone. I guess it depends on the site and its purported purpose though. Some are actually dedicated to community and camaraderie, others to dating. But I get enough of that out there in meatland, and mostly go online to engage with words and ideas, not the people writing it.
This comment, for example, maybe was written randomly by a dozen illiterate monkeys (I am not really your mother) but it is still true.
June 28th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
I should add that I had a similar discussion with Rod Dreher. I responded to him by doing a 30 second internet search and then emailing him a copy of the grant deed for his house, showing how much he had paid for it. It would have been easy to post a link in the comments box.
I could have done much worse and so can anybody else.
June 28th, 2011 | 2:05 pm
If I comment under the same name everywhere I go, I build up a reputation for commenting in a certain way. If it’s a pseudonym, it might not be able to be immediately linked to my offline identity, but I don’t have any interest in someone showing up at my house, or calling my phone number, without first asking me, anyway! (And that is a very real fear online – not in the comments here, thankfully, but it’s definitely true elsewhere.) If a person is pseudonymous elsewhere, and would like the reputation of that pseudonym to be affected, positively or negatively, by his or her comments here, is that an unreasonable motivation? I myself might not go to great lengths to keep my offline and online identities separate, but that doesn’t mean I don’t make some attempt to keep them distinct, or that I don’t feel very nervous anywhere that requires “real names”.
Those of us who’ve grown up with the Internet – who were online, supervised or not, from our early teens – grew up being told “never, never use your real name online; never give out your age; never give out your location”. Now we’re being told that if we don’t use our real name, if we don’t make it easier for someone to find us, we’re being dishonest – as if only deceptive, dishonest people cared about their privacy or worried about their safety.
If someone can get a one-time exception for using a pseudonym for a sensitive issue, why can’t that same person use that same pseudonym afterwards, so that it can be known that the Chicken L. who shared a very private event to further discussion in 2009 is the same Chicken L. who has left consistently civil, constructive comments on fifteen topics before that revelation and fifty different topics after it? Is it better for Chicken L.’s story to be totally unconnected with Chiara Little’s sixty-five other comments?
Musicians, actors, and authors often use pseudonyms, too – for example Robert Jordan’s “real” first name was not Robert, and his “real” last name was not Jordan, but that doesn’t change the quality of his books.
Admittedly, we usually call pseudonyms “stage names” and “pen names” if they belong to famous people, but they’re still pseudonyms; I’ve never heard of anyone having less respect for a musician, actor, or author because that person didn’t use his or her legal name on stage, in movies, or on books.
Besides, we don’t always use legal names in person, either, and we very rarely use full legal names. Almost nobody knows my legal middle name; on the other hand, very few people know my father’s legal first name, because he uses his middle name as if it were his first name. If you met him on the street, he would not introduce himself by his “real” first name, but that doesn’t mean he’s being deceptive. It means the name he wants you to use for him isn’t the name on his driver’s license – nothing more, nothing less.
June 28th, 2011 | 2:13 pm
Joe Carter:
“Here’s what it boils down to: I don’t understand why we should reward people for their failure to be courageous.”
“The idea that people should get a pass because they want to avoid the negative aspects of their decision (who doesn’t!) is an explanation but not an excuse.”
Courageousness… want to avoid negative aspects of their decision… Surely true in some cases, but not in all. You’re painting with far too broad strokes. And some of your posters are doing the same.
You’ve missed an obvious one, Joe. I am a father with children to protect. Plain and simple.
We could bring this back to previous conversation threads about having a right to know certain truths – for example having the right to know if I am hiding a Jewish family in my home if someone shows up at the door and wishes to seize them. Some people think that a Christian should be robotically required to utter a ‘yes, they’re here,’ in the name of courageously taking a stand…
I am protecting people within my household, Joe. And not everyone who comes to the door needs to know information which amounts to a key to the door.
Please – interesting post – but far too intent on trying to detect deep-seated psychological shortcomings from what are actually simple prudent vocational decisions. Let’s save the boasting for the ballfield.
June 28th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
Ray Ingles wrote: “I have reasons for believing what I believe, and if a potential employer has problems with my positions on things… well, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t enjoy working for them.”
I very much agree with Ray’s comment.
FWIW, I am me. On line, I’ve always tried to include, at least, my surname, in my logins/posts, though when I started, we dealt in trigraphs. Even on Starcraft II, I am melendezeast, though I expect my opinions there wouldn’t be respected anyway. My 15-year-old son beats me all the time now.
June 28th, 2011 | 3:19 pm
I agree with all the commenters that have pointed out how erroenous Carter’s claim that Internet anonymity is motivated by some cowardly desire to shirk reponsibility. I am also surprised by either the denial or the complect neglect that Mr Carter shows in reference the real world, where vicious policticking and retaliation for “heretical” views are the norm in so many environments, especially liberal ones.
Much more than signing a name, it would be a great improvement for the Internet if commenters were not allowed to construct stawman arguments, red-herrings, made-up stats, fabricate “facts,” etc. Undoubtedly, Internet traffic would drop by 50% overnight.
Would liberals be less abusive on the Internet if they signed their name in their comments? I think 90% wouldn’t change a thing in the degree of their incivility.
June 28th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
@Ian: You write:
The Chittom clan is a fairly small one, and I am related to all of them, as far as I can tell (though distantly in some cases, of course—chittom.com used to be an industrial fan company founded by, I believe, my great-great-great-granduncle (I think they sold out to a bigger company)). Of the Chittoms, I’m the only Carson I’m aware of. So I know about being “unique,” Google-wise. While I would certainly understand it as argument against participating in controversial discussions online, I find it an unconvincing argument for anonymity. I don’t accept the premise (not yours, Ian, but in another comment) that online discussions are somehow different—there are real people at the other end of every discussion. I owe them my honesty and integrity, just as I owe those things to every person I meet face-to-face. So I view any comments I make here or on any other online forum just as I do those made to people at church, or a bar, or post office, or workplace; except that online my auditors may theoretically be every human being on the planet in perpetuity. I stand by my words, where I say them. When I’m unwilling to face the consequences of my opinions, I don’t voice them.
It’s not like I haven’t thought about this before—I have a family, after all. If my opinions make me lose my job, I can get another one (even one not in my field, even one washing dishes or digging ditches, if I have to). If people harass me or my family, I’ll contact the police. If somebody commits libel (or is it slander? Strike as appropriate; I never can keep those straight), I may sue them, pro se if I have to. If I’m unwilling to (potentially) deal with all that, I will remain silent. To my mind, that’s the honest thing to do.
All that said, I try very hard to respond just to the words of my interlocutors online, not to their names or even personalities. I think that’s the honest thing to do, as well.
June 28th, 2011 | 3:46 pm
Sure, sure, if you have a boring name like “Carter.” My real name is unique and, everything I sign my name to online can be easily Googled. A little privacy seems prudent.
June 28th, 2011 | 4:03 pm
There is the practice in the East , of not putting names on icons – intent being that God is the one to be glorified for the truth expressed through the icon .
Similarly , when truth is being spoken and shared , it will have the right ring to it , to those who are open to it and thus be able to give glory to God , as well as to all who would have helped persons to be what they are .
