- comment
Brian Patton - body
- I agree. This is exactly why anonymous bloggers really hurt the blogosphere.
I have heard the justifications for anonymous blogging, but I just don't think they are enough to overcome the problems created by anonymous bloggers.
- comment The Squeaky Wheel
- body
- I blog under a name and it is for work reasons and the fact I want to be able to spout off at will without worrying about venedictive people harrassing me or my family.
But trust me, I do not work for the party or any candidates... None of them would hire me :-)
- comment Brian Patton
- body
- Yeah, I think work reasons are probably the main (and possibly best) reason for anonymous blogging, but I just don't think it out-weighs the need for accountability.
Although, I respect your position and see where you are coming from Squeaky Wheel.
- comment Cory Chandler
- body
- I believe pseudonymous bloggers can build up credibility. I believe I have. Anonymous bloggers are a different story, mostly because no one knows who they are--even among themselves. I mean, no one knows whether one person who posts anonymously at x:00 is the same person who posts anonymous at x:15 or not.
Certainly, a pseudonym may not be perfect, but neither is using a true identity, particularly when it comes to comments. I could run around blogging under the name James B. Comey, but I'm not James B. Comey. People, perhaps shallow and naive people, might even believe I really was James B. Comey. So even those who purport to use a real name may not be who they claim to be. (And obviously there's a difference between people like J. Sarge, who everyone knows is using a name dusted off from the pages of history (no offense to the current Reynolds of that name) and someone who runs around under an assumed name who allows everyone to believe it's really his.)
Ultimately, if you're not comfortable as a reader reading a particular blog authored anonymously or pseudonymously, you have the choice not to read it. But I think it's a mistake to assume that all anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are wicked, evil people, or even that most of them are. And, ultimately, just as you as a reader have the choice to read or not read an anonymous or pseudonymous blog, it's up to the blog's creator to decide whether he is comfortable with revealing his own name on his site. It's not anyone else's place to judge whether his motive for concealing his identity is reasonable--it's only their place to decide to avoid that blog if they believe it is not. (For my part, though, I'd rather judge a blog by its content than whether the author posts under his own name.)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I have nothing but disdain for anonymous bloggers, which is why (a) I've banned them here and (b) I don't get the number of comments you might see elsewhere.
But the comments here are top notch! So it's a fair trade in my mind.
As for pseudonymous bloggers...
Some are just fine (John Behan, JadedJD, and NLS for a wide range of examples). They blog pseudonymously because they have to, they add to the discourse, etc. I can see an argument for that.
But let me step back further. This whole internet business was created for the purpose of exchanging information (scientific and defense oriented to be precise). In that spirit, news outlets, Google, Yahoo, Tripod, Lycos, and eventually the good ol' blog have transpired.
In that comes with a certain bit of trust, accountability, and so forth. If this is the marketplace of ideas, so be it. Let it be honest and free.
Now I know I bump heads with some of the other members of the Virginia blogosphere when it comes to regulating blogs, codes of conduct, etc. I don't believe in any of that because I set a fairly high standard on the character of the individuals who participate.
All that disappears when people blog with handles, titles, pseudonymns, and so forth. All of the sudden, we're exchanging in the information of - not individuals with opinions - but personalities with opinions.
Seems like a semantic difference, but the "road rage" example I cited is a good example. People will do the darndest things if they can project it into a character, or even worse do it with a degree of anonymity. Pseudonyms afford both unfortunately.
Now there are noble instances where pseudonyms become necessary. Heck, weren't the Federalist Papers written pseudonymously? But there was a clear reason why those men had to write pseudonymously.
Can we honestly argue that the vast majority of pseudonymous commenters and bloggers must blog pseudonymously? I'd say no -- especially given the fact that most of the commenters you see have handles of some type.
In short, there's an ethical problem with the vast majority of people who blog behind a false name, because it's (a) false, (b) unnecessary, (c) lessens the discourse by virtue of human nature, and (d) discredits the entire blogosphere, both the good parts and the bad.
All of this having been said, there are a select few where this guideline does not apply. Whistleblowers are an example, but - as the Minnesota GOP operative demonstrates - even these cannot be 100% trustworthy, and in the end are extremely difficult to hold accountable (and will only become more difficult in the end).
For those demanding an ethical blogosphere, this is a problem that has to be pulled up root and branch IMO.
Interested to hear others thoughts!
- comment Brian Patton
- body
- Everytime I see a discussion of anonymous/pseudonymous blogging, I automatically think of Jaded JD and the arguments he has made.
He is the sole reason that I have decided to consider pseudonymous bloggers differently and accept them to some extent.
My problem with anonymous bloggers is that they all too often say things about other people that they would not say under their real name.
For the most part, this problem does not exist with pseudonymous bloggers. The problem does, however, arise with some pseudonymous bloggers too.
