‘Anonymous’ is all right for Palgrave’s Treasury…
Jerry Coyne did an amusing post yesterday about anonymous blogging. He did it as if he were Andy Rooney (an editorialist on a long-running tv news show, for non-US readers).
I’ve learned that there are people out there who run blogs but do it anonymously. Anonymously—get it? That means that they hide their identity from readers. Now when I first heard this I was astounded. After all, I’ve been a journalist for nearly seven decades, and the first thing you learn is that you stand behind your work—you take responsibility for what you say.
Well quite. And if you don’t, then most of the time – unless you’re very good at it, very clever and sharp and funny and knowledgeable – you will be taken considerably less seriously than you would be if you did take responsibility for your work. You will also be read less. I’m just not very interested in what Someone Random has to say (unless SR is good enough to have built up a reputation as SR, which takes time), and I’m also usually wary of it, because SR lacks an important motivation that the rest of us have for not doing things like lying or lapsing into scatalogical frenzies.
But some commenters on Jerry’s post sharply disagreed – mostly for bad reasons. A somewhat good or at least reasonable reason is that some people want to be free to discuss controversial ideas without fear of repelling employers or families or both.
I would still say that is at least not the best way to argue for controversial ideas, precisely because it does look evasive and unaccountable. There is an old and admirable tradition of anonymous pamphleteering, but all the same – there are drawbacks to pamphleteering that way. There are non-invidious reasons people want to know who is writing.
More to the point, however, that kind of anonymity isn’t a reason for slandering other people who are not anonymous, and doing so is ethically…suspect, shall we say.
One late commenter remarked that
I find it interesting that those who fail to understand the value of anonymity are usually those who didn’t have the privilege of growing up with the internet. It’s an unfortunate generation gap.
No; that won’t fly. Anonymous abuse does not magically become a fine thing just because it’s on the internet. For one thing it’s hardly a secret that the internet can be an incredibly nasty place, nor that anonymity is one major reason for that. For another thing, why would it?
Suppose someone at your workplace starts leaving messages all over the place saying nasty things about you or some other co-worker – anonymously. That’s not considered perfectly all right, is it? Granted I don’t get out much, but it is my understanding that that kind of thing is frowned on. Or suppose someone at a school is doing that – plastering the place with anonymous messages about a teacher or a student. Is that seen as okie dokie? No. So why would it be ok on the internet? It wouldn’t, and it isn’t.
I don’t read anonymous blogs much; it may be that I don’t read them at all (I’m not sure offhand). One I’m just not very interested, but two, I don’t trust them. Newspaper editors don’t trust anonymous sources, and neither do I. And as for anonymous ankle-biters – they’re just a joke, and they sink to their own level. No one reads them but other anonymous ankle-biters.
You did want to know that, didn’t you?
I do usually find anonymous blogging odd, but anonymous (or pseudonymous or first name only) commenting makes sense to me as a way of avoiding Big Brother–as in, Google. I don’t like the thought of any old stalker or long-lost friend or student or neighbor googling me and being able to inspect every comment I’ve ever made at any blog. That makes speaking not just public, but hyper-public. The google issue might be what motivates a lot of anonymity, nothing more sinister (now I can be nasty!) or serious (job security, etc). Of course, if you don’t use your name it’s true you’re liable to be more nasty…so that’s something to watch out for. But it may not be the original intention of the nameless.
I had a good reason to shut down my non-anonymous blog. Someone was stalking me and my name. Someone unbalanced was spreading lies and rumors at my blog and in comments at blogs where I used my real name. It was scary, Ophelia. Scary. Also stalking my brothers. It made me gun-shy to use my name.
(Apparently I can no longer post the way I used to. Now trying while logged in via my google account. Does that work? My apologies if this ends up being a duplicate, or even triplicate.)
I read a few medical blogs, notably effect measure – which is anonymous. Of course, effect measure has been in business for over five years (soon coming to an end), and they have built up quite a reputation as a reliable source of information. So it can be done, but building a reputation like that is not done overnight. There seems in fact to be quite common for medical bloggers to be anonymous; perhaps one reason is to protect the privacy of their patients, should they make the occassional oblique reference to a case history. Another well regarded anonymous medical blogger is orac, though perhaps I should say pseudo-anonymous, since the true identity of orac has to be among the most publically known secrets in the blogging world. I offer these as case histories showing that anonymity does not necessarily imply lack of (perceived or real) credibility.
Heh. Ironically, now that I am logged in via google, my comments have become pseudonymous against my wishes, as only my google username shows. (I have posted here from time to time before under my full name: Harald Hanche-Olsen.) Technology-enforced pseudonymity?
Yeah, I don’t know so much.
I mean, I don’t personally know PZ, Ophelia Benson, Jerry Coyne, and so on. They may be real names, they may be real people, but (at least in my case) any ability they have to shape or challenge my opinions has been based on what they’ve written, not who they are.
