Anonymity Breeds Contempt
by Ted Slater on 04/30/2008 at 6:03 PM
We've got a pretty civil blog here. For the most part, I'm impressed with the level of discourse among those leaving comments on The Line.
But in other areas of the blogosphere, things are not so pleasant.
One thing contributing to the degradation of communication in forums and blogs is anonymity. When nobody knows who you are, there is no accountability. Consider what Dennis Prager wrote about this issue:
Some might argue that anonymity enables people to more freely express their thoughts. But this is not true. Anonymity only enables people to more freely express their feelings. Anonymity values feelings over thought, and immediate expression over thoughtful reflection.
There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings.
... I doubt I am alone in reading fewer and fewer comments sections because of the low level of so many of the postings. Just as bad money chases away good money, moronic postings chase away intelligent ones. I have come to the point where I even read fewer comments posted about my own columns.
Tim Challies also spoke about this a few weeks back. In his blog post, he quotes Os Guinness, who said that in the past, "those who did right and those who did not do wrong often acted as they did because they knew they were seen by others. Their morality was accountability through visibility."
Tim went on to say that God "helped me understand that accountability is closely tied to visibility and that personal holiness will come not through anonymity but through deep and personal relationships with my brothers and sisters in the local church." He concludes:
And so this is my challenge to bloggers and to those who comment on blogs: make yourself accountable through visibility. Commit yourself to purity of heart and to only speaking or writing what is honoring to God. And then ensure that there are people who know you, who read your words, who will lovingly exhort and correct you when you do not keep this commitment. In this way we can honor God and maintain a focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I think this is a great idea. The bloggers on The Line are all held accountable to someone; no blog post is published without first being reviewed by someone else on the team. We discuss when someone may have gone too far, or may have poorly chosen words. Some blog posts are irredeemable; some never get published.
There may be a place for anonymity, for holding yourself unaccountable to others. But there are benefits to being known, to have your words associated with your name. Benefits that, as Dennis Prager points out, contribute to more a more civil exchange of ideas. Benefits that, as Tim Challies points out, contribute to personal holiness.
My name is Ted Slater, and I approved this message.
HT: Jack Hudson
1. Randy said the following at 6:36 PM on Apr 30
I completely agree. I don't even like it when people use different pseudonyms from blog to blog. Good post.
2. Anna said the following at 6:37 PM on Apr 30
I do agree to a point. However, I must confess that I get somewhat tired of hearing men talk about how we need to be less anonymous online. As a 21-year-old woman, I insist on having a certain level of anonymity. I'm more concerned about how to navigate the online world safely.
Also, if you are a blogger and once you have established a blogging reputation, that almost holds you accountable - you wouldn't want to ruin a good reputation. Also, if a few offline people know your online presence and are able to keep up with it, that's great too.
So I agree with you - but only to a certain extent. I don't think everyone should have to make their personal information public in order to be held accountable. I think that caveat needs to be made clear. And there are other ways to do be accountable - as you mentioned, even having comment moderation is accountability.
3. Rachael said the following at 7:10 PM on Apr 30
Here are at least 3 reasons I'd prefer to stay semi-anonymous:
1) Professional reasons. I'd rather that students and co-workers not see everything I write, especially if it relates to seeing how God might be working in them or in certain interactions.
2) Perhaps I shouldn't refer to specific situations, etc., on here in the first place, but when I do I don't always want the people, etc., to be identified.
3) Bad reason --> Embarrassment/pride. I just know my cheeks would turn red (though that's not uncommon) if 'real life' people knew how often I was commenting on here. That would be okay if they found out, but it would be a cheek-reddening situation, but at the same time, a good reality check...
Another added benefit of relative anonymity is a greater degree of stalker prevention, though I think there are ways I or my whereabouts could be tracked or semi-tracked down. Don't expect to be the victim of such stalker activites, but who does...
4. BDB said the following at 7:16 PM on Apr 30
Like the last two times the subject came up, Dennis Prager is still wrong. You need not look any further than Cable TV news to see this.
