As someone who attaches his name to his writing, I hold a certain amount of scorn for people who post under pseudonyms or anonymously to news sites.
I understand that there are occasions when some commenters have something valuable to add to a discussion and if they use real names they could face censure, discipline at work or social repercussions. But I presume that these situations are few.
Rather, anonymity gives many commenters the freedom to be sarcastic, glib, hateful, and oftentimes, downright stupid. I highly doubt that those who scribble some of the more lecherous comments I've read would have the stones to say those same things to the person or organization who is the target of said foul comments.
If you read my blog posts on rabble.ca, you'll note that I never reply to comments, but I do read them. Really good and insightful comments help me understand what kind of an impact my argument has made, where there might be flaws in my reasoning, or where I've written something particularly regrettable.
Unfortunately, those who agree with you (or have something intelligent to add) seldom post and those who disagree with you are too frequently rude.
I take responsibility for my writing, by using my real name. And there are moments, admittedly, when I wish I could shield myself behind a nom de plume when, in hindsight, I wish I hadn't written certain pieces. I'm human. I'm bound to be a jackass on occasion.
Those who post anonymously are, to put it strongly, cowards because they dodge all responsibility and accountability for their words.
But could this and should this be changing?
In April, a judge in Nova Scotia demanded that the identities of anonymous posters be revealed. Some commenters, hiding 'neath the shroud of pseudonyms, offered critical commentary on the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Halifax Fire Department. The commenters made accusations about racism in the fire department.
The judge stated that she doesn't "condone the conduct of anonymous Internet users who make defamatory comments. They, like other people, have to be accountable for their actions."
In a related story, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade paid Social Media Group $75,000 to "monitor social activity and help identify...areas where misinformation is being presented and repeated as fact." (see Toronto Star, Monday May 24, A6 -- as of this writing, no online copy available)
It seems that DFAIT is a bit perturbed by what it sees as anti-sealing misinformation being spread throughout the interblogwebsphere.
Countering what it deems misinformation is not an unusual practice for government or any other organization. In the past, a letter to the editor would be written and signed by an official. There was a name attached to the rebuttal.
What is concerning is if government employees and paid partisan hacks are trolling news sites, posting incendiary comments, eschewing civility, promoting propaganda, and doing so under the cover of a false name.
It's one thing to correct facts but quite another to vehemently defend a government or political party's position as a paid and anonymous operative (as an aside, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. So if an article says that $5 million is being spent on army shoelaces when the actual and proven figure is $3 million, then DND has a right to correct that information and the news site should retract or amend the incorrect figure).
Some news sites are promoting commenters using their real names and some are looking at giving priority to those who do not post under a pseudonym. I think this is a good policy -- it allows for legitimate use for some anonymous posts but demands people take responsibility for what they write.
M S - What you're describing is more TV than new technology. The new stuff is interactive - like this is - and is somewhat of a remedy to feelings of powerlessness.
Mang's remedy I don't agree with. But his observation is, as you very well know I think, bang on.
I agree with dgkdm....er, dgkfh...er, dgklf...er, the previous commenter.
Except that I don't think angry online rants are simply to be dismissed as "human nature". I think they reflect something very profound that has happened in our society.
People have become disconnected from civic life and public discourse; they have no faith in politicians and they feel betrayed and powerless. They have been given the technology to isolate themselves from social interaction and to associate only with a narrow range of interests and viewpoints. The mass media do not tell them the truth or address their needs. They are cynical and trust nobody. This breeds xenophobia, paranoia and suspicion about the "others" who don't think and talk and believe the way "we" do. The outlet for their frustration and social alienation is verbal violence on the internet against anyone who challenges the system of assumptions and "truths" they have surrounded themselves with.
i post anonymously under a wide variety of pseudonyms in a wide variety of places, but this is the first post that i've made here.
the primary reason that i prefer anonymity is that it eliminates the set of biases attached to an individual. i would rather what i am saying be addressed, not who i am. is a great idea a bad idea because the messenger lacks status or respect? is a bad idea a good idea because it originated with an influential member of society?
i don't think i'm being silly and i'm convinced that the only way to separate myself from my ideas is to be anonymous. that being said, it's not difficult to figure out who i am.
i'll also tell you flat out that i'm just as bombastic and insolent in real life as i am online and i think what you're seeing in angry online forum rants is less the result of anonymity and more an expose of the true nature of human beings. perhaps the only thing that's changed is that you've been given exposure to a side of some people that you had never seen before.
so, i must dissent strongly. i would rather that user names are not asked for at all, that ideas on boards such as this are left <i>entirely unattributed</i> and that the only thing that a random reader can see or interface with is the writing, not the author. this would focus the debate on what is being said, not on who is saying it
I don't think people forfeit whatever "right" they may have to pseudo-anonymity on the web just because they get angry or fall short of Eric Mang's high standards of civility.