Now, I suppose if I were inclined to “meet the people behind the blog”, for reasons benevolent or otherwise, having a name makes it easier – so certainly those willing to use their real name are demonstrating a certain degree of bravery. But courage doesn’t equal truth or eloquence – I don’t prefer to read blogs written by brave people, I prefer to read blogs by intelligent, engaging, and ideally non-superstitious people.
At the very least, there is a difference between “anonymous” (no idea who it is, identity unknown and ideally unknowable) and “pseudonymous”, where it’s the same person just not using their real name. It seems to me that many objections to the former would not apply to the latter – any more than my signing my name “GAZZA” rather than “Gary Sturgess” is anything more than a preferred nickname.
I think much of the reaction came from people who comment or blog anonymously, and felt somewhat defensive about it, even though presumably most of them aren’t “smack-talking.” You seem to be condemning anonymous smack-talkers. It’s a bit less clear to me whether Andy Rooney’s criticism was limited to this or whether it was directed more broadly towards anonymity in general.
In any case, I have been so persuaded by the whole episode that I have decided to have my name legally changed to Magnetic Lobster. Once the legal paperwork is complete, I shall feel completely free to commence my rampage of blistering criticism.
Granted, the garbage pile of blogs includes many anonymous blogs, but that doesn’t mean that writing anonymously should be dismissed as cowardly in all cases. Perhaps there is a job to protect, family to shield, or unwarranted legal liability to avoid (particularly in the UK with our illiberal libel law).
Most signed blogs are just as useless as the unsigned variety, and much signed print journalism is too, but for every 2000 ranting lunatics using anonymity to avoid justifiable social condemnation for their lack of basic courtesy, there may be a Publius, a Junius, or an Ibn Warraq. Allowing the midden of anonymous mediocrity to fester in the sun is worth it if occassionally we stumble across gold.
I tend to agree with Ophelia about anonymous blogging. I started out using an alias, and you can still see me occasionally as Greywizard in the blogosphere, since that’s the way I signed up originally, but writing in my own name eventually began to make more sense, though Eric MacDonald is probably as unknown as Greywizard, so it doesn’t make a big difference. Of course, Ibn Warraq has a good reason for anonymity, since writing in his own name could put his life in danger – though, since he has appeared publicly, most people who care will sure known who he is.
There has been a recent case in a Nova Scotia court where service providers have been required to provide the real names of anonymous bloggers who (it seems) libelled the police chief and the head of the fire services (I think) of the city of Halifax. I should have thought that, now that he has been unmasked, Orlando Figes may now be sued for libel. There are some kinds of speech that are not protected, libel and incitement to murder amongst them. But, as Jean K and Mike Haubrich say, the net is also a place where you may expose yourself to all sorts of oddballs, some of them pathological, so anonymity might be a wise course in some cases, especially if you’re given to criticism of those who are prepared to do more than say nasty things online.
I am reminded of Heinrich Böll’s book, the Lost Honor of Katarina Blum. I think that is it. She didn’t fare well with the media, and nor have I, never been quoted correctly, always taken out of context. There are reasons to be careful with “the Media”. The Media thinks (I think) that it can take a topic heretofore unknown to the journalist, digest it better than the expert who did the original research, and deliver to the public better than the interwiewee.” This is dangerous, but I would still have to side with openness of authorship. Someday I will reveal myself.
Pseudo anonymous blogging, or commenting makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind that, in most cases, ‘credibility’ is not the issue. A blogger (or commenter) that uses the same ID continuously develops a street cred just as much as someone who uses their public name.
Back in the 90s I did use my real name a lot, but since Google, that has changed. While I am not apologetic about anything I do say, online or off, I certainly do not want it to be easy for the HR department at my employer (or some potential future employer) to just google my name and form opinions about me.
Historically, comments and discussions disappeared into the memory hole, or remained in letters written to family and friends. Now they exist indefintely, quickly available to any stranger who knows you name. Your ONLY way to control this is to control the identities under which you post.
Well I did acknowledge reasons for anonymity…but on the other hand I do think there are drawbacks to anonymity, even the non-slanderous kind. But my main point was that it’s unethical to use anonymity to vomit on unanonymous people. There are people who do that – there are people who do almost nothing else – and it’s a tawdry spectacle.
I agree that there is a distinction to be made between anonymous bloggers and commentors. I tend to disregard anonymous commentors, which on reflection is odd as I always post under my (real) name of ‘Don’. Which doesn’t give any more information than ‘Anonymous’. But at least if a comment appears under the name of Don and sounds like me, one can always ask if it’s the same person. As has been pointed out, if you commit to a ‘handle’ then in time that will become in a sense a brand to be taken seriously, within a very limited sub-set of the internet.
Some commentors have a relevant back-story and for Eric, Russell or Marie-Therese et al to post as identifiable people whose identity is relevant to their posts because of personal experience or expertise makes sense. In my case my identity is not a secret, it’s just not relevant or particularly interesting. If I see the handle ‘KJB’ or ‘Mirax’ or ‘Shatterface’ on a blog I have a good idea who these people are and can respond accordingly. I don’t need to know anymore than that I have engaged with them before and have a sense of how much I value their opinions.
