Apr 27, 2009
On internet anonymity
Like this post?
A guest post by Anonymous
There are good reasons to comment anonymously on blogs. Why not treat Anonymous with the same courtesy you’d give any other stranger?
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
As a pastor, I have long since made it a personal practice to never read anonymous letters. I have never, ever benefited from one. There have always been degrading, demeaning, abusive and vituperative. The reason I do not bother reading them is for the same reason a church should protect its pastors and elders as seen in 1 Timothy 5.19. Now, anonymous comments on a blog will not always be quite so venomous, but because we don’t often engage our brains when throwing something down on the internet, I don’t give them near the weight or time as those who comment and leave their name.
The pursuit of truth, the cultivation of beauty and the the practice of goodness are always personal. More than that, they are always interpersonal. So, yes, there are a few good reasons for anonymity … but they are few and the sacrifices great.
However, the web being a different place, I choose to have a pseudonym. He might be a little different than me (I haven’t really thought about that enough) but he is essentially me and he is a real person with whom someone could interact overtime in a web-based community such as this one.
Anonymous will never be a person.
(Of course … no stop … “The Quest for Community 2.0: Identity, Personhood and the Web” … save it for the PhD. Why is it that 22 words so often call for a PhD thesis as a response?)
On my blog…I feel like those who are “anonymous” feel like they can say anything. Often I don’t post their comments because I think, “If they can’t say who they are, don’t say anything!”
because they’re our rules and if you won’t play by our rules then you can’t play at all…so there…
Abraham, I know that you are just cheating from your break and can’t stay away!
Plus, if you don’t know who’s posting, you can’t decide if you want to keep on reading that person or not, because you don’t know who that person is. And it removes all accountability…
I can’t think of a single good reason to post anything anonymously. If I am too ashamed to have my name attached to something I write, then it shouldn’t be written. I agree with the first commenter: I have never benefitted from an anonymous comment, while I have often benefitted enormously from carefully worded constructive criticism from people willing to stand behind their words.
I don’t mind people choosing to be anonymous, but it just makes me oh-so curious…who wrote this post, anyway?!
Yes, this is my real name. But I am a state employee, so when I comment on issues that one of my Christophibic beaurocratic co-workers would find “disturbing” I am forced to make it anonymously in order to protect my job.
People at work who know me know where I stand, but the policymakers in my state consider the internet and writing OpEd pieces as something to be dealt with more seriously.
I agree with Myrddin; there’s a big difference between a pseudonym and anonymity. Anonymous can rarely be engaged further than one posting.
i do, unless the person id overly rude or trying to stir up trouble (which is usually the case).
I think that if you’re not willing to put your name to what you’re saying, then it’s not worth saying at all. Especially if it is something about a specific individual/organization.
My real name is Linda. None of you know me. So really what difference does it make whether or not I post this under “Anonymous” or Linda?
Shouldn’t the real issue be, is there any truth or validity to the point of the comment no matter who said it?
Most anonymous commentors do not post constructive comments.
That’s why they post anonymously — to avoid accountability.
I wanted to post under “anonymous” :) … but although I’ve noticed that anonymous posters are often hit-and-run commenters … I have found myself in positions where remaining anonymous was really the best choice. It’s hard to describe those moments. I don’t change who I am as “anonymous” … but there really are times when a pseudonym or no-name really do serve the situation best. But I am never mean.
What does accountability mean? And, why would someone assume anonymous comments are made by people trying to avoid being accountable?
Maybe they are bad people. Or, maybe they are fearful people. Who but God could possibly discern motive.
I think is is unwise to not give an ear to what is being said because we have a gripe with who is saying it. Shouldn’t it matter most whether or not what is being said is true. Isn’t is ad hominem to discredit the source rather than the argument?
The best of the best:
The best of how print newspapers handle it: No anonymous comments. Identities are verified.
The best of how Christianity Today Online handles it: A 1,000 character limit. No exceptions.
The best of how most bloggers handle it: Every comment moderated for taste and staying on topic; URLs checked, too.
Shouldn’t the real issue be, is there any truth or validity to the point of the comment no matter who said it?
The truth and especially the validity of the comment, in a human community, is seriously dependent upon the commenter.
