Regular readers know how I feel about anonymity in blog comment sections. I have tried to foster a community in which individuals recognize they should not fear putting their names to their public exercise of their First Amendment rights.
That's easy for me to say. I've chosen the dim limelight of the South Dakota blogosphere. My public speech has brought me pleasure and occasional profit (thanks for filling that tip jar!) that far outweigh the costs of attaching my name to sometimes controversial statements.
Not everyone has the privilege of such easy cost-benefit calculus:
The people who most heavily rely on pseudonyms in online spaces are those who are most marginalized by systems of power. "Real names" policies aren't empowering; they're an authoritarian assertion of power over vulnerable people. These ideas and issues aren't new (and I've even talked about this before), but what is new is that marginalized people are banding together and speaking out loudly. And thank goodness [danah boyd, "'Real Names' Policies Are an Abuse of Power," apophenia, 2011.08.04].
An integral part of my blog mission is to give voice to those who don't have power. I think I'm empowering people by encouraging them to speak by name. boyd thinks I marginalize vulnerable people who do not share either my enjoyment of notoriety or, more importantly, my position of privilege (white, male, educated). boyd thus accuses me of the same authoritarian ill at which I so quixotically tilt in Madison's tiddlywink autocracy and South Dakota's one-party regime.
I regularly review my comment nymity policy. I've given leeway to some commenters whose names I recognize but who don't share their IDs with everyone else. And I take boyd's words to heart.
Am I shutting out important voices by requiring names from commenters? Should I re-open the comment section to anonymous speakers?
And if I were to change my policy, what harm would that do to the many friends and neighbors who have taken up my challenge and bravely put their names to their words? Should I allow them to retract all of their named comments or demand that I edit their names from two-plus years of comments to allow them the same protection from retaliation as new anonymi?
I'm not rushing to change the policy, but I welcome all comments on this topic. And for now, on this post, I will permit anonymi to submit their thoughts as well. Let's see what you think....
Further Reading:
- "Nymity:Amity :: Anonymity:Enmity?"—One of my first meditations on the topic after implementing the nymity policy in May, 2009, including links to many related articles.
- "Should You Be You?"—TPM's Josh Marshall wonders many of the same things.
- "Randi Zuckerberg Runs in the Wrong Direction on Pseudonymity Online"—The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Eva Galperin says Facebook thinks anonymity should disappear completely. Should the fact that Facebook wants something make me want the opposite?
Hey...so sorry couldn't miss the big birthday celebration. I hope it was fantastic.
Benjamin Franklin. Enough ought be said. Franklin and many founders used pseudonyms to protect themselves and those around them from retribution from political and corporate power. The Federalist Papers were 85 essays published via pseudonym by founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. This is the premier source consulted for the original meaning of the US Constitution for publication of the essays argued for adoption of the Constitution.
Just as there are small minds and bores among those using pseudonyms, so are there small minded who have or will use the thoughts and comments posted for retribution. Silencing all use of pseudonyms will silent a significant contribution to social discourse.
http://www.mindflash.com/blog/2011/08/social-screening-how-companies-are-using-social-media-to-hire-fire-employees/
This entire discussion and issue would be unnecessary if our high school civics, history, and English (Samuel Clemens, among other writers) education were not so poor.
This is a situation where there is no perfect answer. The problem with total anonymity is that corporations now routinely hire PR people to do social media. Cory, you blog on topics involving corporations, so corporate reps are going to want to respond to your posts. That's great, but we need those people to identify themselves when they comment. I think allowing those corporate reps to be anonymous is a worse evil than some people not participating because they don't want to identify themselves.
IIRC, in the last week there was a comment that other commenters challenged as possibly coming from someone who worked for an involved company. The person was using only one name, but you knew who that person was. That was good enough for me - I knew you could step in if needed.
Finally, people who have inside information that they can't post online under their names are free to email you on the side or find other ways to contact you and let you know.