In those instances, I guess one has to choice to ignore the pseudonymous blogger, but sometimes the damage (e.g., libel, rumors, etc.) is done regardless of whether or not I choose to ignore that specific blogger.
For these reasons, I still think the blogosphere would be much better off without pseudonymous or anonymous bloggers.
But again, I am still sensitive to some bloggers' situations that will not allow using their names.
- comment Not Larry Sabato
- body
- My only critique here is the difference between anon commenters and anon bloggers. Bloggers have their identity clear, while anon commenters are often not bloggers, but troublemakers.
7 Comments:
I have heard the justifications for anonymous blogging, but I just don't think they are enough to overcome the problems created by anonymous bloggers.
But trust me, I do not work for the party or any candidates... None of them would hire me :-)
Although, I respect your position and see where you are coming from Squeaky Wheel.
Certainly, a pseudonym may not be perfect, but neither is using a true identity, particularly when it comes to comments. I could run around blogging under the name James B. Comey, but I'm not James B. Comey. People, perhaps shallow and naive people, might even believe I really was James B. Comey. So even those who purport to use a real name may not be who they claim to be. (And obviously there's a difference between people like J. Sarge, who everyone knows is using a name dusted off from the pages of history (no offense to the current Reynolds of that name) and someone who runs around under an assumed name who allows everyone to believe it's really his.)
Ultimately, if you're not comfortable as a reader reading a particular blog authored anonymously or pseudonymously, you have the choice not to read it. But I think it's a mistake to assume that all anonymous and pseudonymous bloggers are wicked, evil people, or even that most of them are. And, ultimately, just as you as a reader have the choice to read or not read an anonymous or pseudonymous blog, it's up to the blog's creator to decide whether he is comfortable with revealing his own name on his site. It's not anyone else's place to judge whether his motive for concealing his identity is reasonable--it's only their place to decide to avoid that blog if they believe it is not. (For my part, though, I'd rather judge a blog by its content than whether the author posts under his own name.)
But the comments here are top notch! So it's a fair trade in my mind.
As for pseudonymous bloggers...
Some are just fine (John Behan, JadedJD, and NLS for a wide range of examples). They blog pseudonymously because they have to, they add to the discourse, etc. I can see an argument for that.
But let me step back further. This whole internet business was created for the purpose of exchanging information (scientific and defense oriented to be precise). In that spirit, news outlets, Google, Yahoo, Tripod, Lycos, and eventually the good ol' blog have transpired.
In that comes with a certain bit of trust, accountability, and so forth. If this is the marketplace of ideas, so be it. Let it be honest and free.
Now I know I bump heads with some of the other members of the Virginia blogosphere when it comes to regulating blogs, codes of conduct, etc. I don't believe in any of that because I set a fairly high standard on the character of the individuals who participate.
All that disappears when people blog with handles, titles, pseudonymns, and so forth. All of the sudden, we're exchanging in the information of - not individuals with opinions - but personalities with opinions.
Seems like a semantic difference, but the "road rage" example I cited is a good example. People will do the darndest things if they can project it into a character, or even worse do it with a degree of anonymity. Pseudonyms afford both unfortunately.
Now there are noble instances where pseudonyms become necessary. Heck, weren't the Federalist Papers written pseudonymously? But there was a clear reason why those men had to write pseudonymously.
Can we honestly argue that the vast majority of pseudonymous commenters and bloggers must blog pseudonymously? I'd say no -- especially given the fact that most of the commenters you see have handles of some type.
In short, there's an ethical problem with the vast majority of people who blog behind a false name, because it's (a) false, (b) unnecessary, (c) lessens the discourse by virtue of human nature, and (d) discredits the entire blogosphere, both the good parts and the bad.
All of this having been said, there are a select few where this guideline does not apply. Whistleblowers are an example, but - as the Minnesota GOP operative demonstrates - even these cannot be 100% trustworthy, and in the end are extremely difficult to hold accountable (and will only become more difficult in the end).
For those demanding an ethical blogosphere, this is a problem that has to be pulled up root and branch IMO.
Interested to hear others thoughts!
He is the sole reason that I have decided to consider pseudonymous bloggers differently and accept them to some extent.
My problem with anonymous bloggers is that they all too often say things about other people that they would not say under their real name.
For the most part, this problem does not exist with pseudonymous bloggers. The problem does, however, arise with some pseudonymous bloggers too.
In those instances, I guess one has to choice to ignore the pseudonymous blogger, but sometimes the damage (e.g., libel, rumors, etc.) is done regardless of whether or not I choose to ignore that specific blogger.
For these reasons, I still think the blogosphere would be much better off without pseudonymous or anonymous bloggers.
But again, I am still sensitive to some bloggers' situations that will not allow using their names.
Post a Comment
Home