Anonymity Breeds Irresponsibility
by Motte Brown on 11/13/2007 at 1:17 PM
One of the tips La Shawn Barber gave at GodblogCon last week was to make your blog a safe place for civil discourse in the comments section. And as Boundless Line moderators can testify, it's not always easy to do if you want to remain a place for free expression of opinion.
Would requiring commentators' real names and addresses help? Radio talk show host Dennis Prager thinks so.
In a recent Townhall.com article, Prager says anonymity causes otherwise decent people to act "less morally." And it enables people to express their feelings (rather than opinions) in a way that is ruining public discourse.
The Internet practice of giving everyone the ability to express himself anonymously for millions to read has debased public discourse. Cursing, ad hominem attacks and/or the utter absence of logic characterize a large percentage of many websites' "comments" sections. And because people tend to do what society says it is OK to do, many people, especially younger people, are coming to view such primitive forms of self-expression as acceptable.
Prager said that it didn't use the be this way. Letters to the editors of magazines and newspapers were written in a civil manner or they were not published. And even the ones that weren't published were respectful because they had to include their names and addresses.
At GodblogCon, Dr. Mohler said we should never post anything on our blog that we wouldn't want our pastor, a parent, or a neighbor to read. It's good advice for commentators too. And maybe a name and address requirement wouldn't hurt either.
HT: Justin Taylor
1. Jethro said the following at 1:53 PM on Nov 13:
But let's be honest, Boundless isn't a place for free expression of opinion. The fact that I and many others have had comments censored is a testimony to that fact.
2. Robin Munn said the following at 2:17 PM on Nov 13:
Because there are circumstances where anonymity is necessary, I wouldn't favor forbidding anonymous comments as a blanket rule. Such occasions are few and far between, but they do occur. For example, one political blog I read had a series of pseudonymous comments from "Stashiu3", an Army psychologist who'd been formerly stationed at the Guantanamo Bay detention center. He gave away no operational secrets and no classified information, but gave a lot of fascinating detail about conditions at Gitmo. He requested -- and received -- anonymity, because he believed he could become the target of terrorist retaliation should his real name get out. (The blog owner was aware of his identity, and was able to verify with the Army that he really was who he said he was, and really was stationed at Gitmo).
Now, most bloggers aren't going to be in that situation. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that a hard-and-fast rule of "no anonymity" isn't the best for every single case.
3. John D. said the following at 2:24 PM on Nov 13:
Anonymity is a good thing, because it allows me and other readers to speak freely.
It's not that I have expressed any opinion on this site that I would be ashamed to give voice to face-to-face with people I know, and I certainly hope I have never expressed any of those opinions in a manner that would be inappropriate when speaking in the flesh.
However, there is a degree of freedom to wax eloquent when the poster can shade his identity to a greater or lesser extent. The system employed at Boundless Line and other sites (posting in quasi-anonymity, with one's email address known to the moderators) is a good compromise. It's not broken, and I trust no one will be trying to fix it.
Prager is just one more conservative trying to make individual rights sound like a bad thing.
4. Kit said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 13:
I wouldn't mind posting my whole name, but I do NOT want my email address on the internet. You get too many unsolicited emails. On the whole I see nothing wrong with anonymity. I might even venture to say it actually causes people to be MORE honest.
5. Chris said the following at 2:56 PM on Nov 13:
I have but two words to make the case for anonymity:
Common Sense
6. Tami said the following at 3:00 PM on Nov 13:
I think that if you're going to be anonymous, or allow anonymous posts, you should at least choose some sort of real name or initials.
If all the anonymous people post as "anonymous," it gets confusing. And trying to respond to "SparkleKitty" or "1-4-LOLs" feels a little silly if you're trying to conduct a conversation on serious topics.
7. SparkleKitty (just for Tami) said the following at 3:13 PM on Nov 13:
I agree with Kit, "I might even venture to say it actually causes people to be MORE honest.", especially in that it's more accepted to be earnest online: you don't find a lot of blase or 'cool' stances or 'meh, you think too much' reponses in discussion forums. If a person isn't interested, they can just read something else.
