Into the Woods of Anonymous Speech
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
I was surprised but delighted to read the local Idaho Falls Magazine blurb our IdahoFallz.com on page 10 of their March/April 2007 issue.
The piece was titled “Voices in the Wilderness”, and raised legitimate concerns about people who write anonymously. We had this discussion last summer in Our Anonymous Community, but it is a topic well worth discussing again. Maybe something has changed since then, or maybe people are now more comfortable with the anonymous discussions held on IdahoFallz.com.
The question raised is if “true democracy is far more meaningful when you stand up and take credit (or blame) for what you say.” I have seen people standing up and taking credit and blame for what they say in Idaho for all my life, and I have not seen any real impact. Some people stand up to talk, and our legislators shut down their listening because they think they know what the person will say and they think they will already disagree.
I absolutely relish the idea of true democracy, however I understand the real world we live in, especially in southeast Idaho.
While many people take great measures to remain anonymous, I often get little clues as to some people’s identities. I have sworn to keep their identities secret, but you might be surprised at some of the people who discuss on IdahoFallz.com, and who is saying some things. I see prominent local business people and politicians posting here, things I know they would not dare say in public.
I ask you why would they not dare? I suspect they say the things here that they really feel, but know they cannot in public because of the repercussions of lost contracts, and giving their political enemies ammunition in smear campaigns. So long as people cannot speak freely without fear of local “good old boy” retributions, we will not have this utopia of “true democracy”, and IdahoFallz.com will serve a critical role for our citizens.
I answer that true democracy is not achievable because as soon as you stand up to take credit or blame for what you say, the decision makers have already pre-judged you based on the quality of who you are, not on the quality of what you say. I dare say this idea of true democracy has hollow meaning.
I have often said that I value the quality of a person’s individual statements more than the value of who the person is making the statements. One surprising phenomenon I have experienced on IdahoFallz.com is finding myself agreeing with some people that I disagreed with in another topic.
When random user names are employed, it is harder to match the user name to a face and therefore people mostly do not pre-judge their written content: they read and respond to each piece as if it was the only thing they had read.
In the Post Register’s highly entertaining letters to the editor, we read the same people belittling each other over the most insignificant remarks. I wonder if some of those people even read the remarks, or if they just read the name and fire up their email to retort, since they are used to disagreeing with everything that person might say?
I think this is a beautiful idea, because nobody can be right or wrong all the time. Everyone has valuable input and experience on some issues. I think the anonymity provided at IdahoFallz.com helps people recognize those valid experiences and opinions better than forums where registration and identification are required.
For another matter, what is the significant difference between talk radio and IdahoFallz.com’s model? Callers to the Neal Larson show can make up any name they want, and then offer any kind of mild to outlandish comment they like on the air. Why is it accepted as normal on talk radio, but is deemed cowardly at a local website? Please explain the double standard to me.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 I understand the desire to remain anonymous - I, however, don’t think it would be right for me to conceal my identity, nor do I see a need to. We talk a lot about local issues on this site, and as such, the topic of the Post Register comes up pretty often. I don’t think it would be ethical for me to comment without full disclosure of who my family is and the fact that I used to write for the paper.
There have been drawbacks, however - for example, the recent troll (who I now believe to be a member of a band that I gave a poor review to while judging a Battle of the Bands) chose to make this site, through me, the target of some poorly-spelled venom.
However, it is just the internet, and for some reason, the net seems to be like a flame for ignorant moths who know nothing but say much.
Vote:
0 0 I know that there are a few of us on here that use their real names. Some may do it because they can’t think of a cool screen name, but I personally do it because I own what I say. It makes me think about my ideas and words carefully before expressing them.
If any of you met me face to face (some have), I would not want there to be much difference between what I say here and what I say in person (in substance of course). I don’t see this site as democratic in nature. I see it like a barber or beauty shop where ideas are discussed, but not really decided upon.