There was one (1) time when public figures really had to debate a public policy issue. This was when Ross Perot and Al Gore debated NAFTA for an hour and half on Larry King. It got a 14 rating - equivalent to a regular-season NFL football game on ESPN. The debate was so long that they really had to get into the nuts and bolts of the policy questions.
Compare that to most political news today. Talking heads from each side are given three minutes each and they hurl personal attacks at the other side. Reasoned discussion is excluded from the public square, and the result is that more and more people hate the divisiveness of politics. Right now I'm watching a Hannity & Colmes discussion about whether Hurricane Katrina was judgement for the sin of New Orleans. Ah, there's some discourse that will help people find a path to marriage.
Yes, you folks can choose to require people to include their full identities with a blog comment. I'm certain that it would significantly reduce the number of comments that need to be reviewed, easing the workload on the moderators. And there are lots of people in Evangelical politics who are committed to the ideal of silencing dissent and losing elections.
The question you need to ask yourselves is what your ministry is about. Do you want people to learn and grow? If not, I'm sure that people who face honest relationship questions they are not comfortable asking publicly can find another forum. The Internet is full of such places.
5. Chris said the following at 7:27 PM on Apr 30
There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves
Um, how about wanting to avoid being arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and killed because the government doesn't like what you're saying about it? "Common Sense" ring a bell?
Anonymity has value, particularly when there are entities that would very much like to shut down, harass, or otherwise intimidate bloggers. Things like Freenet exist for a reason.
Anonymity has value when one is discussing very sensitive things (rape or abuse, for example) and is not ready or able to take that step into the open.
That said, yeah, the AC's among us can tend to throw out junk that doesn't contribute to the conversation or is designed only to inflame or cause discord with no real purpose in mind.
Blogs are fine and all, but they lack one supercool tool that Usenet (and good discussion forums) have: kill files. Don't like anonymous posters (or a certain poster), fine. Add 'em to the file. You'll never see their posts.
Overall, I'll take anonymity and the problems that go with it. I see the benefits far outweighing the costs, particularly when I may hold views that some people think should be countered not with words but with weapons.
6. Charles said the following at 7:50 PM on Apr 30
An equally valid problem is 'blogs like boundless, which, while openly associated with certain names, do not always deign to directly respond to relevant concerns about ambiguities or contradictions in the material presented. This is, in my view, as bad as anonymous complainers.
7. DannieA said the following at 9:24 PM on Apr 30
Ted I have to agree with Anna #2. I put my nickname along with my middle initial because NOTHING online is safe.
As a single female I do evaluate the risks I take and I have to ask myself if doing some things are worth it or not. It's sad that we live in a world where a woman has to think above all else...safety, but it's true. So while I get the gist of the blog post, I think for the most part people have their reasons for being anonymous and unless a post is ridiculous and mean filled, it should also be looked at and respected
8. mindlab said the following at 7:40 AM on May 1
I would agree with what Ted and Dennis wrote in principle, but I think you both missed some important points.
First, no one here is in a position to hold me accountable, even if I told you my name, address, and phone number; you have very minimal leverage to speak into my life. If I decide to sin, your opinion is unlikely to matter to me. The opinions of my friends and family DO matter; they are my accountability and they know who I am.
Secondly, there are important, helpful, and informative things that need to be said, that I (and others, I think) would not say in mixed company if our meatspace identities were attached. For instance, during a recent conversation on the nature of lust I made several comments I think were carefully considered and relevant, but that I would never make in person, in mixed company. A degree of separation between my online identity and my meatspace identity allows me the freedom to engage in conversation on topics too sensitive for face to face discussion.
There are other reasons for using an untraceable nom de guerre but these are the two I find most compelling.
9. P&P said the following at 8:04 AM on May 1
The first amendment allows us freedom of speech, whether our identity is public or private is not the issue.
10. John D. said the following at 8:11 AM on May 1
Anonymity equals privacy.
The politicians (of both parties) are doing everything they can to attack privacy and anonymity, with the Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness, warrantless wiretapping, data mining, biometric National ID (coming soon), etc., etc.