We have seen in recent years the sad fall of media giants in The Church !
Anonymity could give one the privilege of being reminded of who the source is of any good inspirations and to know that there are probably many others who also share same from the same Source – just that one might be more at the disposal , to be doing the sharing , even if that may be less meritorious than one who is storming heaven !
June 28th, 2011 | 5:12 pm
Alessandra – As an example of addressing someone’s arguments rather than their persons, I will point out that the idea that “…it would be a great improvement for the Internet if commenters were not allowed to construct… made-up stats…” isn’t a bad one.
Unfortunately, in the very same post you say, “Undoubtedly, Internet traffic would drop by 50% overnight.” and “Would liberals be less abusive on the Internet if they signed their name in their comments? I think 90% wouldn’t change a thing in the degree of their incivility.”
Are those stats ‘made up’? If not, can you source them?
June 28th, 2011 | 5:38 pm
So we have a strong endorsement from a guy with tenure and a guy who’s *job* is to be opinionated.
And keeping one’s job, some of us would say, is a strong motive, especially if one has a wife, kids, and a mortgage. Bourgeious respectability makes the prometheans mad, but I’m all for it anyway.
I’ll be sure to pass this on to Publius.
June 28th, 2011 | 5:57 pm
I started the comment thread strongly favoring the argument for anonymity, got disenchanted with the repeated all-that-matters-is-what-I-say-true comments, but was swayed back by this:
Personally, I have little regard for those who are so arrogant as to sign their name to every little note or passing thought that occurs to them (as if what they say is actually theirs, emerging ex nihilo from their own unique genius; and not simply pieced together regurgitations or restatements of something others said it better (all of whom, even the most responsible, magnonymous writer cannot fairly be bothered to cite or name).
Anonymity can be humility.
Prior to the internet, most people didn’t broadcast their opinions to the world. What they said would stay within a small social circle. I cannot fault anyone for thinking that, just because technology has made it possible to assert one’s personality, one needn’t.
Similarly, a writer will sometimes circulate first drafts and things to friends with the clear social understanding that they are confidential. Anonymity on the internet can be, mutatis mutandis, the same thing. A feeling that one’s thoughts aren’t yet inscribed on the mountains.
I don’t think its cowardice for a write to circulate drafts so I don’t think its cowardice to write anonymously on the internet.
June 28th, 2011 | 5:58 pm
Query:
would it be cowardice to object to having all one’s conversations recorded and made public forever in a searchable format?
What if we just limited it to conversations on politics, religion, art, sport, and culture? Would it be cowardice then?
June 28th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
Joe Carter’s dogmatism gets the better of him again.
Anonymity online is not about courage, it is about control. The “employer reprisal” canard is a red herring. The moment you post anything to the web it is stored permanently, copied infinitely, and broadcast worldwide. This is quite new in human interaction, particularly when applied to what our customs still consider “casual” conversation. To apply the customs of different media (such as walking down the street!) is to miss the point badly. Appending your name to words that may be captured and manipulated by countless, unaccountable others requires a new kind of prudence.
The barrier to entry for posting anonymously is low, and next to nothing appears to be at stake — we are alone with our screens sending words into the invisible ether. Carter’s contempt would be appropriate if the poster retained some options once he presses “send.” He doesn’t. Only a fool would be so reckless with his good name.
Enter the concept of “limited liability personae.”
http://tinyurl.com/44gs4oh
As in corporation investment, risks are encouraged by curtailing the possibility of catastrophic damages. Greater risk, greater reward. Who among us would speak truth earnestly felt in a comprehensive surveillance state? Even the faint possibility of disproportionate, outsized, and unjust results — such as, say, your name becoming the laughingstock of the world (cf. Rebecca Black) — would render all but the most promiscuous silent.
Finally, anonymity is a boon for good commentary. While Carter and Jacobs are chiding us cowards for our aliases, the aliases enable a fearless expression of honesty that can only be judged completely on its merits. This is Aristotle’s rhetoric stripped of the ethos component, which has its advantages. Online we must judge the content of the rhetorician’s speech independent of the rhetorician’s (often misleading) reputation. It stands or falls on what has been said, rather than who has said it.
I am glad for this discussion. New etiquette and custom must be thought through, experimented with, and established. The internet is still in the state of nature. We must submit to a rule of law or the bellum omnium contra omnes, lest unmoderated commentary continue to be the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short phenomenon that it is. And what naive child would walk naked into such a dangerous place?
To which website do I go to get my reputation back?
June 28th, 2011 | 6:06 pm
One last thing–can it really be that nearly everyone who uses their real name is preening themselves about it? I hope not, but that’s what I’m getting from the comments here. It will certainly change how I read internet comment threads in the future.
June 28th, 2011 | 6:14 pm
Adam G,
I think posting a comment on a blog like this is similar to writing a letter to the editor. Do you think newspapers should allow everyone who writes a letter to the editor to use a pseudonym?
June 28th, 2011 | 7:09 pm
AdamG., excellent question. All this talk about cowardice is silly. Anonymity has it’s uses. It’s been used by writers for centuries for various reasons. I can’t see the problem with it, especially on the internet
June 28th, 2011 | 7:50 pm
@ Carson Chittom
“I don’t accept the premise (not yours, Ian, but in another comment) that online discussions are somehow different—there are real people at the other end of every discussion. I owe them my honesty and integrity, just as I owe those things to every person I meet face-to-face.”
I assume this is in response to my comment (or at least I said something similar), but I don’t think your contention holds up under scrutiny. I am not saying I *believe* we should treat online conversations differently and thus exempt them from normal standards of social behavior. I am saying online conversations *are* qualitatively different in *form* from any offline equivalent and therefore people (logically and justly) respond differently, and therefore different social norms may prevail. The medium is the message.
How many people have you met, in an offline context, where seconds after meeting them, maybe after only knowing their name, you were having an impassioned discussion about a “hot button” social/religious/political issue? I would venture to guess none, because this is not the normal mode of introductory social discourse. But this is exactly the format of interaction that blog commentary enables and promotes.
There is a thread of logic running through some of the posts against anonymous posting, that if I say something to one person anywhere, I should have the “guts” to say it in public, and moreover to broadcast it to the world. If this is the case, I look forward to the coming online transcript of your next trip to the confessional booth.
We all have circles of intimacy, groups of people with whom we will/will not extend certain confidences, opinions, heartfelt beliefs. What I say to my wife, I might not say to my boss, and this is entirely appropriate and not an indication of a lack of integrity or honesty. Internet communications, however, upends and disembodies these normal concentric social circles of intimacy and confidence sharing. Further, not all conversation, even about topics of public import, needs to be seem as a form of political advocacy, thereby requiring “accountability.”
We may intend our replies to be directed to Joe and others participating in this comment stream, but the effect is that the record of our commentary is archived, indexed and made available to any and all comers. We lose control of our own speech, its intended audience and its context in a manner that has no offline analog (excepting if one is a paid author, like Joe).
If the collection of commenters here were having this same conversation in-person around a tavern, and each of us knew that every other person was wearing a hidden microphone, would you expect that this would impact the social situation? Would the persons engaged in conversation be justified in reacting differently, knowing that they are being recorded? I cannot see how the answer could be “no” which is what your response above implies.