(Highly, in the above cases.)
Bloggers who disguise their identities for legitimate reasons of safety (J&M?) are one thing. Those who use anonymity to pour bile without taking responsibility are another matter.
Your comments did go into the spam filter, Harald. I would move one to here, but won’t bother since you already have! :- )
One anonymous blog that really bothers me is You’re Not Helping. Coincidentally, I just noticed it’s got a screed up about Ophelia’s take on anonymity.
I don’t like the blog for several reasons:1. It’s galling for it to set itself up as the Internet Hall Monitor. What gives it the right to adjudicate whether Ophelia, Jerry Coyne, Russell Blackford or whoever is “helping?” Helping what? Helping whose goal, whose project?
2. The use of the royal we – it’s beyond twee, it’s pompous and ridiculous. Even if the blog is more than one person (and there’s no way to know), the use of “we” comes off as a deliberate attempt to gin up an air of detached authority-by-comittee. It’s stupid.
3. Smug tut-tutting is always irritating, especially when it’s the entire content. YNH’ing has nothing constructive of its own to say.
Hahahaha – not all that coincidentally, Josh. That blogger is angry about earlier remarks of mine on anonymous posting that I made in comments on Jerry’s post. It’s a sign of true desperation, in the sense of poverty of material and thought, when one is reduced to doing posts on blog comments.
It’s also not coincidental because my remarks on Jerry’s post were largely about that blog, which I too find irritating and absurd in the three ways you mention. The “we” is simply ludicrous – surely if there is more than one, they don’t all write every post together! It’s also an underhanded way of attempting to bully people. But I’m suspicious of the claim that there is more than one (which it has translated into an absolute assertion that there is only one, which is typical of its level of accuracy and care); the style is awfully uniform for more than one blogger, and the same mistakes and failures of elegance keep recurring.
The most risible aspect though is the High Moral Tone combined with the vituperative obscenity. One commenter there yesterday called me “a useless, putrid twat” – and repeated it for emphasis. Yet they presume to lecture others on civility!
Now of course it will do a new post on your comment, and another on mine. If it somehow fails to notice, JJ Ramsey will rush to provide the links. JJ Ramsey spends a vast amount of time lecturing others on civility, yet he is content with people who call someone – anyone – a useless, putrid twat. Interesting, isn’t it?
Let’s not be linking to them though. It is impossible not to suspect that it is simply desperate for notice; let’s not be gratifying its unseemly hunger for attention.
My hunch is that it’s someone from the comments at The Intersection. bilbo? tb? McCarthy?
Ah, that makes sense Ophelia. For me it was a genuine coincidence – when I saw this here post, I immediately thought of YNH. It was only after that that I discovered it’s been blogging about this specific argument. Of course, reflective people might take that as an opportunity to ponder whether they might want to change their approach. But I suspect it will not; it will decide this is an example of groupthink, and that a sycophantic hanger-on like me doesn’t have independent thoughts, but just jumps on Benson Bandwagons (TM).
It may well be someone from the Intersection, but I doubt it’s McCarthy. His style is – I know it sounds ridiculous – even more unhinged and illogical. TB’s a good bet, though.
Putrid useless twat? Quite apart from the sexism, the dripping, misplaced vitriol is disturbing.
<i>One commenter there yesterday called me “a useless, putrid twat” – and repeated it for emphasis. Yet they presume to lecture others on civility!
Now of course it will do a new post on your comment, and another on mine. If it somehow fails to notice, JJ Ramsey will rush to provide the links. JJ Ramsey spends a vast amount of time lecturing others on civility, yet he is content with people who call someone – anyone – a useless, putrid twat. Interesting, isn’t it?</i>
I find this kind of thinking as unsavory and brainless here as I did when I saw it over on YNH when that (those?) blogger (bloggers?) engaged in it. A blogger does not condone or accept something a commenter says simply by not responding to it and/or reprimanding commenters for it. YNH or JJ Ramsey or whoever isn’t “content” with the foul language of some other commenter just because they didn’t speak out against it, just like PZ isn’t automatically “content” with anything a commenter says on his blog, or as much as you, Ophelia, are “content” with everything said here as long as you don’t dignify it with a personalized reponse. That’s simply rubbish. I can understand your contempt for YNH, but there have got to be some ways to criticize that don’t involve you stooping to their same level of putrid intellectual dishonesty. Right?
Also, just to throw in something else that you surely won’t like, if YNH so worthless and disgusts you so much, just ignore it. Your continued comment crusade on it is like the little girl in the schoolyard who repeatedly denies that she likes little Jimmy but never ceases to flirt with him by poking him on the shoulder. If it’s a worthless waste of a blog, treat it as such.
Using the HTML tab would have been useful, I suppose. You get the idea…
Josh, well, it did a somewhat convincing job of appearing reasonable at first…but it seems to be losing its grip now.