Why do you have to jump on the bandwagon? Without anonymity, there is no privacy. Without privacy, there is no freedom. Do you want to live under Big Brother?
11. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:48 AM on May 1
The blogsphere (and other posting avenues) breeds a lot of infrahumanization.
Here is one Christian's site which explains it well as well as other related issues. Richard Beck's blog.
12. Eliza said the following at 9:15 AM on May 1
I admit that I've posted some things here in a heated state of mind. Mostly late at night after a hard day at work. And I have had some things censored, which was disappointing (I definitely felt rejected because I thought my points were valid), but I accept that as the prerogative of Ted and Boundless, and I'm sure my comments were more inflammatory than I realized.
"Eliza", however, is my real name, and I'm pretty sure I would publish any comment I've made here in a newspaper column with my picture next to it.
That being said, having the ability to be essentially anonymous has really made me think about balancing thought and emotion, and what it means to be expressive with no boundaries. I appreciate it because I've been able to interact with people who differ from me in ways I never would be able to in "real life". There is no discussion like this in my daily life now, and even if there were, I doubt people would be as open to being honest as they are here.
I like it that you encourage us to use our real names, but that no one is forced to post a photo and a mailing address :).
13. Grays said the following at 9:58 AM on May 1
Tch, it's not inherently a bad thing, being anonymous. It means a thought or a post will more likely be judged on its own merits. Less outward pressure to show good character, certainly -- but also less pressure to grasp at "status".
14. Matthew Andrews said the following at 10:10 AM on May 1
A webcomic once created a Greater Internet [Jerk] Theory:
Anonymity + Audience = [Stupidity]
Unfortunately, the artist put it a little bit more bluntly/colorfully or I would link to it.
15. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:25 AM on May 1
I have no gripe with the use of pseudonyms. In fact, I've known several authors who use pen names rather than their real names. There is still plenty of room for accountability while allowing for a modicum of privacy.
In fact, there are legitimate security reasons for the practice.
16. Calvin said the following at 11:01 AM on May 1
Ted,
I agree with Mr. Prager on the issue of anonymity. I seldom read more than the top two or three posts in any blog (often including The Line) because of the level of conversation found therein. I liken it to bog-snorkling for diamonds. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort. Especially when there are more reliable sources for diamonds like the articles here at Boundless or a good book by a wise author.
17. BDB said the following at 11:02 AM on May 1
Ted (#8) wrote:
>>You can, for example, have a friend who knows where you comment or blog, and who lets you know if you've "gone too far" with something you wrote.<<
For the record, there's a handful of people who know me and which posts on this site are mine.
18. Louise said the following at 11:31 AM on May 1
I agree with comments 7 and 2.
Females who live alone need to be careful.
As such, for the sake of security I never use my real name on the internet.
And in addition, I do not like my real first name.
19. Nicole said the following at 1:22 PM on May 1
>>There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves<<
There are good reasons -- as mentioned above there is always safety to think about. With the internet too much information is available when you have someone's real name. Also, for some people there may be concerns about job prospects or promotions, especially if the blog is political.
Clemson University in SC had a professor who was an expert witness in a case concerning homosexuality, while he was tenured and couldn't be fired, he did experience some issues such as having homophobe on his door many days and not being put into some positions at the school. If this had not been a court case but instead had been a blog you better believe the same things would have happened, but he could have done that anonymously. And I don't think that would have been a bad thing. Although, I greatly respect him for taking a stand as well.
I do, however, think it's a good idea to have someone else who knows who you are. I have a political blog where I don't use my real name, for safety and privacy reasons, but I do have very close friends who regulate what I say and will comment on it. Accountability in everything is always a good idea.
20. Loris said the following at 1:36 PM on May 1
Like Louise, this isn't my real name either. I'm using a pseudonym because I frequently post ideas that some family members I know read this blog would NOT agree with and I don't want to force the discussion of those issues until I'm ready.
21. Rachael said the following at 4:04 PM on May 1
Ted (8) wrote: "You can, for example, have a friend who knows where you comment or blog, and who lets you know if you've "gone too far" with something you wrote. Having such a friend hold you accountable does keep you in check, and may result in growth in character."