I think we can all agree that someone who goes online and pens a William Wallace-esque jeremiad for/against gay marriage and claims to be willing to die with his/her boots on for the cause, but is unwilling to give up the pseudonym when posting, deserves to be mocked for a lack of courage for one’s convictions. But many (most?) online conversations do not rise to the level of statements of conscience (such as the one we are presently engaged in). In such circumstances, I don’t see how using a pseudonym signals a lack of character which is what some above seem to be implying.
June 28th, 2011 | 7:54 pm
It’s easy to poke fun at people who fear for their employment when you write for a living at a nationally-recognized conservative publication! Try some imaginative sympathy for a moment. People may overestimate the negative ramifications of being identified, but others (including Mr. Carter, perhaps) may underestimate the difficulty of maintaining any level of privacy on the internet, even when it is clearly appropriate. I presume you’ve read the Wall Street Journal investigative series on how personal information is tracked and compiled on the web, mostly for commercial purposes. Sure, if you’re talking about a petition or something like that, then endorsing should usually mean really endorsing it – i.e., undersigning it. But why should we construe all speech on the internet according to that situation?
June 28th, 2011 | 8:01 pm
King hits the nail on the head. When the potential uses others may make of our words are so unknown and so out of our control, prudence makes different recommendations than it does in situations that differ in those respects. That’s kind of the mark of prudence – it adapts to different situations!
June 28th, 2011 | 8:27 pm
I’m impressed with all of the aforementioned folks who think they are somehow the personification of courage for attaching their real name to a site read by a minscule number of mostly like-minded readers. If “First Thoughts” feels this strongly go ahead and do it — you’ll find the ensuing echo-chamber to be most comfortable. In fact, please do us all a favor and require your readers to list their real names. I’ll enjoy watching this sight dry up like a rattlesnake’s butt in a wagon rut.
June 28th, 2011 | 8:42 pm
Adam G wrote: “One last thing–can it really be that nearly everyone who uses their real name is preening themselves about it?”
Are you sure that is not jealousy or distrust of someone who disagrees with you? Emotions are tricky things. We humans have a habit of thinking our emotions come from someone else. But I leave that for you to judge. For me, I have trouble enough judging my own emotions to want to read those of others from short writing. (Not that I never do so. I’m human too.)
I use my real name. It has not been a big deal to me. It is my name. Not that I haven’t struggled with a paranoid edge in my life. I think that’s part of our survival mechanisms. I do wonder at those who try to be fully opaque while posting. Why post at all if you truly want to hide?
June 28th, 2011 | 8:52 pm
GingerMan: “There is a thread of logic running through some of the posts against anonymous posting, that if I say something to one person anywhere, I should have the “guts” to say it in public, and moreover to broadcast it to the world. If this is the case, I look forward to the coming online transcript of your next trip to the confessional booth.”
I gather you are either not Catholic or are not internet savvy. Maybe both. The distinction between the two is clear. But maybe you were trying a reductio ad absurdum? If so, I suggest you succeeded in the latter but not the former.
The internet is public. More public than anything before it. More public than most of us imagine.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:05 pm
You can look at this from another angle, too. Some people don’t like being deferred to all the time simply because of who they are, what their social standing is, etc. Others don’t like being dismissed all the time simply because of who they are, what their social standing is, etc. The anonymity of blogs gives both types of people the opportunity to have their thoughts judged for what they are and not from whom they came.
June 28th, 2011 | 9:13 pm
I’ve noticed a sub-trend that I find interesting. Joe notes that his respect is lowered for those who post anonymously. Some have morphed that into a declaration of cowardice pointed at others. Joe speaks quite well for himself, but somehow I don’t think this is what he meant. I think that the point is, it is impossible to form a full opinion of such people which makes what they write carry less meaning. Compare that to pentamom, who posts frequently enough under the same alias that I think I know something of her.
As to posts standing alone better with anonymity, I find that somewhat amusing. No one I’ve read here writes that well. Certainly not me. And this is one the best sites I know for decent writing among the commentators.
Let me put it another way. I hang up on people who call me on the phone and avoid saying who they are. Ask yourself, why would I do that?
June 28th, 2011 | 9:38 pm
@Mike
I was obviously (I hope) exaggerating for rhetorical effect, but maybe poorly so. The point is that we have no mechanism to set boundaries on our online speech. It is an on/off switch, all or nothing, which you recognize well:
“The internet is public. More public than anything before it. More public than most of us imagine.”
Exactly. Given the blurring (erasing?) of the public/private distinction that the Internet fosters, anonymity is one natural response to a social space that is quite unlike that which we experience in offline contexts.
Anonymous posting may signal many things but it doesn’t prima facie signal cowardice. This is my simple claim.
June 28th, 2011 | 11:46 pm
Problem is I’ve never seen positive effects from this, Mike. Every example where greater accountability is demanded of commentors just shows the real reason. It’s nothing to do with respect, and all about control.
Signing your real name, or similar things (harsh modding, web-wide comment systems) are designed to try and get commentors to modify their behavior. People want accountability to drown out noise, but they get echo chambers, and people not willing to say things for fear of consequences.
But in any case, I’d like Joe to also show a little backbone. If you believe this, then mandate a real-name requirement for commenting here, or even limit commenting to subscribers. I don’t think hectoring those of us that comment with pseudonyms is productive, and telling people that read you that you think their ideas aren’t worthy of thinking about because of that isn’t the best thing to do.
June 29th, 2011 | 12:09 am
Dblade But in any case, I’d like Joe to also show a little backbone. If you believe this, then mandate a real-name requirement for commenting here, or even limit commenting to subscribers.
Why would I do that? I’m not interested in making the blog solely about my preferences. I consider the readers to be a community and if other commenter have no problem with anonymity then I can live with it too.
I don’t think hectoring those of us that comment with pseudonyms is productive, and telling people that read you that you think their ideas aren’t worthy of thinking about because of that isn’t the best thing to do.
I didn’t mean to be hectoring, but I thought it was a harsh truth worth sharing. I’m not the only one that feels this way, its just that you don’t hear people talking about it because they don’t bother to comment. Most readers simply have no interest in debating anonymous commenters (there is only 1 comment for every 75 pageviews on FT). That is why on most threads (including this one) the vast majority of commenters are pseudonymous. Which when you think about it is rather odd. (This cartoon sums it up: http://www.shoeboxblog.com/?p=26240)
By the way, I want to clarify my cowardly comment. I assumed people would understand the type of comment that I was referring to but maybe not, so I should explain. I wasn’t referring to someone merely expressing their opinions about a topic. That stuffs fine. I was thinking about when someone who refuses to give their name criticizes someone else by name. That, to me, is very cowardly. If you comment anonymously, then you should refrain from attacking/criticizing people who are willing to put their name to their ideas.
(I should also clarify that I don’t really mind when anonymous commenters criticize me. I have thick skin and don’t get too bothered by that stuff. But it annoys me when they harp about other folks, especially my fellow FT contributors.)
Finally, I should say that I have extra respect for our commenters who are willing to sign their name to their comments. I may not agree many of those folks (e.g., David Nickol) but I respect their willingness to stand by what they say.