8. Josh M said the following at 3:14 PM on Nov 13:
It is not the honesty that people are objecting to here, but the lack of inhibition.
The debate of anonymity has been around for a long time and ultimately I think that the ability to post things anonymously or at least pseudonymously is a good thing even at the cost of the inanity that we have a wade through. Perhaps we can hope for a filter that works to sort the useful posts from the less so.
For myself, I've been using the same pseudonym online for nearly 10 years and so think of it as more me when I'm online than my given name. In fact, I think that using my given name on a site like this one without my face to go with it grants me more anonymity rather than less.
Thus I give both names,
Josh "Trin"
9. Randy said the following at 4:01 PM on Nov 13:
I believe, and hold on to, the right that my soapbox (blog) is my soapbox. I built it and I can choose to allow or not allow others time on it.
I think it is great to have boundaries.
10. Mandi said the following at 4:31 PM on Nov 13:
I agree with those that say that making the email address available to the moderators but not to others is a great compromise, at least for this site. That's something that I, for one, appreciate very much because I've posted comments regarding the situation of Christians in the Middle East and the reality of the challenges that face them, or the history of those challenges. It would take away from the ability to add that perspective in any (hopefully) meaningful way to posts that touch on those issues if I knew someone knew my real name and email addy.
Using real names or not, as Christians we should realize that God's Word applies to our speech regardless: it should not be idle">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=35&end_verse=37&version=50&context=context">idle and reflects our inner hearts, it should be with">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%204:6;&version=50;">with grace (notice the "always" in the verse), and it should be sound.
God bless!
11. Jo said the following at 6:50 PM on Nov 13:
If you look at publishing commentors' addresses from the perspective of preserving the morality or tone of the blog, it makes sense; it keeps people accountable.
However, internet stalking is real and if blogs published personal information, one would not need to post anything to gather huge amounts of data.
12. John said the following at 7:00 PM on Nov 13:
Blogging is not for people to share themselves, but their opinions.
What you gain with knowing someone's true identity (which you technically could find out anyway if you knew how) you will lose in frankness.
Why would anyone post on-line talking to strangers and give away their identity? That's just plane dumb.
13. Hannah C said the following at 7:13 PM on Nov 13:
The problem with requiring real names and addresses is that, quite frankly, not everyone with a blog is necessarily a good person. And some people would require that stuff and then do bad things with it. Or at least that's the fear. It's a fine line.
14. Jo said the following at 10:39 PM on Nov 13:
The only that annoys me is when people post using the same name (unintentionally of course)... for example Jo above is not me, but I agree with what she said so it doesn't matter. If another Jo said something I disagreed with though, it'd bother me.
I think if someone always uses the same name, there is enough accountability. And Boundless having the email addresses and the ability to censor inappropriate comments is a good compromise - if they take that responsibility seriously.
15. BDB said the following at 12:49 AM on Nov 14:
Hmmm...I guess I should come out in favor of using initials, eh?
Here's a few reasons why allowing anonymous postings can contribute to the discussion on a moderated blog:
1) Some people are "insiders" at their company. This means that any statement they make about their company or industry can impact their stock price. There are securities laws that restrict what can be said and when it can be said so that the general public has the same information as "insiders." Boundless isn't exactly a stock-discussion board, but requiring full identification would require pretty much all senior managers to avoid commenting on the things they know about. I don't think that improves discussion. If you read the newspaper, including the WSJ, you'll see lots of "quotes" attributed to anonymous individuals or, "A person with knowledge of the situation." Journalism would be a lot less interesting if it was only official press releases.
2) Personally, I prefer initials because it forces me to stand on my words alone; I can't appeal to my creditials, position, or anything else. I think there's too much emphasis on "expert" opinion these days. A well-written argument can come from anyone; we should consider the rhetoric without coloring it with what we know about the person.
3) If people were forced to use their real names, maybe we'd never have farmer Tom arguing with a 19-year-old aussie woman we've all come to find endearing. Some paths would never cross.