Of course, I did goad it. I said unflattering things about it in those comments on Jerry’s post, but I did it without having the decency to link to it or even mention its name, so I won’t have helped its traffic much. That’s so unkind! It was having such a good time at first, getting comments from Greg Laden and…well and nobody else that I can recall, apart from me, but still, that must have been exciting. But now as it lapses into scatology and abuse-by-female-genitalia, its only comments are from Intersectionistas and the loyal JJ Ramsey. So sad.
I take it back, Ophelia. Based on what I’m reading here, you’re acting very much like the commenters over at YNH, and even like the blogger itself. Puerile tantrum-throwing engenders only more puerile tantrum-throwing, it seems.
Flying etc, yes but there’s a limit. You’re quite right that I don’t automatically agree with or endorse everything anyone says here, but you’re not right that that means there is no limit; there decidedly is a limit. I would not leave in place a comment calling anyone a useless, putrid twat; I would not leave in place a comment using any word for the female genitalia as a pejorative, just as I would not leave racial epithets. I would also not leave in place a comment that used the word “bitch” as a pejorative – I’ve also been called a reactionary bitch at that place.
Here’s the thing though. People who comment here don’t talk like that. Why? Well apparently I draw a better class of people here. Yes, that’s intentionally snobbish. But I’m serious. This site is not attractive to people with the kind of polluted mind that talks in terms of putrid twats. It just isn’t. That other one is. That’s indicative of something.
I’m very hard on some people – the pope, George Pitcher, people like that. I call them hard names. But I don’t call them putrid twats. There’s a limit.
“Your continued comment crusade” – my what? Two (or was it three?) comments make a crusade? Please.
Obviously I do ignore it 99% of the time – and then a couple of days ago I made two or three comments, and then a post. That’s not a crusade.
The little girl in the schoolyard – nice touch. Original; witty; and of course entirely free of sexism. Snort.
21 was in reply to 17, not 20.
Now as for 20.
Well I wouldn’t call it a tantrum, Flying etc; the tone is a good deal less heated than that on that other place. But even if one chooses to call it a tantrum – it is at least better written and better reasoned than the anonymous one. It’s also much shorter.
Oh and one more thing: this post, and for that matter my comments on Jerry’s post, are certainly not exclusively or even mostly about that blog. They really are about the broader issue. The broader issue really does interest me. That blog interests me a little, as a weird symptom of something or other, but only a little.
This is a topical discussion for me. Though I post under my real name I’ve been considering giving this up. I very rarely say anything which I would not wish to stand by, but in a way you’re putting yourself in a weak position, and unnecessarily, if some words you use may come back to haunt you for the rest of your life.
And not everyone will take the same view of your words as you do. Someone might take a decision that affects you, based on what you posted, and perhaps you’ll never know.
I dare say that famous people post to forums too, and always use pseudonyms.
Sigh. You’ve got a remarkably short sexism trigger, Ophelia, just as you did by accusing that blogger of sexism for using “flustered” as an adjective. I’m a woman and a rather outspoken one for women’s rights, at that, and I find that, along with your pinning of sexism on me here rather ridiculous. I apologize if I touched an exposed nerve somewhere, but it wasn’t my intent…although, judging from one of your previous comments, I won’t be surprised if you deem the most parsimonious explanation to be that I really intended to be sexist, that I’m really a burly, hairy male mysogynist who beats women for fun, and on top of that, I frequent The Intersection.
[abusive content deleted]
Flying etc, sure, but another way of looking at a short trigger is to regard it as heightened awareness. Another irregular verb – I have heightened awareness, you pay attention, she has a short trigger. I think it’s worth paying attention to buried, half-conscious, accidental sexism. I’ve been called a “little girl” before, and I do think it’s sexist – it’s the kind of thing people reach for all too readily when arguing with a woman. I don’t claim to be immune to that kind of thing myself, by the way.
I did comment there – or “stick [my] head in to whine” – at first, because as I said, the blog seemed at least somewhat reasonable at first, at least in the posts I read (which was only a few). I stopped, because it stopped seeming reasonable and because it got very personally truculent and inaccurate. Discussion in those circumstances is neither productive nor fun. To put it another way, I took a dislike to the place, and that’s why I stopped commenting there.
You object to my making a couple of comments at Jerry’s blog about anonymity and that blog (not that blog by itself) – yet that blog does nothing but talk about other blogs. It never talks directly to me, by commenting here, but it gossips about this place and other blogs incessantly; that is all it does. Why is my commenting at Jerry’s place a couple of times so contemptible?
Scatology? What scatology? The scatology is all theirs. I haven’t done any shit-throwing, either. Tell the truth, or I’ll be editing your comments. Criticize all you like, but don’t tell whoppers.
Okay, Flying etc, I see you’ve left a comment at that blog saying that I’m telling lies about it. That itself is a lie. You’re out of here.
“Flying etc, sure, but another way of looking at a short trigger is to regard it as heightened awareness.”