June 29th, 2011 | 12:34 am
Criticizing others by “name.”
How do I know that’s really their name? Whether pseudonym or not the name is the same– unsubstantiated hearsay–unless you want to post your photo and birth certificate.
Otherwise, it’s an obsession to to think you really know a person’s “real” name because that’s what they typed. I recognize the persons who claim they are “Joe Carter” and “Pentamom” equally by their “fist” as Morse Code guys used to call it. People go by nicknames on the Internet and real life all the time. Treat “Pentamom” as a friend’s nickname based on an inside joke friend and move on.. the rest
June 29th, 2011 | 5:01 am
Ray Ingles
June 28th, 2011 | 5:12 pm Alessandra – As an example of addressing someone’s arguments rather than their persons, I will point out that the idea that “…it would be a great improvement for the Internet if commenters were not allowed to construct… made-up stats…” isn’t a bad one.
Unfortunately, in the very same post you say, “Undoubtedly, Internet traffic would drop by 50% overnight.” and “Would liberals be less abusive on the Internet if they signed their name in their comments? I think 90% wouldn’t change a thing in the degree of their incivility.”
Are those stats ‘made up’? If not, can you source them?
===========
Do you fail to realize that an estimate is different than an observed figure? Only a person who is more interested in squabbling and purposefully distorting communication intent and representation rather than seriously discussing an issue would ignore the crucial difference.
Secondly, do you fail to realize that numbers can also be used as figures of speech and that it would be intellectually dishonest to confuse a figure of speech (half of the information, i.e. a considerable amount) with an actual mathematical figure produced by a summing calculation?
What is the basis of my criticism to Internet content? The endless discussions I’ve participated on the internet where people do not quote estimates but distorted study numbers, numbers out of context, and so on, to support an ideological dogma. Can you say that the point I have made is not true? Are you trying to insist that one cannot use a percentage as a figure of speech or to make a point when no one, except someone intellectually dishonest, would try to claim that as a calculated statistics?
You have purposefully ignored the very essence of the point being made: there is a considerable amount of false information on Internet discussions and texts. The “50%” could only be distorted to be an actual calculated figure by a dishonest interpretation of the text, such as you are intent on doing.
Where does my criticism to liberal incivility come from? Again from my experience in the Internet. In the overwhelming majority of Internet discussions I have participated in or followed, if you call on a liberal regarding their incivility, instead of changing their behavior, they will justify being uncivil and continue just as uncivil as before. That is the source.
Are you going to squabble that you know more about my experience than I do? Or that the problem of uncivility is not widespread on Internet discussions where ideologies collide?
Are you going to run away from addressing how uncivil and unethical liberals show themselves to be in Internet discussions?
Squabble away.
June 29th, 2011 | 7:18 am
“Anonymous posting may signal many things but it doesn’t prima facie signal cowardice. This is my simple claim.”
Agreed. My comment on how public the internet is was to the point that there is no anonymity even with aliases. I won’t come searching for you, but those who think it might be useful can.
June 29th, 2011 | 7:27 am
Dblade writes: “Problem is I’ve never seen positive effects from this, Mike. Every example where greater accountability is demanded of commentors just shows the real reason. It’s nothing to do with respect, and all about control.”
Dblade, I think you mistake openness of opinion for control. I may be mistaken but you appear to be the first to call for Joe to require “real” names, though I suspect you are doing it to attempt to make a point. As Joe notes, he has no such desire. Nor does such control exist. I note the thread above is closer to cacophony than to an echo chamber.
June 29th, 2011 | 9:27 am
Most readers simply have no interest in debating anonymous commenters (there is only 1 comment for every 75 pageviews on FT). That is why on most threads (including this one) the vast majority of commenters are pseudonymous.
Well, first, pseudonymous and anonymous are not the same thing, but that’s quibble.
I am extremely sceptical that requiring use of real names and registration/verification of such would increase the ratio of comments to pageviews. You are making an anthropological claim about why people don’t comment that just doesn’t bear up.
I read a lot more First Things posts than I comment on, but its not because I’m put off by the ‘anonymous’ commenters. All commenters are functionally anonymous to me anyway, even if they use the real name. No, the reason I don’t comment on lots of threads is that I don’t have the time or I don’t have anything to say.
June 29th, 2011 | 9:33 am
Mike Melendez,
the preening I see from many of the commenters who use their real names (so they say) isn’t solely attributable to my emotion of feeling criticized. How could it be? Adam G. is my real name.
My concern is that by using my real name people would suspect that I am congratulating myself on my courage or taking a dogmatically autistic attitude that the same conventions and norms that apply to real life conversation should apply to online discussion. I have to think y’alls is a minority view that isn’t widely shared. But if I could be convinced otherwise, I would switch to a pseudonym. I don’t want my online discussions to be colored by my interlocutor’s perception that I am smugly being ‘brave’.
June 29th, 2011 | 9:35 am
A general reflection:
to my mind, Alan Jacobs position buys into the cult of authenticity that is part and parcel of our cult of radical individualism. He sees making internet comments as a sort of existential act. I don’t.
June 29th, 2011 | 9:37 am
Joe, thanks for responding.
I’m getting cross purposes here. In one hand, you say that you don’t want to make the blog about your preferences, and the community is okay with anon posters. On the other hand you say that most people don’t want to reply to anonymous commentors (as opposed to name commentors?), and because of that only a few people post a comment per pagelook. You also say that anonymous posters shouldn’t attack others. (again as opposed to name commentors?) I noticed also that you changed the page layout to hide comments by default.
This post also came across to me as trying to achieve an end by shaming. I’m just saying if you think of it as such an issue, you have the power to not make it an issue. I think it would just be more consistent, especially if the thoughts of the other readers come into the mix.
The bunny cartoon is cute, but it shows both aspects of it. Without the net, the bunny just ignores the stranger and doesn’t engage.
Mike:
Because a lot of anon posters are posting in it. I meant this though because I think the idea of signing a name to a post doesn’t give more legitimacy. It just makes people think twice about being negative, and make people self-mod more.
For a silly example, if someone calls another poster an idiot, whether its psuedonym or a real name doesn’t make the insult more legitimate. The hope though is that he wont call the person an idiot by making him self-conscious. Accountability measures are there to increase control over the types of posts, not so much validate their content unless its something like Quora, where people give expert advice.
June 29th, 2011 | 10:11 am
@ GingerMan You write
Here is where we apparently differ: in my view, the Internet does not upend such circles so much as become the outer circle—equivalent to yelling from a soapbox on the street corner (hence why I have no problem having an “impassioned discussion” with someone I’ve only just encountered).
Just to clarify, I don’t believe that (pseudo)anonymous posting and commenting are, ipso facto, cowardice, nor do I think they are always unjustified. Anti-government activists speaking out against an oppressive regime are an obvious case where anonymity might well be quite justified—and even brave, since having one’s identity known could mean being taken out of the fight. I just think that using one’s real name should be the default, absent some very good reason.
June 29th, 2011 | 10:39 am
@Joe,
Joe, I agree more or less with your narrowing of your complaint at 12:09 – and I like the original linked-to article as well. But here,
“I respect their willingness to stand by what they say.”
