anonymous blogging, trolls, misogyny and ethics

[rm]

http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/is-it-ok-to-blog-about-this-woman-anonymously/

Chat amongst yourselves. I'm off to save the world (er, so not really, but let's pretend, okay?)

Comments

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

I liked it until its snarky commentary on the right to bear arms. I know many who would disqualify the entire article over that one bit.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

To me that comment seemed to be in perfectly keeping with the rest of the article - of course that's likely because I agree with it.

[sethg]

So do I, as the host of a blog, have a moral obligation to confirm that everyone who comments there can be traced back to a real human identity, just in case someone posts something uncivil and the target of the incivility wants to know who to sue? And as long as I'm doing that, how do I prevent readers of the blog from exploiting other people's non-anonymity to commit uncivil acts of their own?

[gina-r-snape.livejournal.com]

Sadly, public commentary on essays or articles published on websites (or even Youtube videos) encourages the worst kind of trollish behavior. I tend to stay away from the fray.

Should I be ashamed to admit I perked up while reading that when the author said that Katha Pollitt was his ex-wife?

[argentla.livejournal.com]

So...he proposes that the only viable response to a misogynist and racist culture whose hatred continues to make itself known at every opportunity is to deem free speech a privilege, rather than a right? Uhh. Uhh.

I submit to you that any legal restrictions on anonymous publication (electronic or otherwise) will very quickly fall more heavily on women and people of color than the (likely male, predominantly white) trolls. For example, would women in online spaces be obliged to include their real names, making themselves more vulnerable to offline stalking?

Such restrictions would also be used by large corporations to silence criticisms of their products and policies. And, I have no doubt at all, to suppress their employees' participation in any activity or group of which the company does not approve.

Trolling is a problem because our culture is still a white, patriarchal, racist, misogynistic, intolerant society that makes only the flimsiest pretense of egalitarian values. Outside of those narrow pretenses, the underlying hate and hypocrisy inevitably surfaces. Restricting freedom of speech, assembly, etc., will not alter those hateful values; instead, those restrictions will simply be used by the dominant class to reinforce the paradigm.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

So...he proposes that the only viable response to a misogynist and racist culture whose hatred continues to make itself known at every opportunity is to deem free speech a privilege, rather than a right?

Where do you get that? Anonymous speech /= free speech (except in the cases mentioned, where there is a likelihood of retribution). The fact that people are willing to say hurtful and appalling things anonymously that they wouldn't say if their name was attached to the statement has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with the fact that when many people have the chance to act anonymously, politeness, and in some cases civilization, vanishes from their discourse. I can see many reasons (most of which having to do with protecting them from retribution from their parents and schools) for minors to be able to post anonymously. However, there are far fewer reasons (other than various sorts of whistle-blowing) for adults in any first world nation to do so. I do not see that free speech has anything to do with the right for someone to be an insulting and hurtful jackass and not have their identity attached to their comments. At that point, the only thing stopping them from making the exact same comments is the fact that other people will be able to know that they made them.

[argentla.livejournal.com]

It depends on how you define anonymity, doesn't it?

I stand by my point.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

How do you define anonymity?

[argentla.livejournal.com]

To include, for instance:

- Publishing under a pseudonym
- Participating online using a handle or alias
- Identifying one's self only by first name, or by a nickname.

All of these, by the blogger's logic, could be used in an "abusive" way. However, let's consider, for instance, the implications for women if every post made in an online discussion, every membership in a dating site, every photographic modeling job published online had to be accompanied by her full real name. (And why not her home address, as well, just so that no one will confuse the Jane Smith of Phoenix, Arizona with the Jane Smith of Portland?)

I'm amazed by the argument that there is no "legitimate" reason for anyone to write or post anonymously. It's very much in the same line as the people who advocate requiring people to care identification at all times, because after all, only criminals have anything to hide from the legitimate authorities.

A professor I once had, a Basque who'd grown up in Franco-era Spain, remarked wrly, "Americans like to flirt with fascism because they've never really had to live with it. Believe me, after you've had policemen demand to see your papers a few times, the thrill wears off very quickly."

[(Anonymous)]

I think there is an important distinction to be made between pseudonymity, wherein you do not have to make your personal identity plain to be seen and anonymity wherein your personal identity can never be known or revealed.

The internet already allows prolific pseudonymity but not necessarily any anonymity, as I mentioned below.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

I think there is an important distinction to be made between pseudonymity, wherein you do not have to make your personal identity plain to be seen and anonymity wherein your personal identity can never be known or revealed.

The internet already allows prolific pseudonymity but not necessarily any anonymity, as I mentioned below.

Hahaha lj logged me out so I appeared anonymouse. This amuses me XD

[browneyedgirl65.livejournal.com]

The anonymous commentary back in the 18th century was hardly limited to thoughtful, erudite, politically lofty discourse. Personal attacks and derogatory commentary were also flung back and forth. I think the main difference between then and now is the scale and speed of this type of discourse nowadays. But the meanness, the vituperousness, the hostility, has always been present.

I think anonymity on the internet can be proscribed in a fashion similar to freedom of speech: allowed except when it steps over the line. The courts established 'Fire' in a theater as an initial line (and yes, I'm aware it's still a bit of a doddle these days with shifting around, but the concept is what I'm after here) needs to be defined...your right to be anonymous is protected up till the point you hit the other person's nose.