I stood up against the “twat” wording over on YNH, Ophelia, because it was over the top. I don’t agree with you on it being full-on sexism and view it rather as just stupidity, although you do have an argument with that instance. BUT…I’m afraid that viewing the use of the word “flustered” as justification to elevate one to the level of a “sexist jerk” could be considered quite the evidence of having a short trigger. It might be evidence of poor word choice on the part of YNH, sure, or at least thinking with half a brain. But going whole-hog to “sexist jerk?” If you’re in the business of editing misleading statements, perhaps it might do some good to edit yourself? I will admit, however, that “heightened awareness” is quite a good euphemism for being quick to cry victim to sexism when sexism is likely not a factor. Euphemisms are excellent for explaining away foolishness like that.
(Just to comfort you, this will be my first and only post here. I don’t want to stick around too long if I run the risk of being banned or edited just because my word choice offends the fragile sensibilities of someone with “heightened awareness.” You seem to be quite the closet Be Quieter. )
Patricia, due credit for your stance on the “putrid twat” – not just twat, let me remind you, but putrid twat – comment.
You don’t run the risk of being banned or edited for the reasons you suggest, but if you accuse me of lying, you do. Flying whatsit said I was lying. By the way I don’t have “fragile sensibilities,” and that kind of stupid jeering is why I gave up on trying to comment at that blog.
You’re right that “flustered” is nowhere near as obvious as putrid twat, and you’re also right that I was irritable about it. I could have explained in a level tone what was arguably sexist about it. It was rather like accusing me of having “fragile sensibilities” – it took an argument I had made and portrayed it as an emotional outburst. I do think this is something that is done to women way more than it is to men. There was an occasion once when “Science and Spirit” (a Templeton site) reported on some inter-blogging between Jerry Coyne and I think PZ Myers and one other guy, maybe Russell Blackford, and me – Jerry said, PZ argued, Russell claimed, and I had hysterics. In fact my tone was no more excited than any of theirs, and perhaps less so. That incident probably primed me to react to “flustered”. But really – if you argue something on a blog, do you actually like being called “flustered” when you thought you were just arguing something? Do you really not find that even slightly insulting? If you don’t, we differ, that’s all. We could in theory have an interesting discussion about it, but since I don’t like the scorn you lavish on me, we probably won’t. George Pitcher would probably not like to have a discussion with me, either, because I have immense scorn for him, which I have put on the record. I think your reasons for scorn are a shade less compelling than mine are.
Heightened awareness isn’t a euphemism and it isn’t an attempt to avoid admitting the possibility of error. I think and I have thought for decades that a lot of sexism goes under the radar and does all the more harm because it does. That’s not exclusive to me, by the way, to put it mildly. It’s also not about “crying victim.”
We quite likely agree on much more than you think, but either you’ve picked up the tone of that blog or it’s naturally yours; either way, I don’t like it, so the prospects are not good.
I’ll tell you this much though. One huge problem with that blog is that its accusations are so wild and all over the place. I don’t do that. I quote people, and address what I have quoted them saying. I don’t just barf out long essays about what’s lurking in my head about other people. I am, in short, more fair than that blog. I’m frequently harsh, but I don’t just make up shit.
Fantastic post. If the anonymous commenters and/or bloggers who toss off insults/personal attacks/slander/nastiness were forced into non-anonymity, it’s highly unlikely that most of them would be willing to stand behind what they said while anonymous. And that’s flat-out cowardly.
That really nails it. It’s about credibility and accountability, and you inevitably lose some of each when you operate anonymously.
It might, but then it might not, when you know the history of the issue (locally). There are two big triggers around these parts: sexism, and Shut Up Accommodationism. No, you can’t be expected to know the whole sordid history of those conversations unless you’ve been following them, but please trust me that there is a history, and the reactions are not out of the blue:
1. The “be quiet, be nice” contingent, as exemplified by the Matt Nisbetts, Chris Mooneys, and Michael Ruses of the world has been so vociferously unfair, so ridiculously judgmental and shushy, that the whole conversation has been tainted. Those of us whom you might characterize as outspoken and uncompromising have been so continually chastised, mischaracterized, and vilified by those who simply don’t like confrontation (and are willing to actually lie about our positions to make their point) we have no patience for it anymore. It’s been astonishing to watch people who claim to value the things we do – rationality, government neutrality on religion – spend more time slapping us around for not being sufficiently deferential (read: meek and non-committal) than they spend criticizing the people who are actually harming the secular body politic.
There are legitimate discussions to be had about when a confrontational approach is productive, and when a more oblique approach is better. But guess what – that train has left the station. Plain-spoken people have put up with so much shit from, frankly, oily political types like Chris Mooney (and YNH) that we’re under no obligation to put up with it. The onus is on the self-styled diplomats to cut the crap and acknowledge that there may be (gasp!) a time when candor is called for. Until they do, they’re going to get no traction from these parts. Most of us feel justifiably sold down the river by alleged allies. Stop pissing and moaning about how we’re “not helping” – without acknowledging that candid criticism has a place – unless you want to be seen as Uncle Toms.