We’re back to your broad-stroke thesis. In many cases, a handle has nothing to do with ‘willingness to stand by what they say.’ When I chose my own, I can honestly say that the thought “Hm, do I really want to stand by what I say.” never factored into it.
“Finally, I should say that I have extra respect for our commenters who are willing to sign their name to their comments….”
And I don’t have any ‘extra’ respect for them. I respect them regardless of whether they sign their/a name or not. I honestly don’t even think about it.
Because I don’t have any idea of their reasoning – and there are legitimate reasons. Any comment on mine concerning the responsibilities of fatherhood?
June 29th, 2011 | 10:57 am
@Carson,
“If people harass me or my family, I’ll contact the police.”
Now that’s an interesting comment, and I’d like to hear more of your opinion on it. I think it addresses a different issue than the one this conversation thread is trying to get at. Figuring out what I will do if someone harasses my family is one thing; but the issue at hand is whether it is wise to give certain tools to, well, everyone on earth that can be used to harass my family.
Yes, I get that we must be resolved to defend what we believe in. How does that responsibility interact with one’s responsibilities to family? I am resigned to the fact that someone might get my address and harass my family. Does that mean I have to GIVE them my family’s address in the name of somehow earning their respect and maintaining the respect of any listeners?
June 29th, 2011 | 11:12 am
Joe Carter: I’m genuinely interested in hearing a reasonable explanation that doesn’t rely on the weak, “My boss wouldn’t like it if she found out what I really thought.”
I think I don’t want my boss to know is a perfectly legitimate reason to use a pen name. As other commenters have said, Joe, you get paid to write. Most of us commenters don’t. We have our careers to worry about.
For a lot of bosses out there, it’s not enough that we show up to work and do our job from 9 to 5. From 6pm to 8am, they’re scouring Google looking to see if we’re too religious or too conservative or (sometimes) too liberal.
Obviously, for certain jobs, it matters what you believe or preach at home. Someone publicly pronouncing the views of a Richard Dawkins probably should lose his job at a magazine like First Things, even if he’s a good worker from 9 to 5. But those of us working regularly old jobs that have nothing to do with religion or politics deserve a right to speak about such issues on our own (non-work) time. And that means online, as well as offline. But, sadly, bosses can choose to lay you off or not hire you, even if they don’t admit your online life is the true reason.
If we as a society can convince all those nosy bosses to leave their workers alone after they punch out of the office each evening, then maybe there will be no need for pen names or anonymity. Until that day, I will continue to blog with a pen name.
June 29th, 2011 | 11:30 am
You know, there is a distinction between anonymous posting and pseudonymous posting. Someone who maintains a consistent authorial voice, (e.g. pentamom, Blake) is different from a throwaway nym used only once or in one discussion. The latter is much more susceptible to abuse, and much more tempting to the abusive.
As to Alessandra, I don’t deny your experience – I just question how representative it might be. It’s, er, not that hard to find abusive interlocutors on the internet, of whatever political stripe.
Also, another common factor in the discussions you have is, well… you. I have noted a certain obstreperousness in your comments to me before (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/06/14/new-york-state-considers-redefining-marriage/); obstreperousness that I found unwarranted.
Might I diffidently suggest that some of the ‘incivility’ you receive might be avoidable with a little extra civility on your part?
June 29th, 2011 | 11:40 am
Joe McFaul How do I know that’s really their name? Whether pseudonym or not the name is the same– unsubstantiated hearsay–unless you want to post your photo and birth certificate.
How do you know that someone is using their real name when you talk to them on the phone or meet them on the street? You don’t. But you act in good faith assuming that they are, don’t you? I believe the same should be true on the web. I honestly don’t understand the arguments that the web changes things so radically that we essentially have to become different people in order to communicate.
People go by nicknames on the Internet and real life all the time.
With a nickname, you generally know the person’s real name too. I don’t have a problem with using “nicknames” on the web. But that is a different category than anonymity.
Dblade I’m getting cross purposes here. In one hand, you say that you don’t want to make the blog about your preferences, and the community is okay with anon posters. On the other hand you say that most people don’t want to reply to anonymous commentors (as opposed to name commentors?), and because of that only a few people post a comment per pagelook.
Good point. I should clarify that I see there are two “communities” involved here, though they overlap. The first is the community of readers, the second the community of commenters. The second has grown organically and is now dominated by anonymous commenters. Would changing that improve the quality of the comments. I don’t know. And in the absence of evidence that it would I don’t think I should be making radical changes (I am, after all, a conservative).
You also say that anonymous posters shouldn’t attack others. (again as opposed to name commentors?)
As opposed to named anyone. If I write about the Pope or the President and some anonymous commenters takes a swipe at them it seems to me to be a bit cowardly. Now, of course the Pope and the President will never read the comment and probably wouldn’t care if they did. But I believe in the principle that if you criticize someone by name that you should put your own name out there.
I noticed also that you changed the page layout to hide comments by default.
I don’t like that change, but it was done as a compromise. Many people on the FT staff are embarrassed by the quality of the comments and would just as soon do away with them altogether.
Personally, I like the comment feature and recognize that FT commenters are much better than most that you’ll find on the web. Still, the anonymity allows people to say what they normally would not so it does tend to drag the quality down a bit.
This post also came across to me as trying to achieve an end by shaming.
I’m all for shame-based change when its appropriate. And if anyone was shamed into putting their own name on the comments (which I doubt) then I wouldn’t be opposed. But that wasn’t my primary purpose. My goal was two-fold: (1) To express solidarity and publicly acknowledge the feelings of the many people who have complained to me about anon comments, and (2) To let the anon commenters know how many people feel about such activity.
I think (2) is something that comes as a surprise to a lot of people (assuming they care). Many of them have probably never given it any thought before now so it is good to get them thinking about the issue.
I’m just saying if you think of it as such an issue, you have the power to not make it an issue. I think it would just be more consistent, especially if the thoughts of the other readers come into the mix.
I don’t mean any disrespect to our commenters when I say that it really isn’t a high priority. If I thought it was an issue that needed to be changed now I’d have no qualms about chaining it (as we did on the article comments). But few people comment and few people read them so its a minor problem that may or may not work itself out without my having to take action.
JDD We’re back to your broad-stroke thesis. In many cases, a handle has nothing to do with ‘willingness to stand by what they say.’ When I chose my own, I can honestly say that the thought “Hm, do I really want to stand by what I say.” never factored into it.
That’s a good point. And that was why I wanted to spark this discussion. Most people don’t really consider who anonymous commenting is viewed by readers. Notice that almost all of the people who are supporting anonymous commenting are themselves anonymous. Where are all the people who do use their real name? And what does it say that they aren’t even bothering to join in the discussion?
Any comment on mine concerning the responsibilities of fatherhood?
I don’t think that is an unwarranted concern, and as a father I would agree that we have to be careful for the sake of our families.
(Since you mentioned it I want to address the larger point but I don’t want to seem like I am referring to you in particular. Please don’t take what follows as a personal attack.)
I think Americans have a “Burger King” mentality. We are so used to being told they can “Have It Your Way” that we get frustrated and confused when what we want conflicts with what other people want. For example, many anonymous commenters want all of the following:
(a) To be able to have a voice.