Is it good/polite/right to sign your name to something? Absolutely, but as Mr. Kelley points out, one of the greatest works of writing that our country has ever seen (The Federalist Papers) was written by three men who didn't sign their names.
What is more important, the name, or the idea being discussed?
People should sign first and last name-always. Reaching back 250 years to cite Franklin and others doesn't cut it. I still don't like people here in this blog using nick names-Cory may know them but we don't. Please use first and last name always.
I've heard lots of anonymi cite the Federalist Papers. I've seen very few anonymi rise to level of importance or quality of the Federalist Papers.
Anonymous posts are more honest. With that came some pretty mean and unthinking posts, but it's also easy to edit out the meaning if forced to be too cautious. So many are just never going to post with their full name. If the policy encouraged anonymous, but was firm about uncivil posts being deleted, we would learn more from all the additional comments.
Be fair. Either allow everyone to use anonymity if they prefer (without you referring to them by name even though they post anonymously), or only allow posts with the whole name. As stated above, you might know them, the rest of those discussing do not. Some of us have entered the brave new world of using our own names, and it's only fair that the same policy be used for all.
As others have pointed out, there's a difference between being anonymous and pseudonymous. People posting under pseudonyms can sometimes be more recognizable than when using their real name. For example, how many John Smiths are there in the world, as opposed to someone posting under the pseudonym "WhirlyGirl1"? As long as pseudonyms are unique and reserved for a single user, it provides accountability for the poster, while preserving some privacy for them. That is, you can know from previous posts that "WhirlyGirl1" is sensible and worth reading, and that s/he has integrity. Or, conversely, you can know that s/he is a hack or a troll and not worth taking seriously.
Plenty of people prefer to post pseudonymously because they don't want every comment they made--regardless of how polite it is--archived for all time, searchable by any potential employer or person with an axe to grind against them. Some people work in places where their honest political views could get them in trouble. Some people's spouses could be embarrassed or harmed in their workplace by their comments, no matter how polite and well-reasoned they are. Some people live in communities where they don't feel free to express their ideas openly.
Sure, not everybody who posts pseudonymously is James Madison. However, forcing everyone to use their "real name" (assuming it can be accurately verified in the first place) doesn't make the discussion any better. It just ensures that the people who aren't able to post under their real names, or who are uncomfortable doing so, will be excluded from the conversation. If that's how people want to run their blogs, that's their business. However, it doesn't improve the discussion; it only ensures that a smaller clique of people comment: those who are comfortable and secure publishing their opinions online using their real-life names, and/or people whose opinions reinforce the acceptable status quo.
"doesn't improve the discussion; it only ensures a smaller clique..."—that's a strong argument for change, Chris!
But even if it is a smaller clique than the potentail commenter pool, Linda and others have taken a chance I appreciate. They have paid that price of admission and put their names on the line. Even if I implemented a new, looser comment policy fairly to all comers, would I still be doing an unavoidable unfairness to those who have played by these rules and staked their names for the last couple years?
I understand what you're saying, Cory, about people who posted initially using their full names, and might not want to do so if that were the policy now. I don't know what the solution is. You could retroactively scrub previous posts for people who want their names removed, or change them to the person's new pseudonym (though I imagine that's a lot of work). Unfortunately, the posts might still be out there in the ether of Teh Internets, regardless of what you do. Someone, somewhere, probably has cached copies of this and every other website.
That said, I think it would be fair and gallant of you to offer people the option of switching to a pseudonym if they wanted. Nobody should get locked forever into the way they chose initially. (Believe me, on some old sites I was on, I signed up with a pseudonym that seemed good at the time, but later was just lame and annoying--yet I was forever locked into it if I wanted to continue posting on that site. Oh well. Even pseudonyms come with problems. :) )
I believe I fall in the following categories.
"Plenty of people prefer to post pseudonymously because they don’t want every comment they made–regardless of how polite it is–archived for all time, searchable by any potential employer or person with an axe to grind against them. Some people work in places where their honest political views could get them in trouble. Some people’s spouses could be embarrassed or harmed in their workplace by their comments, no matter how polite and well-reasoned they are. Some people live in communities where they don’t feel free to express their ideas openly."