2. There’s a boatload of sexist crap flung about, even in the “higher” echelons of the blogosphere. More than I knew – and more than I wanted to admit to, even after I saw it – before Ophelia started systematically pointing it out. To my shame, I didn’t pick up on how frequently sexist, gendered insults were used by people who should have known better, and who’d blanch at the idea of being sexist themselves. It’s firmly embedded in the idioms even well-meaning people use (and it’s a kissing cousin to homophobia).
Bottomline: if you haven’t been around for the past few years of conversational wrangling on these issues, you probably can’t be expected to understand why they provoke the push-back they do. But please understand – and please acknowledge – there’s a reason for this push-back. It’s legitimate.
To repeat my post at Jerry’s blog – the position that anonymous bloggers are somehow less good is nothing but ad hominem – you are attacking the person (he’s not using his real name) rather than the arguments presented. I don’t know why that’s so hard to spot – I see people who would soon call fallacious reasoning on a pseudo scientist or a religious believer, happily relying on one of the best known fallacies in the book. Adding your real name to a blog does not make what you wrote any better, or even even slightly different. And indeed some blogs written under pseudonyms (eg Effect Measure, Respectful Insolence) have an exceptional record of serious and weighty blogging.
Furthermore, if someone writes slander, attacking decent people without good reason, using continuous foul language or whatever as was suggested, this would still be slander and poor blogging even if those people added their real names to their blogs. Adding a name does not somehow make their writing better or not slander any more. (If you don’t believe me, just google Graeme Bird – assuming that is his real name.)
And that brings me to another thing. You do realize, don’t you, we are on the internet where no one knows who anyone is (with a few exceptions of public figures, or professors like Jerry of PZ)? If I wrote under a name – let’s say James Gilroy of San Francisco – how the hell would you know if that was my real name or not? According to your logic though, I would be a better person, a blogger worth reading or whatever. But it isn’t my real name. And you wouldn’t know. Of course, if I had a blog under the name James Gilroy of San Francisco, and after five years had many regular readers, and if I then went off on some mad profanity laden tirade against some innocent person – wouldn’t my regular readers start to think, ‘christ it looks like James Gilroy has lost it; maybe I’ll stop reading his blog.’ Well guess what, if I do that under my pseudonym, I’ll get the exact same effect.
And it isn’t even true that all journalists publish under their names. The Economist never publishes its columns under the names of its journalists. Why? Because:
Precisely. And that is the original reason I took my name off my blog. ‘Skeptico’ is more catchy anyway. It’s not the only reason. My blogging world and my business world are separate – others have commented on this above, especially noting that anti-religious views are not popular in the world where we live when we’re not blogging. Regardless of the reasons, the argument that anonymous (really pseudonymous) bloggers can be ignored is just fallacious reasoning.
I have to agree with Skeptico here. By and large, people writing under their real names are just as anonymous to me online as if they were writing under pseudonyms or no names at all. Their name is just a convenient handle on which I can hang my impression of them based on their writing. It makes no difference to me if it’s a True Name, a pseudonym, or (in the case of people with their own blogs who write unsigned posts) the name of their blog. What they write is who they are. If what they write is all shit-flinging and ankle-biting, they’re no better for attaching their real name to it.
I don’t think I can agree that [Someone Random] lacks an important motivation that the rest of us have for not doing things like lying or lapsing into scatalogical frenzies, either. Is the motivation that by posting under your real name, you can suffer real world consequences for what you write? One subpoena to your ISP, and that’s the case for anonymous bloggers, too, so I’m not seeing that as a huge motivator.
My view may be colored by the fact that I’ve been participating in pseudonymous communities for over half my life. There have been people I considered friends whose legal names I didn’t know for years, and there are still people who identify me primarily by one of my pseudonyms. I recently met some people I like and respect who I’ve known through their online writing for years—if they told me their legal names at the time, I don’t remember them. And I don’t really need to, because in that community, their legal name isn’t their real name.
I’m reminded of a scene in Terry Pratchett’s Men At Arms:
On the pseudonymous community I’m most active in now, I have more to lose by posting ankle-biting attacks under my pseudonym than if I were to create a new account under my real name and post using that. My pseudonym is who I am there; if I damage its reputation by being a shit, I have to start all over building a new reputation with a new pseudonym, and I’m somewhat attached to my current one, since I’ve had it for a decade. That’s a somewhat common phenomenon there, actually—people flame out and come back with new pseudonyms. Sometimes they genuinely value the tone of the community enough that, under their new identity, they are model citizens. And sometimes they revert to their old behavior and are quickly outed as being a new account of that asshole who we thought left a while back. The point, though, is that it’s not who they are that matters, but what they say.
In your workplace and school examples, the problem isn’t that the nasty messages are anonymous (although I admit that’s a problem for whoever has to enforce workplace/school policy)–it’s that the anonymous messages are nasty.