(b) To be able to protect their voice from exposure.
© To be able to criticize people whose identity is exposed.
(d) To have their comments treated responsibly.
(e) To not have to take ultimate responsibility for their comments.
(f) To have other people accept their reasons for anonymous commenting.
When someone comes along and says “If you’re not willing to sign your name to your comment then I can’t take it seriously” they get offended. They act as if that person is in the wrong for wanting discussions to be had on an even footing. On some forums that would be entirely appropriate. But FT should be a place for serious people (except for me) to come together to have serious discussions.
Also, commenting is not a requirement. If people have legitimate fears that they are exposing their families to risk then one solution is to not comment at all. But that gets back to the idea that people should be able to do what they want on their own terms and not have people criticize them for making such choices.
Again, I’m not directing that at you. That was a general thought I had that just fit into what you were discussing.
One last thought: Many people seem to be using mixed reasoning in defending anonymous commenting. They say that readers should engage with what is written rather than who writes it. But do they really believe that? Imagine that we did away with all names and the only identifying aspect was a comment number that could be referenced in subsequent postings.
Does anyone think that would lead to better comments? Would serious people really like if no one knew the comment was by them?
June 29th, 2011 | 12:04 pm
Speaking of the absence of evidence….
“Most people don’t really consider who(sic) [I think you meant how] anonymous commenting is viewed by readers.”
I believe this implies that you have a belief that the majority of people who read blogs view PSEUDONYMOUS comments negatively.
Is there any evidence for this? My anecdotal evidence is that in about 13 years of active Internet participation on discussion boards, blogs, and most recently Facebook (yes, I even have at least one Facebook friend who declines to use her legal name because of concerns about personal security as a single woman from a dysfunctional family), the only people whose “anonymity” or pseudonymity was ever resented or suspected by anyone else were those who engaged in frequent name-changing, or tried to make their personal identities as obscure as possible (not their vital stats, but who they were as people), NEVER those who chose an memorable handle and stuck by it.
Sure, that’s anecdotal, but as far as I can see, you’ve offered none at all. ;-)
June 29th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Adam G writes: “I have to think y’alls is a minority view that isn’t widely shared.”
Which opinion? I’ve posted many in this thread. By proximity, it might be my comment on the human habit of projecting emotions on others. But that’s pretty basic psychology. So it must be some other. OTOH, I’m not too concerned about being in the minority in my opinions. My opinions have more to do with what makes sense to me. I hope yours are the same in making sense to you.
Take for example your phrase “dogmatically autistic attitude”. That’s quite a judgement on the other posters. One might think you were congratulating yourself. But it probably makes sense to you.
June 29th, 2011 | 12:26 pm
MM,
scientists say that my lack of autism is probably genetic and/or environmental. Certainly not the product of any kind of choice or moral struggle on my part. Not a reason for self-congratulation.
June 29th, 2011 | 2:06 pm
They say that readers should engage with what is written rather than who writes it. But do they really believe that?
Yes, I really do.
I judge others by what they’ve said and how they’ve said it, and I expect the same.
Nor do I assume that anyone who gives a first and last name is automatically or even probably using their real name.
I’m sorry if the “quality of my comments is poor”, or at least poorer than those who share their name, but it’s not intentional on my part, it just means I’m not as smart or as educated or as whatever-it-is-I-am-not as those who make better comments.
I do have a public identity, and I do expect that others – even anonymous people on the internet – have the right to judge who I am. But on the Internet, I do expect that if I am wrong about something, I will be told why in terms of having my argument refuted or corrected (or, in the case of moderators finding my comment inappropriate, edited or deleted, with or without comment).
I didn’t make the rules, and I don’t like the feeling that I’ve been judged and found wanting because I haven’t followed some rule-book that was not published up front. The expectation that one will give one’s real name is not the rule most people play by – and that for a reason, because you are simply not correct when you say there is no genuine reason for concern (there is a concept in risk management that says one should take into consideration also how catastrophic a thing is, even if the probability is low).
(It does appear that this site is less likely to get troll hacked than the forums my kids and their cousins play on, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.)
If you find the quality of the comments embarrassing, then I agree that you should take some action to solve the problem. I just don’t agree that allowing these comments and then rebuking those who posted them after the fact is a very nice way of solving that problem.
Personally I was thinking that it was cool that you had a site where people from both sides of the aisle could actually talk to each other about issues, without either side being either heavily edited nor allowed to go too vicious. It’s sort of humiliating for me to realize that what I saw as constructive attempts to try to get past the cultural impasse is an embarrassment to my hosts.
June 29th, 2011 | 2:23 pm
Joe Carter writes:When someone comes along and says “If you’re not willing to sign your name to your comment then I can’t take it seriously” they get offended. They act as if that person is in the wrong for wanting discussions to be had on an even footing. On some forums that would be entirely appropriate. But FT should be a place for serious people (except for me) to come together to have serious discussions.
What does Carter mean by “even footing”? Only a select group of people on the FT blog are allowed to post the essays or excerpts that are the occasion for comments; furthermore, all comments are moderated. There’s no chance of an even footing here, and that would be true whether all posts were identified by one’s given name or a randomly assigned number. To pretend that there could be even an approximation of equality in this forum is fatuous; it’s structurally impossible.
I’d say Adam G’s post from the morning of 29 June hit the nail on the head by referring to the cult of authenticity. Carter in his attack on pseudonymous commenting seems primarily concerned with cultivating what we might call authentic persons. These authentic persons use their real names and are respectable, serious, honest, credible, straightforward, and post higher-quality comments than the inauthentic “anonymous” persons who possess the opposite qualities and who Carter would, not doubt, like to weed out. Or so it would seem.I could take Carter’s perspective seriously if he provided any evidence that “real name” and pseudonymous comment-makers are really as he portrays them; but he doesn’t, and the fact that his account doesn’t accord with my ~25 years experience of posting “online” (dialup, usenet, internet) makes me highly skeptical. This apparent scapegoating of people, like me, who occasionally post anonymously here seems to be in pursuit of a more authentic virtual community on FT, but for the life of me I can’t imagine a more nonsensical idea than “authentic virtual community.” I just can’t take it seriously.
June 29th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Joe, that has nothing to do with anonymity though. I’m glad you said it, but you should have made that the post.
Your subbed readers and many editors don’t like the quality of comments and might not mind them being done away with. Whether a person signs their name to it wont change that, because it’s the content of the post that offends. Anonymity is only being brought up in the hopes that it can force a change in the content. The issue is not a pseudonym attacking named, but someone attacking at all.
As for that, I’m not sure what your readership expects. While at times harsh, this isn’t reaching the levels of either the huffpo or pajamas media comments. You could look into separating discussions into forums, or use a slashdot style comment+ rating system. I think there’s only so much you can expect without making the standards of what makes a “quality comment” explicit, and using modding to discourage ones that don’t reach that.
Other than that, I’m not sure. The people who complain have it easy: they can just say in generalities what they don’t like, anonymously to the people commenting. Not sure what we can do to please a crowd we don’t know how we are wronging.