I'm actually not sure if this particular story illustrates crossing the line or not (I really don't have the time, energy, or desire to read thru the stuff to make up my own mind) but I know that it's certainly crossed frequently elsewhere. In fact, 95% of my commenting on the web is anonymous, or pseudonymous, precisely to avoid personal targets of me in my own identity. I got more than enough of that in the early to mid nineties and it's much nicer with an anonymous presence instead, I can assure you.

While I chuckled at the last sentence in the article (its intent, I'm sure) I believe that lawsuit is without merit, as Google did not give up the person's identity until ordered to do so by a judge.

[jendaby.livejournal.com]

With identity theft and stalking being such major issues these days, I believe that taking away the security blanket of anonymity is a dangerous proposition. The first people to be targeted would be people trying to escape from domestically violent situations.

Trolls are scum, and it's horrible that some people so blatantly take advantage of being anonymous in order to take out their aggressions on others, but written aggression is not as life threatening as having hostile people show up at your home or workplace.

[argentla.livejournal.com]

Amen. This is a big part of my point.)

[51stcenturyfox.livejournal.com]

I think the writer of the piece is getting two different things mixed up:

- Anonymous comment and opinion, which can be valuable and interesting.

- Libel

Now, for me to share my opinions on a political issue anonymously or under a pseudonym is one thing, but for me to say that a politician I name is a psychotic skank is libel.

Re: people posting comments anon to journalists and bloggers, that's easy to curtain. Moderate comments and don't allow anonymous commenting. Delete hate speech and libelous content. I do not take the opinions of anons seriously anyway, since they don't sign their names to things, but HI, should the blog host have told that anon blogger that she was posting libelous content against a private individual and to cease? Maybe.

[woogledesigns.livejournal.com]

Has anything changed though? As I understand it, there is nothing new about Google being required to submit the known identity of a blogger or commenter in a defamation case. Is anonymity on the internet under threat at all, or are people simply surprised that what they thought was anonymity actually wasn't?

This here is right from the blogger terms of service:
You agree that Google may access or disclose your personal information, including the content of your communications, if Google is required to do so in order to comply with any valid legal process or governmental request (such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute or court order) or as otherwise provided in these Terms of Service

From the LiveJournal Terms of Service:
Should Content be deemed illegal by such law having jurisdiction over the user, you agree that LiveJournal may submit all necessary information to, and cooperate with, the proper authorities;

Aside from deliberate and technical efforts to obscure the traceability of online activity, have we ever been anything more than superficially anonymous on the internet?

[timelady.livejournal.com]

Reading through the article, it seems like it's akinning posting anon to posting under a pseudonym and Ben Franklin's use of pen names to justify anon trolling. Seriously, I do have problems with people hiding behind anon to offensively slander other people/ways of life. Though without having a concrete name behind them suggests usually they're just trying to rile up the crowd and get attention. However people do use pseudonyms for good reasons, look at female authors in the past who had to publish under male names just to get their work in print since the heads of publishing companies were generally male.

/me brandishes Communist Manifesto

[sethg]

Isn't there a certain amount of class bias at work here?

If I'm, say, a computer programmer with a blog, that blog can be an advertisement for myself; it can be a way of showing off my professional chops or at least building up a network that can later be milked for contacts. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. Or in hoping for that. Ahem.) In that kind of environment, using my real name works in my favor, as long as I don't reveal parts of myself that are too out of the mainstream for my profession.

If I'm, say, a Wal-Mart greeter with a blog, there's very little I can say under my own name that will advance me in this way ("Hey, I love what you posted on the art of shelf arrangement! There's an assistant manager position opening up across town....") and a lot that could hurt me. So it's much safer for me to use a pseudonym and only reveal my real identity to people I've established relationships of trust with.

Re: /me brandishes Communist Manifesto

[bodlon.livejournal.com]

This. The author is missing out on that privacy piece that's pretty crucial to anyone who wants to blog and hold down a day job.

[sushis.livejournal.com]

I think that article is so ridiculously wrong, it's stunning. Maybe it's partly that my some of my favorite topics of internet conversation are things I wouldn't expect anyone to reveal "publicly," without a pseudonym. Even in a completely enlightened society (and I don't believe one actually exists at this time, in any event) there are things that are interesting to discuss in general *cough* secks *cough*, but which I don't necessarily want to discuss with my boss, or for that matter, possible future employers. There are things I don't need to know about casual associates, but which fascinate me to discuss with people I meet online.

I don't see why, if I want to talk about, say, my thoughts about transsexual porn stars (the subject of an extremely interesting discussion recently on a friend's journal) I should have to provide the world with a permanent record linking those thoughts to my legal name. And, obviously, that's small potatoes compared to the worries of, say, actual transsexuals who enterred the discussion, and were free to provide their views largely because they knew that there was little chance of people connecting the words to the "real world" person.

Of course, in any such discussion, one might get a truly obnoxious troll (I'm using the word in the strong sense, here, of a person who isn't merely unpleasant or pointlessly argumentative, but who attempts to cause genuine harm with their words.) Thus, the lovely ability we have on LJ, and, I would think, most blogging platforms with non-gargantuan readerships, to ban people judged to be genuinely destructive. The judicious operation of such an option seems to me infinitely preferable to the silencing of discussion altogether that would be caused by the insistence upon everyone using legal names.