Character is a part of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a part of truth.
A bad man saying a true thing is not the same as a good man saying the same thing. They’re not even really the same ‘statement.’
For instance, I’ve grown in respect for Frank Turk, though we often disagree. Now I skim through for his comments and when I read them I am reading something from someone — even if it’s something I disagree with. It has context, flavor, shape.
this reminds me of that really bad reality dating show from a few years back where all the male contestants wore freaky looking masks so that the female contestant would base her opinion of the guy on everything but his looks. the host was monica lewinsky. maybe *that’s* who our anonymous guest blogger is…
but, back to what you all were talking about…
yes. i agree with jennapants. i think the guest blogger is monica lewinsky.
“The truth and especially the validity of the comment, in a human community, is seriously dependent upon the commenter.
Character is a part of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a part of truth.
A bad man saying a true thing is not the same as a good man saying the same thing. They’re not even really the same statement,” says Myrddin.
Using this reasoning, I can’t believe a word you say, Myrddin, since I don’t know you.
Furthermore, I can’t believe a word Moses, or Paul, or Isaiah, or an unknown psalmist said either, since I never knew them.
“Truth is truth no matter who says it,” says I.
That said, if you want your point heard, it’s best to use your name because of those who will discredit you if you don’t.
Perhaps you should get to know me. :-)
Opening up another interesting vein that I think is intimately connnected to this question: character and the web. But it’s not new. How much can I know C.S. Lewis, John Piper, Benjamin Franklin, et. al. from their books?
I think a good reader can learn a lot about the character of a good writer just from their writing. I think the same thing holds true for the internet (though the quantity of good writing of that sort is less than I would wish.)
But how much do we know about Abraham — about his character — from 22 Words 365 days a year? I would say a lot.
If Abraham’s name was Anonymous would it change what we know about his “character” or put into question his beliefs? What’s in a name?
Q: “If Abraham’s name was Anonymous…”
A: nope. but, i wouldn’t read his blog.
I like some of Anonymous’ poetry.
He was doing some good stuff in the Middle Ages.
Thanks Abraham. I agree. Why not treat them the same?
Here is an example you may not have considered.
Relationship breakdown is a reality. What if you don’t want your name to be ‘Google searchable’ because then someone can track you down when it would be safer if they couldn’t. Or if you just don’t want them to know your business but know they will go looking?
I know people who have to face this everyday of their lives.
Some good reasons for posting anonymously have been listed, but whether a person has a good reason or not, they should be treated the same.
And we should never assume a person has bad motives or agendas for posting anonymously. When I first started blogging, I posted anonymously because I couldn’t figure out how to sign up, sign in, or whatever it is you had to do…
Here’s another take on “anonymous.” You can’t even have a conversation with “anonymous” on a blog post like this. Because, as soon as one “anonymous” posts, you don’t even know if it’s the same “anonymous” posting next time!!!
Perhaps that’s the crux of my problem. I see the pursuit of truth as very dialogical. And you simply cannot dialogue with anonymous. He, she, or it is only there for one comment. The next post by anonymous is another blip. So it is impossible to treat anonymous as a person because he, she, or it can’t talk back. Ever.
Myrddin–Oh, to have that many comments that I can’t tell my anonymous commenters apart!
You have a point there, though, for those who get a lot of comments.
This post has Abraham written all over it…good try.
You’re right, Shannon, but it was the perfect opportunity for him to post it…
Abraham’s off the hook. I’m your anonymous post-er this time.
First of all, I’m intensely gratified by sd smith’s remarks about my poetry. Thanks, man! ;-) (Or not “man”–sd smith is entirely gender-anonymous, isn’t it?)
And I’ve never been mistaken for Monica Lewinsky before. [Crass punchline removed.]
A couple of more serious responses in a moment.
KP
SWEET! I was DYING to know who it was. I was about to go on a hunger strike until it was revealed. Thank you, Karsten. I’ll keep grazing.
It’s been a long moment there “Anonymous from Fulda” :-) I’m waiting with bated breath.
If I believe that communication given to me anonymously has no value, how will I receive and use the book of Hebrews?
Shall I also dismiss all rhetorical questions in communication (such as preaching), since they are not “serious questions” (since they don’t “expect an answer”?)