June 29th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
No, I’m not taking it personally Joe. Every once in a while one has to challenge the lead bull ;)
“For example, many anonymous commenters want all of the following:
…(f) To have other people accept their reasons for anonymous commenting.”
As an aside, I’m not sure who in this forum at least is trying to get you to ‘accept’ their reasons *as if it were a right owed to them.* I hope we’re all a little more mature than that.
You know, you may be right in any number of actual individual cases – there may be ‘X’ commentator who really wants their cake and to eat it too. I think the question though is, how do you know the motivations of the specific blogger you are talking to at any given time…so that you can know how much to, well, respect them? What I’m getting at is, there doesn’t really seem to be any practical use for your complaint. Okay, some people may be cowards. So noted. But we have no idea which ones if we really *don’t* know why they are choosing to withhold their names.
“Also, commenting is not a requirement. If people have legitimate fears that they are exposing their families to risk then one solution is to not comment at all. But that gets back to the idea that people should be able to do what they want on their own terms and not have people criticize them for making such choices.”
mm…my objection continues to be that your criticism seems to be based on a few faulty assumptions about people’s motivations – I’ve got no objections to you criticizing per se. But I’m hardly just trying to bend things my way.
I think, at least in my case, what it all gets back to is, isn’t posting with an online name an obvious good way for a father to enter into debate and defense of his beliefs in a *public forum,* while at the same time not exposing his family to undue risk? Isn’t that also a good, if not better, solution?
There’s some parallel here, rattling around in my head, to the arguments surrounding religion in the public square – which makes it of course extremely relevant to First Things. Something to the effect of – when you say, “commenting is not a requirement” – of course it’s not a requirement, but if the freedom to comment, (which hopefully edifies and challenges others as much as it does me,) is contingent on me disregarding another fundamental responsibility – then I’m not really being given a morally neutral choice.
Final (expanded) thought: This is actually quite a fundamental question for me: Particularly in the Catholic understanding of vocation, my responsibilities are to my wife first, then my children, and then any other life’s work. In other words, my family is my first apostolate. I may ‘feel called’ to do some great work in some public capacity or forum – but if I can’t find a way to accomplish it without neglecting fundamental aspects of my first calling – to nurture, protect and shepherd my familiy – then it’s probably not authentically what God wants me to do. If someone wants to try to straighten me out on that, I’m all ears.
Can one advocate for his faith and responsibly defend his children in the public square, at the same time? Since as a Christian, I believe these two mandates to be from the same God and indeed intrinsic to the human person, I believe it is possible to do both.
June 29th, 2011 | 5:00 pm
Ray Ingles
June 29th, 2011 | 11:30 am
As to Alessandra, I don’t deny your experience – I just question how representative it might be. It’s, er, not that hard to find abusive interlocutors on the internet, of whatever political stripe.
==========
Thanks for confirming that abuse on the internet is a widespread problem, a claim which you just previously alleged I had made up through false stats.
Next squabble…
Ingles: “I have noted a certain obstreperousness in your comments to me before (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/06/14/new-york-state-considers-redefining-marriage/); obstreperousness that I found unwarranted.
Might I diffidently suggest that some of the ‘incivility’ you receive might be avoidable with a little extra civility on your part?”
=========
As much as I might suggest that the obstreperousness that you allegedly received (is it actually true?) might be avoidable with a better tone, behavior and communication intent on your part.
Next squabble…
June 29th, 2011 | 5:37 pm
Carter: © To be able to criticize people whose identity is exposed.
=========
I don’t have any idea why you would think this. I can’t think of one.
Perhaps because you project your own profound worry about names to everyone else? You could oblige everyone to use a nickname here (including yourself) and I would criticize the posts exactly the same way.
Except for the original authors of the articles on FT, there is no material identity of anyone else.
A name is not an identity. “Mike Melendez,” for example, and all the other real names here have no real identity to me, therefore they are no different than the nicknames. All these names are completely meaningless and devoid of references. “Mike Melendez” has as much of an identity to me as “John Doe.”
The only interesting thing that FT has to offer to me is when someone writes content that can add to our reflection or exchange on issues and that the exchanges are fairly civil. Nevertheless, it is a pity that there aren’t more people with Catholic views commenting and less liberals who have nothing in common with the teachings of Catholicism. If I wanted to read liberal nonsense, there’s Daily Kos, Huff Post, etc etc.
At least in the threads I have been following, many of the best comments are from people with nicknames. If anything, I would suggest that would be the move to make on FT: make everyone adopt a nickname. Maybe you’d be surprised that overall no one would change their commenting behavior?
June 29th, 2011 | 9:34 pm
“When someone comes along and says “If you’re not willing to sign your name to your comment then I can’t take it seriously” they get offended.”
I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t get offended — I wonder why anyone would take such an irrational position. That is, I find it irrational in situations where people assume an identity (pentamom) that may not be precisely the same as what their driver’s license indicate, but is still identifiable as a particular person.
The reason why most of the people here, I believe, are arguing with you is not that we want you to justify our choice to use alternate names, it’s that we find your choice to precisely equate an alternate name with untrustworthiness bewilderingly unjustified. You’re free to make it, we just think it’s rather ill-conceived.
June 30th, 2011 | 9:48 am
Alessandra says, “The only interesting thing that FT has to offer to me is when someone writes content that can add to our reflection or exchange on issues and that the exchanges are fairly civil. Nevertheless, it is a pity that there aren’t more people with Catholic views commenting and less liberals who have nothing in common with the teachings of Catholicism. If I wanted to read liberal nonsense, there’s Daily Kos, Huff Post, etc etc”
I’m glad to hear that Alessandra cares about “exchanges being fairly civil” and that she cares about commenters who “write content that can add to our reflection or exchange on issues.” It’s odd that she assumes that liberals “have nothing in common with the teachings of Catholicism.”
But let’s take a look at the evidence. In a First Thoughts column on faith-based counseling, she starts off well. Responding to Dblade and pointing out—quite civilly—how she both agrees and disagrees with David Nickol. Dblade is Catholic, I believe, and even though Nickol is a liberal, he posts at a religious legal site so I assume he holds some things in common with the teachings of Catholicism.
Score: 2 points for civility but subtract a point for stereotyping a liberal who appears to have something in common with Catholicism. Total: 1 point.
Trouble comes in her second post. Mike Melendez, a Catholic, offers the example of repressed memory having been disproven by science. This makes Alessandra cranky. Her first line is “What nonsense.”
Score: Minus one for incivility. Total: 0 points.
Alessandra and Mike go back and forth a couple of times, giving reasons and definitions that explain why they disagree, but neither point to any concrete evidence or studies. Meanwhile, Pentamom agrees with Mike against Alessandra. Only Alessandra stoops to blunt dismissals like, “You’re wrong.”
Score: The incivility needle is moving but not enough to remove points.
Alessandra provides links to articles, and Boonton (a liberal who’s offered no statement of faith) and Nickol join in the back-and-forth about whether memory can be repressed, etc. All parties ask each other questions, and all parties answer each other with civility and without sneering.
Score: 2 points for asking civil questions and responding with civil answers. Subtract a point for the presence of a liberal who is not Catholic but still contributes ideas and do so civilly. Total: 1 point.