People feel passionate about things and should be allowed to express their passion, their disgust, their indignation, without having to publicly paint a bullseye on their own backs in order to satisfy some abstract notion of "taking responsibility".
Using my real name for online posting is a privilege I don't have. For the last 10 years - and for the rest of my paid employment, undoubtedly - this has been so. During those 10 years I've posted on babble and read many rabble pieces.
Foul comments are annoying as hell, sure. However, just as the trolls that visit babble/rabble come for practice to battle "the enemy" (and the sort of entertainment one gets from poking a bee's nest with a pointy stick) , I too sometimes look upon the unpleasantness of some debates as practice battling "the enemy".
Part of politics is developing a thick hide while protecting your sacred/important principles, no?
I wanted to add something aobut "character" ... but it would just come across as self-flattery.
Cheers.
I now see what your point was and I must admit,you see that type of thing everywhere in the world wide web...This is why I never read the comments on Youtube or almost all news pages--including the CBC.
To those who like to use up the 15 minutes between Hentai surfing to post stupid comments on news pages and pretty much any page with a comments section,you are right...They are cowards and losers.
Cheers.
I am with the above poster - internet anonymity is not a bad thing. Example: the blog at the Western Standard is unmoderated, and populated with 3 or 4 trolls who join in (shouting out to each other and stopping a hair short of profanity), to denounce - at length - anyone who dares to disagree. My criticism of the polygamous FLDS cult and of such underhanded troll tactics earned me the misnomer of "Iron Dugs Stella". I would be a fool indeed to use my actual name on such a site, this being a small corner of the province and my being listed in the phone book and all (in fact I wouldn't even use my full pseudonym on THAT site).
I generally use the same pseudonym everywhere I post - it is my nom de plum, my secret identity. Little do my neighbors suspect my secret life as a recording star on youtube! Little do I want my face or my politically outspoken views traced back to this little town and my small children! Letters to the local newspaper are something else again ;.)
My last post on this because I rarely reply to comments to my blog posts.
I label as cowards those who use hate and vitriol and anger to make a point - something not many do in face to face conversations. This is much different than voicing unpopular comments or acting with civility in a disagreement.
My concern is those who write nasty things and don't take responsibility for them. If this point isn't clear in my post, that's my fault and I apologise.
I am also bothered by the prospect of tax dollars being used to hire trolls who issue government key messages and do so under false names. It's one thing to say "I'm Greg from DFAIT and let me point out some factual errors in your statement" and quite another to flame someone.
I see that "coward" was too strong of a word and I reserve it for certain situations. But again, I believe my point has been lost.
I use a pseudonym...Not just on rabble but everywhere on the internet...Atleast I keep the same one and I do not hide behind multiple aliases.
I'm a coward?..Frankly,I don't give a shit what people think about any comment I make or any of my political views.
I have fallen into the trap only ONCE where I lost my temper to a resident Israeli apologist troll by the name of...You guessed it,a PSEUDONYM...I'm not going to mention the identity,some people will recognize who I am talking about.
Not to sound paranoid,but everything on the internet is policed and if you think there is absolute anonymity in the world wide web,you are delusional.
I pay attention to what's going on in the world and what is going on in this country.The current regime in Canada wants to make it a crime to actually SAY things and some,if not alot,of my view points could actually get me in trouble.Free speech is an illusion...A convenient idea protected ONLY if it fits the purpose or ideology of the dictatorship in Ottawa,Washington and pretty much the entire Western world as of today.
I'm a coward?...Hmmm....If the day came where I'd have to stand up for everything I say when push comes to shove,you can have my name...My address and my social insurance number for all I care.
Fact is,I don't have to do ANYTHING I don't want to do and I have no one to answer to.
Good luck in your quest to name tag the internet.Godspeed.