I know that I do not rise to Madison's, Hamilton's, and Jay's level or even get close, but I enjoy leaving a random comment. I try to avoid personal attacks, but I'm snarky at times. Without the plausible denial that I have with Cory knowing my name but not having to give it in full, I probably would not comment.
It's your blog, Cory. Do it however you please.
My viewpoint for what it is worth. If you believe in something so strongly that you are willing to go to a public place (the internet) and make a statement then I believe you should sign your name to it.
I understand the fear of repercussions, then censor yourself. Don't say something incriminating in a public forum. Common sense obviously needs to be used here. No one is making anyone get on the internet and argue life, politics, sports or anything, but if you are willing to argue with me (who always uses his name) then be willing to let me know who I am arguing with.
The comment section on the Press and Dakotan is ripe with internet warriors too afraid to use their real names for fear of consumer backlash and employer backlash. If you are afraid than keep quiet.
Have the bravery and heart to speak up as yourself and be heard.
That is my feeling at least.
While I agree with Shane (in theory), we have a culture of reserve. Considering the depth of readers, the handful who regularly comment clearly can't be sharing the most valuable information/ideas. They're just comfortable for some reason: Retired, self employed, etc. Anonymous encourages more posts, but still allows a person to use their John Hancock.
From my perspective, it's not everyone's goal to leave comments on blogs solely to argue with someone. Some people might want to make what they feel is a pertinent comment on an issue, and leave it at that, without getting into an argument. Some people might have specific insights that they feel are relevant to a topic or discussion, which they couldn't share if their identity was known. Granted, I presume most blogs don't have a huge number of whistleblowers from TransCanada or other corporations, but denying people pseudonymity will guarantee that you have none.
Again, it's Cory's blog, and he can do whatever he wants. It's all fine as far as I'm concerned. I only point out that not everybody has the luxury or comfort level to be able to post under their own names. Personally, if it's (supposed) real names only, then I won't post. Not that that's a great loss to anybody; I'm just stating a fact. While the number of people who no longer post might be relatively insignificant and of little consequence to the overall blog discussion, it underscores the point I made earlier: If you require everyone to post under their full real name, thus carving every fleeting post in stone and making it searchable in the age of Google, then you're going to winnow out a number of commenters.
Maybe that's a good thing. Any number of blogs might want to specialize and have only a select group of people commenting, such as those who either fear no repercussions for anything they post, or don't currently see an instance where their posts could be dredged up and used against them. That's fine. Again, I'm just noting the foreseeable result such a policy would have on a blog's demographics.
Maybe by signing your name, you will become more thoughtful before you post.
Why would signing one's name necessarily make one more thoughtful?
Also, do we know that a person is signing his/her real name, or is just making up a real-sounding name? What about people with real names from other ethnicities, like "Farhad Manjoo"? It's not likely any of us know this person, or even know his/her gender, even though it's a real name. None of us knows where he/she lives. None of us interacts with him/her in a "real world" setting. Would knowing that "Farhad Manjoo" is commenting on the blog contribute anything to the discussion? I ask seriously: What conceivable difference does it make to the discussion if someone who is really named Farhad Manjoo is participating, or if that same person is participating under pseudonym "FM123"?
Bill, you're right: it is my blog, and I can do whatever I want. But does that negate danah boyd's critique? Doesn't "I can do whatever I want" reek of authoritarianism? Or does boyd fail distinguish my personal citizen journalism/civic multilogue website from larger institutions that exert real power?
Interesting perspectives all around so far -- keep 'em comin'!
What if the topic of a blog post is gay/lesbian issues? What if a gay person in Box Elder or Redfield or Howard wants to post a very relevant comment on the topic, but posting under her real name could mean real repercussions? South Dakota allows employers to fire people for being gay. Gay people in some areas might very well fear being the targets of abuse or harrassment if people knew they were gay. Should those people just "suck it up" and out themselves on the blog, merely to offer a pertinent comment on the issue? Or should they just keep their mouths shut?
