Recent articles in the press (for example the NY Times and CNN) have pointed to a trend in big news media web sites pulling the plug on anonymous postings. They point to on-line comments that devolve into flame wars, bigoted rants and generally trashy behavior, toward the (named) writer of the article and towards other posters. The current wisdom is that the veil of anonymity encourages the worst on-line behavior. Forcing posters to register, and therefore identify themselves (at least to the site administrators), will douse the flames.
First let me say that I couldn’t agree more with this reasoning and I applaud and support this trend.
What’s at stake here are two public goods that both have merit: first, the encouragement of free speech without the fear of recrimination (the right to be anonymous). Second, the encouragement of free speech without the fear of intimidation (the right to engage in civil discourse and not be shouted down by a tirade of profanity and hate-speech). I believe that the latter must be protected, even at the expense of the former.
I recently read the book You Are Not a Gadget by Jaron Lanier. I recommend this book very highly, by the way. He makes an overwhelming case against anonymous web-speech, citing the almost inevitable descent into trash talk and worse. I agree with Lanier that this is nothing short of cyber-bullying (at best) and, on some occasions, criminal verbal assault. Suicides have resulted by those subjected to web mob behavior, as well as many traumas and psychological damage as a result of attacks from the hive mind.
I’m not overstating the issue here. Flaming on news sites and cyber-bullying on social networks has a true chilling effect, making the civil among us think twice before posting, thus leaving the field to the flamers. I know that more than once I myself have bailed out of a discussion thread as soon as things started to turn ugly, as they almost always do.
I think methods to link real identities to their posts, like that being instituted at the Huffington Post, will crowd out the trolls and cyber bullies, and make everyone accountable for their words. The freedom of speech of the vast majority depends on enforcing the rule of civility on everyone.
4 comments:
I agree with you - we need to protect the speech of both the bullier and the bullied, but make the bullier accountable for their words as well. Even in moderated web sites like a couple i post to end up with their share of people pushing the limits of civil discourse.
Anonymity has its place, for example in the case of journalists' unnamed sources.
However, I completely agree that hiding behind anonymity in order to bully or defame should no longer be tolerated. Forcing a poster to identify him/herself should also help people think before they write and post a comment. It may have the effect of elevating the level of discourse (is there still such a thing?) on the web.
Victoria
The trust that was once the part of the network between the scientists and the military seems to be non-existent in the public domain.
Not having an online identity as an author makes the reader "listen" to the argument without having bias against the author. However, anonymity doesn't allow the reader to use their own critical thinking skills to question the accuracy of the story.
Eugene Kaspersky's idea about an "Internet passport" is an intriguing idea but it would be difficult to implement, aside from the technology.
This looks like focused on the blogs and discussion boards... and I agree that there is no reason for anonymity if you want to comment.
If one has a genuine thought process they want to share, why should it be anonymous?
I had my share of headaches with anonymous posts on my blogs from spammers (mostly)... that I lost interest in blogging.
The idea of a blog or discussion board is to share a thought and engage others in the conversation, and I see no need to support for anonymity.
To extend this, I also think that anonymity shouldn't apply to the author either. Actually, author's identification adds credibility to the thought process, without the author's identification it can lead to instigation, not a meaningful conversation.
Post a Comment