I am of two minds on this. On the one hand I have a blog going where I say what I say using my own name – and I am not exactly gentle when I say it.
On the other, when I blogged anonymously for a period I took care to make sure I was actually a lot nicer than I am now. Adding my name to the experience seems to have opened the floodgates as it were.
My mind flew to exactly the bloggers Skeptico mentioned (though I believe Orac was ‘outed’ as some point by some obstreperous excrecence or other, most likely over the thiomersal debate). Also to Dr Isis, whose blog I don’t read regularly but who seems to have earned herself a pretty decent rep despite her passionate psudonymity.
As to credibility… It may be that a Name who posts or blogs openly can benefit from a greater measure of reader confidence – I’ll pay more attention to the claims of a familiar major scientist, say, than to the assertions of someone posting randomly as CrapWidget or whatever – but the same doesn’t go for Joe Blow from Kenuckety, Ohio, who has no reputation to trade off anyway. I can only judge Joe Blow and CrapWidget by their content; essentially they are both equally anonymous to me.
Skeptico,
You put almost all your claims too strongly – you restate what I’ve said by stripping out all the qualifications and you make few qualifications yourself.
For instance: I am not “attacking” the person rather than the argument, I’m making one observation about one tactic in one post, which is not to the exclusion of addressing the argument. I didn’t say that adding your real name to a blog does make it better (but then again it’s odd to consider it “adding,” as if anonymity were the obvious default position). Yes some pseudonymous blogs are excellent – but I never said it was impossible for a pseudonymous blog to be any good.
My point isn’t that a real name makes slander good, it’s that anonymity makes slander easier. With real names the embarrassment factor, if nothing else, would kick in. Nameless people are free to say things that they would not like their friends and relations (to say nothing of employers and co-workers) to know they had said. The issue is one of motivation. Being identifiable is a very strong motivation not to do shameful things – that’s how shame works.
I do realize we’re on the internet, but that isn’t really where no one knows who anyone is, because there is always the possibility of anyone finding out – which is one reason people offer for being anonymous: so that potential employers won’t be able to find out what they’ve been writing on the internet. No, I didn’t say a person with a name “would be a better person, a blogger worth reading or whatever” – my claim is narrower and more specific than that.
And the exceptions are more than a few. No wait, maybe that’s wrong – maybe they’re not few, maybe it’s just that they’re the ones I read. Well they are. I prefer to read people I know are not just some nerd in a garage. I’m a nerd in a garage myself, but I prefer to read people who aren’t. Most unfair, but there you go.
Yes quite right about the blog that “after five years had many regular readers” – but what of blogs that after six weeks have only a few regular readers? They don’t have the motivation that you cite, and they also don’t have the motivation that I cite – the one of being known as vituperative dishonest ranters by their real life friends and relations. If all anonymous blogs could start out with five years’ worth of reputations to protect, that would make a difference, but I’m sure you see that that is not possible.
I agree, more or less, that “what is written is more important than who writes it,” but I don’t agree that that means who writes it is not important at all, or that that is a reason to write anonymously, or that it is of no interest who writes the columns in the Economist.
I’ve already said that wanting freedom to express unpopular views is a good reason for anonymity, so telling me that doesn’t change anything. I haven’t made an “argument that anonymous (really pseudonymous) bloggers can be ignored.”
Josh L,
Yes, but most of what you say depends on longevity. I could add that to my view – as I suppose I did by taking Skeptico’s point about the five year blog. Agreed: a pseudonym over time builds up a reputation which then becomes a motivation for not being a shit. But the over time part is important. I used a pseudonym when I first started blathering on the internet – “Kassandra” – for no particular reason really, just shyness or something – and I blathered so copiously that I probably developed a motivation to protect the brand, so to speak, quite quickly. But then the same motivation, more or less, prompted me to revert to my real name quite soon.
So – yes – fair enough; you and Skeptico are right that a brand (a pseudonym) can eventually work the way a real name does…up to a point. Only up to a point though, because the pseudonym can still hide one’s real identity. The bit about the subpoena to your ISP – I’m not sure all bloggers are really sharply aware of that! And my guess is that some who are aware of it are also aware that people aren’t going to subpoena them just for typical internet rudeness – so the bar is set pretty high. Embarrassment is a much lower bar.
Actually, Ophelia, I’d say a pseudonym (as opposed to truly anonymous) is exactly equivalent to a real name for this purpose. “Ophelia Benson” may sound a little more like a real name than, say, “Awesome Starkiller” – but unless you have some reputation attached to that name outside the Internet that is readily accessible (for instance, PZ or Phil Plait – and even those two are corner cases to some extent), it is not at all obvious that “Awesome Starkiller” isn’t going to be the more interesting blogger, all else being equal.
This is true outside the Internet as well of course. I don’t happen to know of any published author using the pseudonym “Awesome Starkiller”, but it is hardly rare for authors (even well known authors) to create pseudonyms for their works. Madonna isn’t her birth name. Heck – James Randi wasn’t born with that name either.