I do think the real e-mail address on a moderated blog is a good compromise. There are lots of blogs that don't appear to be moderated where people are much less articulate(and meaner.)
16. Robert J Espe said the following at 8:52 AM on Nov 14:
The way I figure it, the internet is a big place, and I'm in the phone book anyways (and even if I'm not, now they have sites that look up all your info via public record for $20). I got sick of trying to come up with original handles (and remember them for different sites) about 5 years ago. Anyone with access to Dex can find out where I live, so whether someone in Alaska or India knows my name when talking to me doesn't concern me. I think I'm in more danger if I park in my neighbor's spot than I am from an internet predator who's half-way around the world.
Kids should still be careful (i.e. avoid cybersex chat rooms if you want to avoid predators...duh) but what do I really have to worry about?
17. NeedACatchyName said the following at 8:53 AM on Nov 14:
Jo pretty much nails it; the biggest reason for anonymity online is that cyberstalking is a very real problem, and using your real name makes it way too easy for undesirable people to use Google and instantly find out all kinds of things about you.
I also prefer to use a pseudonym because I post a lot from work, and while my employer doesn't mind posting from work when it doesn't interfere with my job, they prefer that I not post any personally identifiable information to a public forum from work.
That having been said, I didn't think about making sure that my name was unique when creating my pseudonym, so there's more than one NeedACatchyName out there in cyberspace. :) So if you see a NeedACatchyName online and it's not on Boundless or one of the blogs that shares a lot of posters with Boundless, then it's not me but rather a different NeedACatchyName.
18. kman said the following at 8:55 AM on Nov 14:
Seems the more widely based the source to be commented on an election story vs. say Gnostic Writings of the 3rd century, brings out some really... "unihibited" comments. Just read some comments on youtube for any widely viewed video. You'll get all kinds of things said that I am sure people wouldn't say face to face- because they aren't any consequences for what they say for the most part.
Think about how this same type of environment would play out offline. Everyone running around anonymous doing whatever they feel like. Sound like a place you'd like to live? Not me.
I post comments that I would actually say face to face with someone. I never forget there is a real person on the other end and that I want to do nothing that will dishonor my Lord.
19. Adam D said the following at 10:14 AM on Nov 14:
In many cases anonymity does seem troublesome. From my point of view it makes it very easy for cowards and misfits to show their true colors and the depths of their real maturity. If you want examples, just go to any you-tube debate between a Christian and an atheist and the comments are disgusting and show no sign of tact 90% of the time.
Having no anonymity in general discussion boards, blogs, and video sites where you can leave comments can help some people remain accountable, although I think this is a beast that cannot be tamed.
Just read kman's comment, and he is right on the money.
20. Sara said the following at 11:36 AM on Nov 14:
kman wrote, "Seems the more widely based the source to be commented on, an election story vs. say Gnostic Writings of the 3rd century, brings out some really... "uninhibited" comments."
Such a good point, and it's too bad because an election story doesn't have to be a general topic! It seems that everyone thinks they're qualified to discuss politics just by virtue of having heard a few speeches on TV, having a feel for politicians' personalities, and being able to match pet issues to candidate platforms.
Yet, no one would presume, say, to have anything really worthwhile to say about ophthamology or algebra if they hadn't studied it (people don't say, "well, I've had two eyes for 20 years so surely I must know something about fixing them!"). It's the same with Christians and evolutionary biology: it's that "no-more-than-basic-knowledge equals incendiary discussions" formula.
21. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:51 PM on Nov 14:
I figure if you don't have the stones to put your name on it, then you don't need to be saying it.
22. Justice said the following at 1:55 PM on Nov 14:
I think we do need privacy, when we google our name or a potential employer does, we should not have everything we've ever posted show up, they don't need to know my opinion about marriage and politics.
In the age of identity theft, the less we have online info the better. I personally started a blog and my first and last name are not even included on the page.