I may indeed use dismissal of anonymous communications as a screening device to avoid risk or save myself time, uncertainty and angst.
It is then simply my way of defining my boundaries, but I should recognize it as such and not assume that my choice is valid because my assumptions about “anonymous” are accurate.
OK, long moment, sorry. Finals week looms, and I got distracted by work. A couple of quick thoughts…
I grinned through the first day of comments. At the same time that most of you lot were skeptical about the post, you interacted with Anonymous thoughtfully and humorously, accorded him/her dignity, and so on. Good stuff.
And that sort of generosity toward a stranger’s person and initial trust of a stranger’s motives seems like the best first step toward to real, healthy interchange–or ongoing relationship–like Myrddin describes.
Of course, too often Frank’s observation is right (that anonymous comments are often unconstructive and that the reason many comments are left anonymous is to get away with something).
But I’ve found that when I assume the worst like that, I start making up rules along the lines of “If you don’t come to me like _____, I won’t respond to you as a person.”
It only feeds my cynical, self-righteous, willfully independent tendencies. And then I find that I’m alone a lot, even in crowds.
Well, that was maybe more than I meant to say. :-)
Respectfully,
Anonymous
While I’m not advocating sending (and definitely don’t want to receive) anonymous letters of criticism, I do wonder what people mean by the term “unconstructive”. Why should we only listen to people if they say things “constructively”. Isn’t “Stop stealing” enough? Do we have to suggest ways in which a person might earn honest income in order for the comment to be valid?
I think saying something is “not constructive” is often a polite way of saying, “I can’t actually come up with a reason that what you are saying is wrong, but I don’t like it, and I wish you would shut up.”
Other times, it’s meant to take some of the sting out of criticism. While it may be meant charitably, this is the coward’s way out. Instead of saying someone’s comments were cruel, mean-spirited, or plainly untrue—each of which he could argue with—you can simply say they don’t measure up to your standards of constructiveness, which you intentionally leave undefined. Thus you can give the impression that he is cruel, mean-spirited, and a liar, (or whatever other negative impressions you choose to leave) but he can’t argue that he isn’t any of these things, because you never actually said he was. He can’t even argue that what he said was “constructive” because you can always change the definition and raise the bar. In short, it’s a way of shutting down the discussion when you can’t give a reason for your opinion.
Another weasel word: accountability. Accountability to whom? to you? What would you do differently if they put a name on the comments you don’t like? Not read them? Then don’t read anonymous posts. Argue with them? That didn’t stop you this time, did it? Accountability to other readers? They can ignore the post. If the unwanted posts are too many, there are thousands of other forums with varying levels of moderation. Accountability to the forum owner? Allowing or not allowing anonymous posts is entirely his decision. Accountability to God? He already knows who posted the anonymous comment.
As for anonymous comments, yes, there are hit and run posters who say mean things. If they don’t continue the conversation, does it matter whether they use their real names, a screen name, several screen names, or call themselves anonymous? I think it’s worse if they hang around and continue saying mean things. And not everyone posting anonymously has something bad to say.
If the question were, “Do anonymous posts have a higher percentage of content that is inflammatory, mistaken, or deceptive?” it could be answered statistically. The same question could be asked about newbies. Some forums moderate newbies until they prove they are not trolls or spammers. Some don’t allow anonymous posts. I don’t mind those rules as long as they’re posted for all to read and apply to everyone equally.
The question was, “Why not treat Anonymous with the same courtesy you’d give any other stranger?” You don’t automatically flame someone the first time he posts because you don’t know who he is, so why would you do the same to Anonymous? Choose to ignore him, if you like. I don’t respond to or even read every email or paper letter I get, but I don’t attack or argue with them without a reason.
Saying an opinion is wrong because it was posted anonymously is as pointless as saying it’s wrong because Myrddin said it. Even if he were a habitual liar and a fool, he might blunder into the truth on occasion. And while the pursuit of truth may at times be dialogical, the truth itself is not socially defined. An unpopular opinion may be right.
Yes, knowing someone’s character, or at least having a representative sample of his spoken or written words can add weight and context, but have you never heard or read a quote that made you think, maybe even changed your life, that you didn’t find the source of until later, if ever?