A new entry to the blogosphere always has an anonymous author, whether they use their real name or a pseudonym, simply because anonymous (at its most basic) means “unknown”.
Gazza (or GAZZA if you prefer),
Yes but what are we talking about? Which purpose? What is interesting is one thing, and what is reliable is another; also, what is interesting is one subject and motivation to behave decently is another.
Not true that a new blog always has an anonymous author; Jerry Coyne’s didn’t, for instance, nor did Julia Sweeny’s. But anyway that isn’t relevant to most of what I’m talking about – the motivation for not lying or slandering, and the general reliability.
No name, by itself, whether invented or real, is a reason to read a new blog, but then I never said it was.
I haven’t made an “argument that anonymous (really pseudonymous) bloggers can be ignored.”
You did say: you will be taken considerably less seriously than you would be if you did take responsibility for your work. You will also be read less. I’m just not very interested in what Someone Random has to say. I can see how someone might read that as you making an argument that anonymous bloggers can be ignored, but it looks like perhaps you’re just saying that you will tend to ignore them, which isn’t the same thing. By the same token, neither is the fact of your ignoring something evidence that the thing is ignored generally—I don’t know what the traffic stats are for pseudonymous vs anonymous vs named blogs in aggregate, but I’d be willing to bet there’s very little correlation.
As for whether anonymity makes slander easier, well, I think that’s pretty well demonstrated. But what of it? Are we talking about bloggers, or commenters? Bloggers have a motivation besides what their friends and relatives think of them — they also want an audience. If they don’t care what kind of audience they get, then they’re free to bring the slander and lies and scatology, and their audience will self-select into the kind of person who likes that sort of thing. They clearly aren’t writing for readers like you, and you aren’t reading them, so who cares what they say (or fail to prohibit their commenters from saying)?
I’m not sure what my point was any more. Or yours or Jerry Coyne’s, for that matter. It seems to boil down to “don’t be an asshole”, which doesn’t really need to be wrapped in a discussion of anonymity, does it?
Or, for a specific example, YNH. Before, I didn’t read it because I’d never heard of it. Now, I don’t read it because it just isn’t very good. The anonymity doesn’t really figure into it, I guess except in that anonymity has helped enable the authors of YNH to write a kind of crappy blog. Hrm. I guess I need to think more about whether the anonymity is a necessary condition for that or not.
I did move from a generalization to an “I’m not very interested,” which is somewhat vague…but I think the paragraph as a whole is more clearly a qualified generalization that then moves into how I react, by way of example. But you’re right – the fact that I’m not as interested doesn’t mean that no one is! You’re also right that “You will also be read less” was too assertive. I don’t know that. I was extrapolating from self. I suspect that it might be true, for the same kind of reason that first books have an uphill battle, but suspecting isn’t knowing.
Who cares, what was my point…heh…I forget. No, really, it was just a musing on ethics – which wasn’t meant to say anonymous blogging makes people assholes. On the other hand I do think that if you’re going to undertake to do a lot of shall we say muckraking blogging – of the kind I do, for one – naming names, and saying critical things – it’s better to put your name to it. It’s fairer.
Quite – I also don’t read it because it just isn’t very good. (I first heard of it via the new trackback here on this new site which I wouldn’t have been able to do before!) But it did at first seem to be good at least in parts (I’ve read only a few posts): at least thoughtful if not well-written. I do think that some of the not very good-ness now is enabled or made easier by anonymity – I just think the blogger[s] would be embarrassed to say some of the more wild things under their real names.
Who knows – maybe they secretly hope to meet Jerry Coyne some day.
I suppose it’s partly a level playing field thing. There is a price to pay for criticizing real people, and it’s higher if you do it in your own name. I’ve had people comment here after I’ve said harsh things about them, and it can be damned embarrassing. I wouldn’t be embarrassed if George Pitcher came along and knocked on my door, because I think he behaved simply appallingly, and I would have little trouble telling him so to his face. But other people are much more iffy. I’ve had email exchanges with some, and comment exchanges with others. One even commissions me to write stuff! Andrew Brown at Comment is Free. But there is always the risk that people will shout back, so I suppose this is partly just saying that I think people should accept that risk if they want to shout, or at least keep in mind that they are anonymous and therefore should be careful not to use the anonymity unfairly. In any case, not all bloggers or other internetters want to shout.
Best of all is to use your real name, and then also post under another identity to describe your own contributions as “fascinating” and “uplifting”!
I wonder whether there maybe ought to be a sort of expiry date for comments/contributions though. Imagine you do something dumb at a party. You wouldn’t wish to be reminded of that for the rest of your life. IRL, it would just get forgotten.
Ha! Yes, Orlando Figes has given me many good ideas.
You do something dumb at a party and it gets forgotten?! What planet is that? As far as I know dumb things done at parties get remembered and laughed at forever!