I take responsibility for everything I say. If I break the law, I will be punished. Short of that, what do you mean by taking responsibility? If I say something grouchy or preachy, do you demand the right to track me down in person and throw a pie or a punch at me? Would that make me less of a coward and more "responsible" in your eyes? What exactly are the risks that I am supposed to assume in order to be held "responsible" for my opinions, and to earn your approval?
There are times when MSM pundits write "some pretty horrendous and rage-filled stuff", to use your words. It happens in the National Post quite frequently. But does it really make any difference whether Rex Murphy or Jonathan Kay are pseudonyms? Are they less "cowardly" if they use their real names, knowing full well that there will be no adverse repercussions if their boss or their professional clients ever read their stuff - because their politics are "respectable" and the people they scorn are powerless or unpopular?
Almost everyone who posts comments on Rabble uses a pseudonym. The ones who don't are usually far enough away from the left end of the political spectrum that they don't feel they have any need to guard their privacy; they assume that they and their loved ones are unlikely to be stalked, harrassed, physically assaulted, fired, boycotted, imprisoned, or deported for having politically unpopular views. So I assume you consider pretty much everyone who comments on your blog to be cowards - even when they agree with you (as I mostly do). Not to mention some of your fellow Rabble bloggers who also prefer anonymity - are they cowards, too?
Do you seriously think that Canadian military personnel or their family members would not hesitate to post anti-war positions on the internet under their "real" names? Do you imagine there are no people who would suffer adverse social or economic consequences if they commented publicly in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel, or same-sex marriage, or physician-assisted suicide, or any one of dozens of controversial issues that get discussed on left-wing internet sites?
If you enjoy the privilege of being relatively free to express your opinions without having to make any significant personal sacrifices, you may be quite unaware that there are many others out there who do not enjoy the same privilege. They have to lead double lives, because of their vulnerable social, occupational, or other circumstances. They have to keep many of their thoughts and opinions to themselves, out of fear of alienating others who hold power over them. They are not free to speak their minds frankly without some kind of protection from being "outed".
It's very hurtful to such people to be held in "scorn" and labelled "cowardly" by someone who assumes his privileged position to be the norm for everyone else.
I'm starting to wonder if M. Spector is one person given the amount of time and energy s/he spends critiquing others' blog posts. I welcome the comments, but this poster is tremendously prolific (but occasionally grouchy and preachy).
First, please read the second paragraph and the last paragraph again. There are legitimate reasons for using a pseudonym - I agree. But as you have proven on occasion, there are times when anonymous posters write some pretty horrendous and rage-filled stuff (it needn't be defamatory) yet bear no responsibility for their words. I think this is cowardly. I think people behave differently and perhaps with more civility, when they have to put their names to their comments.
Second, how do you know I use my real name? You can google me if you wish. I have a picture that accompanies my posts as well as a personal website. Other than that, I guess you don't know I'm actually Eric Mang. You'll just have to take my word for it.
Third, there's a difference between leftist and rightist views (which are accepted by many) and fundamentalist views. If you're a fundamentalist, whether right or left, perhaps there might be some repercussions. But I don't know. Has someone been fired or de-friended because they publicly opposed the war in Afghanistan or stated that our government is complicit in war crimes, or "insert opinion here"? If so, I'd be interested in seeing some evidence.
Fourth and finally, do you really think that if you have some public presence online, even if you use a pseudonym, that you are protected? See the Halifax case again. And if you're posting some hate-mongering nonsense, someone may be tracking you. But if your comments are generally milquetoast critiques, I wouldn't haul out the conspiracy theories so quickly.
As usual, thanks for your comments.
How do you know whether I'm posting under a pseudonym or not? How do I know Eric Mang isn't a pseudonym?
And what difference does it make? If I post something allegedly defamatory, you can get a judge to order that my IP address be revealed and that my ISP reveal all the information it has about me.
You have some nerve to "presume" that very few people would face repercussions in their lives or their jobs if their leftist political views were made public. As if lists of names aren't being compiled at this very moment by repressive authorities and right-wing "security" fanatics who are just waiting for the opportunity to suppress dissent.
There are over a million names on the US "Terrorism Watch List". 20,000 new names are added every month. Are there really a million terrorists in the entire universe? What then are the criteria for getting on this list?
This list is shared with the Canadian security establishment. Do you want your name to be on it? I don't.