Nickol offers a different kind of evidence, and Boonton explains that, even though he usually disagrees with her, she makes some interesting points. I take Boonton’s comment to be generous acknowledgement of how he is not reflexively against Alessandra, but she doesn’t take it that way. She complains that he’s ignored her evidence and that “cognition is powerless against rigid minds.” It’s odd that she calls him rigid at the very point that he admitted she had a good point.
Score: Loss of 2 points for lashing out at a generous comment. Total: -1 point.
She then ends this post by making what she calls a “related” comment, noting “there seems to be so many active participants on this blog who seem neither Catholic, nor socially conservative, and who, consequently, hate or disagree with most of what Catholicism teaches.” Her comment doesn’t seem to be at all related to her response to Boonton except as an expression of frustration that Boonton didn’t immediately accept all of her argument, only part of it. It’s not clear whether she’s also thinking of the Catholics like Mike or the social conservatives like Pentamom who have also disagreed with her. Perhaps she doesn’t know their religious positions and merely assumes that anyone who disagrees with her is liberal.
But she also makes the odd comment that she repeats in this column that you must be both Catholic and socially conservative to not hate or disagree with most of what Catholicism teaches. It’s not clear why she doesn’t value the contributions of Nickol and Boonton when they’ve fulfilled both things she’s asked for: content that adds to an issue and a civil exchange.
Score: Loss of two points for non sequitur and for not valuing what she says she does. Total: -3 points.
The column ends with only one more exchange between Boonton and Alessandra. Boonton asks some good questions along the lines that were civilly established earlier, but Alessandra blows him off, simply referring him to the cited studies.
Score: Loss of one point for being cantankerous. Total: -4 points.
June 30th, 2011 | 9:52 am
I have enjoyed many of the pen names. “Pentamom” for instance, who I think of as a mother of five, a teacher of the handicapped (if I remember correctly from one of her comments), and an interesting, involved, and intelligent thinker. Her comments are certainly among those I will miss.
There were others – “Mrs. Jackson” was always witty, incisive, and insightful.
The first things blog was on my “wake-up” schedule each morning and I have benefited from time to time either by the instruction I received or the opportunity to engage in discussion.
My “names” by the way were carefully chosen. “Ars artium” was used by Pope Leo XIII in his discussion of the “care of souls”. That matters to me. “Bangwell Putt” reflected my sense that my comments have something of a museum quality to them.
And that brings me to my reaction to this post. I consider it egregiously bad form to criticize and attempt to psychoanalyze those who have participated in an activity in good faith. Respectful argumentation about any and all subjects is one thing; announcements of one’s lack of respect coupled with unwarranted analysis of others’ motives is another.
As for me, I have resumed my subscription to the print edition. It seems the prudent thing to do.
One final comment: In my extensive posting through the years, there are certainly mistakes and examples of overhasty judgements and lack of courtesy which I regret. I am certain that many others find themselves in the same position. So I am not claiming to be a moral exemplar when I say to Joe Carter that humility is, as he knows, a virtue acknowledged by all people of good will. He might want to discuss his combative tone with people whose opinions he does respect.
June 30th, 2011 | 11:05 am
I’m glad to hear that Alessandra cares about “exchanges being fairly civil” and that she cares about commenters who “write content that can add to our reflection or exchange on issues.” It’s odd that she assumes that liberals “have nothing in common with the teachings of Catholicism.”
===========
It is clear that several commenters who post on the issue of homosexuality and marriage are completely against the teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality and marriage.
What do they add to the discussion? Nothing. They just repeat over and over what we can find on Daily Kos, Perez Hilton or coming out of Lady Gaga. It’s their daily rant to normalize homosexuality.
What they aren’t able to do, however, is to contribute in a way that celebrates the beauty and wonder of heterosexuality, something which is not found in homosexuality, nor the true beauty of a loving committed marriage–which can only be between a man and a woman. Only people who can understand these basic truths can develop a more interesting and refreshing commentary concerning these issues.
Liberal commenters are also incapable of exploring any of the emotional, social, and traumatic causes of homosexuality.
What can they add in terms of knowledge? Nothing. It’s an ad naseum repetition of the same old liberal ignorant dogmatic claims that homosexuality is caused by an inexistent gene, therefore every demand homosexuals must make must be granted.
Today, society is going through such an ugly phase, everything that degrades sexuality and marriage must be legitimized, normalized, and shoved down everyone’s throats (e.g., homosexuality, promiscuity/hook-ups, pornography, prostitution, alcohol abuse, etc.). Homosexuality is only one of these dysfunctional pieces of a greater disordered concept for society.
I have a suggestion for FT organizers. Make some articles only open for commenters who hold a particular view, for example, that marriage is between a man and a woman. I am curious what this experiment would yield.
June 30th, 2011 | 11:41 am
The column ends with only one more exchange between Boonton and Alessandra. Boonton asks some good questions along the lines that were civilly established earlier, but Alessandra blows him off, simply referring him to the cited studies.
=============
Boonton asked some questions which have been completely addressed in respective research studies. Why doesn’t he read the studies? Why don’t you? You could spend your days answering his questions if you think anyone should. I am happy to provide the link.
Is it a wonder if I remark that cognition is powerless in the face of rigid minds?
After this, I guess the only option left for you is to spend two pages calling me all kinds of names.
What do your personal attacks add to FT? Nothing.
-40 points for complete inability to post even a single knowledge-based comment on repressed memories.
-80 points for cluttering this thread with more of your personal bile.
Anyone who is interested, can read the thread for themselves:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/06/20/the-rising-popularity-of-faith-based-counseling/
June 30th, 2011 | 12:06 pm
Alessandra says, “It is clear that several commenters who post on the issue of homosexuality and marriage are completely against the teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality and marriage”
Why are you bringing up homosexuality? The column was about counseling and turned into a discussion of repressed memory.
Alessandra says, “After this, I guess the only option left for you is to spend two pages calling me all kinds of names. What do your personal attacks add to FT? Nothing”
Please identify a single name I’ve called you.
Since you have claimed that you believe in civil exchange, I think I’ve contributed by documenting that, while you are capable of civil exchange at some points, you quickly lash out at liberals, Catholics, or social conservatives who don’t share your views.
I observe that in your response you don’t acknowledge my attempt to objectively assess your participation, giving credit where credit is due.
Self-knowledge is a value, and I hope I’ve given you some.
June 30th, 2011 | 1:19 pm
Ars Artium, for the record, I’m a homeschooling SAHM with no teaching experience or training whatsoever. (Plus a largely useless business degree.) Either you’ve confused me with someone else, or perhaps a passing reference I might have made to working with children with minor learning disabilities in a homeschool co-op situation might have misled you.
June 30th, 2011 | 4:52 pm
Alessandra –
Well, no – I questioned the idea that 50% of the internet was abuse, made-up stats, and so forth.
As to obstreperousness, I put it forth as an idea for consideration, that’s all. Take it as you will.
July 1st, 2011 | 1:32 am
I wonder, Joe. The book of Hebrews was written anonymously, largely as a comment on the Old Testament. Do you lack “a lot of respect for the opinions of” its author and not “give them much thought”, too?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact