The old joke had it that when you're online, "no one knows you're a dog." The idea of online anonymity has been taking a beating recently, in part because of such celebrated cases of fraud as the Gay Girl in Damascus blog, which turned out to have been written by a 40-year-old man in Scotland. Alicia Shepard, former ombudsman for National Public Radio, came out swinging in a piece for the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University against the anonymity of commenters, which she calls "an exercise in faux democracy."
Allowing people to be anonymous isn't the problem. It has real value for society that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
The fact that someone might want to set up a blog and pretend to be a lesbian in Damascus (as Bobbie Johnson described it in that recent post) is definitely somewhat disturbing—in part because it was revealed that the creator of the blog had perpetrated the fraud for several years, taking in several knowledgeable writers on the Middle East (including Global Voices Online staffer Jillian York, who wrote about her experiences in a blog post).
Still, as online media veteran Dan Gillmor pointed out in a piece for The Guardian on the "Amina" affair, the fact that someone can pretend to be a gay blogger in the Middle East without being discovered also means that real lesbians and other persecuted people in Damascus or anywhere else can post their thoughts online, which can be a powerful force for democracy and human rights. Should anonymity (or what is actually pseudonymity) only be allowed for those who can prove that they really are political dissidents?
"Laws Disallowing Anonymous Speech?"
If so, who would do the proving? Says Gillmor: "What we should all fear is what too many in power want to see: the end of anonymity entirely. Governments, in particular, absolutely loathe the idea that people can speak without being identified … I fear there will soon be widespread laws disallowing anonymous speech, even in America."Along the same lines, there has been a lot of discussion recently about how online activity of all kinds—including blog comments—would be better if anonymity were outlawed or restricted in some way. Shepard, the former NPR ombudsman, says there would be "more honest, kinder, civil exchanges if people used their real names."
This is something we feel pretty strongly about at GigaOM. It's something I felt strongly about in my previous job managing the online community of a major national newspaper that got tens of thousands of comments a day. Did we get a lot of hateful comments? We sure did. We used a Winnipeg-based company called ICUC Moderation Services to handle the worst, which NPR also uses. The ability for people to speak their minds about important topics without having the words attached to their real names is important. I think one of the main reasons media sites have such terrible comments is that their writers rarely, if ever, engage with readers.
More
Online Anonymity is a good thing. It allows for people to discuss... honestly and openly without fear of stigma and repercussion, allowing one to more honestly participate in the discussion. Ideas have to be weighted upon their merit, without skew based on the mouth they fall from. Does this mean people will take advantage of this... absolutely, but I think that this is the anomaly.
ReplyDeleteOnline Anonymity is the only true freedom of speech left.
ReplyDeleteThe only way a conservative can speakout without being call a racist
ReplyDelete3:39 - or a bad speller.
ReplyDeleteCA - you don't read the Anon comments on here much, do you?
ReplyDeleteThey should not be banned in anyway (you cannot legislate-away stupidity,) but to wax poetic about how Anon commenting raises the level of discourse is a tad much.
For an example, just wait until there is a new post about how Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim fakey-President. Then, read the Anon comments and bask in thier merit.
Dan no one really cares who you are. That is why I use the anon. Just know every time I run into someone with the name Dan. I will wonder if that is the idiot from the blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd every time I see a little girl (or a gay guy) cry, I will think it is you.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless.
Also, thanks again for proving that I am correct.
ReplyDeleteFish in a barrel.
Real mature, as usual.
ReplyDelete@Dan
ReplyDeleteSure, you make a valid point. There will be posts that seem silly and mindless to some, but THIS is why it is so important.... to raise the level of dialogue... to allow someone to see such nonsense and check them on it by weighing the value of the idea, not from the mouth it falls. Without dissenting viewpoints, there is no point in discussion and dialogue.
These posts you detailed are the very ones that you, and others of your like mind, need to be addressing to not only further the conversation.. but to educate/inform those who you think are mistaken.
We need to engage in thoughtful dialogue, and try not simply attack or be snarky. I have regretfully been guilty of this because it has a juvenile comedy to it that makes me laugh (and to be honest it really feels great to handily humiliate someone when they make it so easy). Though when I reflect upon it, I am sure that in the long run discredits my perspectives, and tarnishes any one else who may share a similar mind set.
And I am flattered... you really thought that I was "waxing poetic"? Thank you! I tried my very best to do so again in this post.
CA - We are all open to snark and juvenalia (I am hip deep in it at times,) but my problem is how the anonimity does not foster anything but an excuse to act like a moron. (On this point, we really disagree.)
ReplyDeleteWhile your handle does not reveal who you actually are, you always post by this name, which I respect greatly, regardless of your opinion on any subject.
You read this blog as much as I do, and you know the level of discourse on most subjects, with the vast majority of people saying things in here that they would never say to people's faces (or in front of anyone, period.)
Attacking someone or something under the name of Anon is like turning out the lights, then punching someone in the mouth. No one knows it was you, and you cannot be attacked in retaliation. Real forthright. I believe that if you feel strongly about a position or opionion you should stand behind it and be proud of your position, but I must hve a different moral code than most of them.
I don't mind the humor and snark so much as they help to disarm the participants and make sure no one is taking themselves too seriously. And really, there is nothing more fun and easy to do than really work the right-wing Anon commenters on here into a purple-faced, mouth-foaming rage.
Anyway, keep hoping for stong dialoge from the Anons, CA, but don't hold your breath.
You may have the soapbox back now.