-->That's a good idea. Several people at one time or other have been informed of my blog, but whether or not they read it regularly is another question :). My guess is that few to none of my friends would want to keep up with my comments on this blog, but if I had a close real-life friend that enjoyed this blog and read it regularly, that would be a good idea. I'm not sure how bloggish my closest friends are...
22. Jo said the following at 4:18 PM on May 1
Ted said... "You can, for example, have a friend who knows where you comment or blog, and who lets you know if you've "gone too far" with something you wrote. Having such a friend hold you accountable does keep you in check, and may result in growth in character."
Honestly, I don't think any of my friends would have the time or inclination to read through every post on this blog daily to check up on my comments. Also, I think I'm mature enough to write responsible comments without needing someone else's approval. This isn't the same as talking. When talking it's easy for something unintended to slip out. When writing, you get to write it and rewrite it and proof read it as many times as you like before you post. Sure mistakes still happen, and I've seen numerous people on here apologise for phrasing something in a way that was misunderstood by someone else. But usually, you know if you're being offensive and I think if you need the accountability of using your real name in order to post respectfully and compassionately, you've got bigger problems than can be addressed by a ban on anonymity.
I really am called Jo by the way, but I have no intention of plastering my full name all over the internet. :)
23. Dan (yes, my real name) said the following at 4:39 PM on May 1
I think some degree of anonymity is great for some individuals who are concerned about their privacy and safety. However, I decided not to be anonymous due to the fact that over the last 5-10 years, the most hostile and loudmouth of individuals tend to hide behind a pseudonym, which basically makes them look cowardly and unaccountable.
Case in point: several years ago I worked as a producer at a local TV station, and I would screen email messages for the on-air talent I worked for because of the enormous volume of messages sent to this individual. The VAST majority of hostile emails sent to this on-air individual were nothing more than criticisms and personal attacks. A few of these individuals I did respond to, but most of them had their messages deleted.
I do think it is sad that some people feel that they have to attack other people with very little provocation. Online, the only times I have been attacked (2 of the 3 instances were from anonymous people) were on a liberal blog (from an anonymous person of course who stole my username), on my former blog when I stood up for President Bush and had my mental status questioned by a reader (funny, this was from a fellow "believer"), and by another fellow Christian believer who trolls and lurks around Boundlessline, who BTW has since had their cover blown and been outed. Funny (not really) how even believers lower themselves to this level of hostility.
24. skp said the following at 5:25 PM on May 1
I don't know why. But this blog reminds me of Dr Seuss' Horton Hears a Who. "I meant what I said I said what I meant an elephants faithful one hundred percent." Does It matter whether or not your annonymous?
25. BDB said the following at 2:10 PM on May 2
Oh gosh, I can't believe I missed this. Dennis Prager is so incredibly wrong I missed the most obvious example!
The U.S. Government was FOUNDED on anonymous political writing. The Federalist Papers were published under pseudonymns. American Founders like Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton made extensive use of the method. The whole point is to put ideas into the public square without the baggage of the individual speaking. This allows the ideas to be discussed without the ad hominem attacks so common to political discourse.
And now I find myself compelled to use another literary device employed commonly on Fox News: the innocent question.
Why does Dennis Prager hate America's Founding Fathers?
(We'll discuss after the break...)
26. veritasmedia said the following at 4:54 PM on May 2
Sadly, BDB won't read his own comment because it was number 26 and not one of the first 1 or 2. Also, if you work in a high profile job, and don't want "baggage" attached to your posts, you might want to be anonymous.
27. BDB said the following at 1:51 PM on May 3
veritasmedia (#27) wrote:
>>Sadly, BDB won't read his own comment because it was number 26 and not one of the first 1 or 2.<<
Actually, I tend to only reply to certain topics, and try to follow up in case someone wants to slam me. I think it was a different set of initals who doesn't read comments. I find that the level of discussion here is much higher than, say, the comments section of WSJ blogs.
Veritas Media - they do advertising inserts, no?