23. kman said the following at 3:08 PM on Nov 14:
The problem with people identifying themselves is how do you know they're being truthful?
If I say my name is say John Doe, how can you prove that? There's no connecting an individual with a particular CPU and even then you can't know that someone else didn't use that particular machine. Unless you want everyone to have biometric logins for every machine used on the Net and that people have to register with some central authenticating organization - most likely be a Internet Registration Office AND vet the results etc etc..
So anyone can say they've used their real name but how can anyone else be sure of that?
24. Adam Sloope said the following at 5:46 PM on Nov 14:
In response to a comment made earlier about content being censored: we need to be realistic and understand that there must be some kind of filter or else people would post some pretty messed up things. This thought leads me into my next. Anonymity is a good thing. It allows people to be comfortable in posting their feelings. We all need to be aware that as Christ followers when we post something, anonymous or not, we are representing Him. So sly remarks, harsh reposes, or overt attacks on other comments are not acceptable as a child of God. I do think that if people had to use their real name no crazy comments would go up, because then they would be forced to face the reality that their comment is a reflection upon them and not just a fake surname. In a perfect world we would all be able to post things anonymously without taking advantage of that and being anything but thoughtful in our responses and comments, butt he reality is that we are all sinners and can all mess up, so we need a little bit of accountability whether it comes in using real names or censoring things. Eph 4:29, our speech has nothing to do with us, we should speak so it is encouraging and helpful to build others up. Proverbs says a lot about people who show their annoyance at once, they are fools. I’m not pointing fingers because I am a huge fool and this is an area of struggle for me. So let’s all keep in mind the focus of Boundless is to encourage others closer or towards Christ and we should represent that in our own responses.
25. Adam D said the following at 9:11 PM on Nov 14:
kman -
You can't be sure of it, so it's up to the person to show what integrity they have. Posting anonymously is similar to doing something right or wrong which is unseen by others. For all intensive purposes, only God and the anonymous person know who is posting. God says one day we will all be judged, you cannot fool Him, but you can fool people. It's just an integrity thing, that's all.
I think the paranoia with identity theft is just exaggerated, and quite frankly, a cop out to the deeper issue here.
26. Marci said the following at 5:58 AM on Nov 15:
Hey All,
I think first names should be required (not sirnames, for security reasons).
I think if people used their real names, they'd at least be more careful about what they post on the site - an official rule about this would be helpful, I think.
Blessings
27. kman said the following at 7:38 AM on Nov 15:
I think consistently identifying yourself at a given site is worthwhile. It's anonymous in that you may not know a person's real name. But you can form some sense of the person using that screen name, if they always -hard to prove- use that name.
I always keep in mind that any system of identifying people on the Net can be hacked.
28. Oxanna said the following at 5:25 PM on Nov 15:
I must say that I strongly feel that Dennis Prager's opinion is wrong in this area. Yes, anonymous posting can result in stupid and inane comments, but honestly, it happens non-anonymously too. And I generally try to be responsible and thoughtful with my comments/posts (here and elsewhere), despite the fact that I'm not sharing my real name. Strict regulation does not result in wiser, smarter, or more responsible people. I've heard enough dumb comments and mean statements in my life to know that "mouthy" is a person thing, not an anonymous poster thing.
Teh great Internets is NOT a safe place, and I don't want my full name and address up there, just like I don't want it sitting in the window of 7-11. That doesn't mean I shouldn't share my opinion at 7-11. Complete identifiablity is not a prerequisite for responsible speech.
Honestly, it really bothers me that people are jumping on the non-anonymity bandwagon. Valid e-mail addresses available to website owners/moderators is OK; names, addresses, etc. not so much. Personally, I don't mind wading through some muck here and there as long as my freedom and privacy is safe as well. A well moderated forum can have many anonymous members, but a wonderful quality of discussion, and the bad posts are ignored or weeded out.
29. John said the following at 2:11 AM on Nov 18:
I figure if you don't have the brains to conceal your real identity, you shouldn't be posting.
You probably have "stones" for brains if you did put your name on it!