"Anonymous posts are more honest. With that came some pretty mean and unthinking posts, but it’s also easy to edit out the meaning if forced to be too cautious. So many are just never going to post with their full name. If the policy encouraged anonymous, but was firm about uncivil posts being deleted, we would learn more from all the additional comments."
This is an assertion with little fact from what I have seen in years of posting in forums and blogs.
At my blog, I have received some comments by e-mail with information I could not confirm in any way, but which if incorrect were likely libelous. I could not publish the information even if it fit in with my worst assumptions. I suspect that more garbage comes in the form of anonymous or psuedonomous? posts that pearls of wisdom.
Those who wish to post anonymously should set up their own blogs via some anonymous system and post everything with anonymous on it. Then we can see how wonderful anonymous posts are. I haven't seen any evidence yet.
A large mass of people unwilling to risk getting a nasty comment on their ideas is a danger since their silence generates the impression that the blather we get from our politicians and officials must be accurate and sensible.
See the propaganda for squandering money in Sioux Falls on an events center for an example. Events centers suck money out of Sioux Falls and South Dakota whenever big names or events come in. Collect their fees and leave with all the money that night or the next day.
Small event centers with local entertainment or events would do more for the community and the state. You aren't hearing anything like this from the self-serving officials and sports team owners, etc in Sioux Falls and KELO isn't asking them tough questions.
I would guess a lot of people read this blog for the comments (just like they read any blog).
Your site is GREAT because you post lots of topics and this site never hits a low period of comments.
I do think if you wanted to take your blog to the next step in popularity you should encourage the war college like posting. you might regulate it more closely than the DWC does if commenters start getting mean towards someone.
Comments increase readership and if people can comment anonymously they will comment a lot more frequantly.
So I would encourage you to allow it. (I think the RCJ Blogmore talked about this also and I'm of the opinion I don't care it just makes reading the blogs more fun.)
More comments the better...
More comments = more gossip = more popular = win for Madvilletimes.
Politics is opinion and gossip. Let people gossip and the more comments the better!
People often cite the Federalist Papers, Ben Franklin, and the British coffee house papers as precedents for pseudonymity or anonymity. The practice had little to do with hiding identities and more to do with the literary conventions of the time. The Founders certainly knew who the authors of the Federalist Papers were. And most readers knew what was written by Franklin when he became prominent. Some of his journalistic observations, such as his chronicles of town drunks, would be considered libelous today, but the objects of ridicule and scorn had few legal avenues to sue for damages. People knew he was the author of the scathing satires, which is why he became known as the "most dangerous man in America." Abe Lincoln wrote anonymously, but the object of his ridicule knew exactly where to issue the challenge to a duel.
The literary convention of the time made it bad manners and bad form to refer to oneself in the first person. It was regarded as indulging in terribly offensive egotism. Recall how Thoreau and Whitman were regarded as uttering "barbaric yawp" for referring directly to themselves.
In any formal rhetorical writing, it was considered bad form until recently to make a first person reference to oneself. But in academic writing it was found that the old conventions conferred a general, third person authority on opinions and conclusions that were solely the authors. Now we expect writers to take the responsibility of ownership for their own thought and opinion.
.
Another part of the old convention is based upon the same premise contained in the rules of order by which formal debate is conducted in deliberative bodies, such as the U.S. Senate. If followed, the convention is that one only addresses the chair, not those on the floor who hold opposing opinions. Thus one is restrained to criticize only the thoughts and expressions presented, not the personalities. This keeps the debate focused on the issues.
Those are largely the rationale behind the old conventions of anonymity and pseudonymity.
[CAH: David, have I mentioned how much I appreciate how much you know?]
I think it has to do with what you want your blog to be, Cory. Your space. Your virtual house. Whatever happens here reflects on you. Just as in your home. This is your virtual space. How do you want it? I think that's really all there is to it my brother. That said, there are good reasons some very great posters wish to remain anonymous. But you may have to take the bitter with the sweet in that regard, I suppose.
David, the formula for discourse on the Senate floor sounds kind of like an AA meeting.
Hmm....
Okay. I guess I'll just leave that little budding notion right there and let it die on the vine. ;^)
I think Cory's policy is fine, the sites I see with anonymous posts allowed are filled with hateful vitriol, and are most often hateful words not related at all to the article.
Interesting topic, Cory. Even though I don't leave my entire name, I always (try) to choose my words as if my post wasn't anonymous. (In reality - if you really wanted to - you could probably figure out who people are just by what they say etc. )
It is too bad though, that too many people hide behind thier "anonymous" posts. I'd like to see some of the people who complain about EVERYTHING that our politicians do to actually talk to the politicians face-to-face or reach out to their offices. (just my 2 cents)
Cori,
I agree with Bill, it is your blog and your choice. Your concern about authoriatarianism when it comes to anon posts is however, I feel misplaced. To permit anon posts and then for you to decide if the post is over the line is much more authoriatarian(puts you in the role of a censor) than if you require all posters to be identifiable and force them to censor themselves. As for me, I'll always identify myself, always have and always will.
Joseph G Thompson
Chris I can totally see your argument for anonymity when faced with a threatening situation, and I don't mean to downplay anyone's situation where they feel threatened or step on the toes of anyone's freedoms.
I am uber sensitive about this b/c when fighting so hard for the YSD Opt Out I was attacked daily on the P and D boards by anonymous posters, some even using my disease against me in posts the entire time not having the courage to say any insult to my face or to stand up and say "My name is _____________ and here is the real reasons I won't give more money to education in Yankton."
That has my blood pressure rising and my blood boiling right now even thinking about it. I have since found out who one of the posters is and shock of all shocks her husband is a youth minister; so she hides behind a pseudonym to live her hypocritical life.
So yeah...I'm a little wary of anonymous posters. The gal who was arguing against every improvement that was suggested for Madison on here. Dan and his "Corey better not say how I AM!!!!" righteousness. That really bothers me. That just reeks to me of arrogance, bullying and flat out cowardice.
I'll be honest; I've self-censored my beliefs to some extent because I don't want potential employers to be able to easily find information on me. It's also why I stopped using a full last name.
In an ideal world, we shouldn't be afraid of these things. In this reality, though, we must unfortunately be cautious. I'd much rather allow pseudonyms than anonymous; it at least can help keep a community feeling...
And I really don't care for the posts where people jump down someone's throat because they're not using their full name. It fosters a side of folks I'd rather not see.
If I may add a very late comment to this thread, I would add that I think you're placing too much emphasis on fairness to those that have commented. Sometimes policies change. That's how it is. If someone used their name even though they maybe would rather not have, well, sorry. You don't owe it to people to spend hours going back and removing names from comments. You have every right to set the policy for your own blog, which you contribute 99% of the content to, without fretting over the feelings of those us that occasionally leave a few sentences.
After all that, I remember the comments before you instituted nymity. I like the comments now a lot better.
First, one cannot libel the town drunk. Second, saying others knew who an author was doesn't make it so. Third, not having the grace of tenure or retirement I'll tie in with that radical, left wingnut Justice John Paul Stevens (in other words he was a republican who specialized in tax law), "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
http://www.boell.de/democracy/democracy-pseudonyms-debate-google-facebook-12726.html
I respect Justice Stevens's opinion, John. During the brouhaha over the Blog Control Acts in 2010, I myself said the proper response to abuse of free speech is more free speech. I agree with Brett that since imposing my nymity policy, the comments here have gained in quality. But I continue to wrestle with the seeming conflict between my policy and the First Amendment.
Curious, John: is there a difference between the application of Stevens's First Amendment thinking to government regulation and to my blog policies?