The internet has created a place to redefine oneself as they see fit. We have the ability to almost fully control the persona we project under the guise of anonymity. Just being honest here, but I give very little credence to online opinions posted in anonymity. When someone will validate their opinion by divulging identity, I take a lot more notice.
Vote:
0 0 That’s a lie, Davin. You’re much sassier online.
Vote:
0 0 Only in the chat box, and it’s because you and poor english egg me on.
Vote:
0 0 I have never been anonymous on this forum (except a few days ago on accident when I switched computers and didn’t see until it was too late that I’d made a couple of accidental “anon” coments).
The first time I popped up here I was who I am - Gypsy - and I take credit and blame for everything I say here.
My name is not “Gypsy” in the real world, but I’ve emailed a couple people on this forum and signed with my real name. I’d happily meet anybody on this forum and introduce myself as who I am. (I’ve done this before with another group from Idaho Falls - I’ve met twenty or more people from that other board.)
I choose a screen name for every forum I join for a couple reasons - one - it’s safer - and two - it’s fun. Like Halloween, you get to “look like” who you “want to be”. As a kid I wanted to be a gypsy for Halloween EVERY year - my mom is a creative type and kept asking me “Don’t you want to be something ELSE this year?” but I never did. Mom ought to know, there’s gypsy in my blood.
To answer your question - life is full of double standards. I think on talk radio the idea is to “grab ratings” so you are more likely to get shocking and outrageous comments. On a web page - ratings won’t usually make or break the thing - it’s not quite so advertiser driven.
I do not listen to Idaho talk radio - gave up on it within the fist couple of years of moving here from Los Angeles (where talk radio is fun). There is paltry choice for an old blue girl like myself. I listen to XM talk radio (I like the Progressive channel the best - it hits the fun spot) - I’ve not heard of Neal Larson until today (I went to the website and have yet to figure out what he’s all about). If he is mostly local stuff - then people who call in might want to remain anon. because of fear of losing their jobs. In a tight-knit, up-tight community like ours, it’s not too surprising.
I would like to see more progressive Idahoans make a stand and admit to being free-thinking, but I know such a change will come slowly.
I’m Gypsy - but if we were to have a big old Idaho Fallz party I’d come, as me, probably wearing a t-shirt that reads “aka Gypsy”.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymity is crucial to pure and free flowing expression.
“No man deserves punishment for his thoughts” - Anonymous
Vote:
0 0 Anonymity is also a mask for idiots.
If someone wishes to not divulge identity, that is fine and I assume there must be a reason. Some have valid reasons and their ideas are great, some don’t.
It is a strange paradox. I really am pretty guarded about what I post online because of the vast readership potential, but I also do use my real name both here and on my website because I feel like it brings a certain level of accountability. I don’t profile myself with much more info than just my name though.
Vote:
0 0 I have never made it a secret who I am. I have links to my myspace page and my personal website that share plenty of info about me, if one were curious. I would love to meet some of the people from this site in real life, as most everybody here seems like they would be fun people to sit down and have a beer and a chat with.
That being said, I also completely respect the decision made by some to remain anonymous. Each may have their own reasons for doing so, and that is fine. When those people choose one ‘handle’ and stick to it, I am much more apt to read and consider their opinions than I am those who post anonymously under varying monikers. Frankly, I think that if you are not at least willing to put ‘a’ name to your comments, then you either don’t have much faith in your own opinion, or you are perhaps trolling to argue those who disagree with you. These types of people don’t add value to sites like this one, they only bring it down.
Vote:
0 0 So nobody disagrees that there is a double standard to anonymity on talk radio vs. on IdahoFallz.com?
What about the millions of blogs out there with comments? Many allow non-registered people to comment, and those that require registration usually do not require you to use your real name.
The comments are a big source of entertainment for blog readers like myself. I have not heard anyone upset that all those people remain anonymous.
Is there another double standard in that we accept anonymity on most blogs, but that somehow it has issues being on a locally-focused website like IdahoFallz.com?
Vote:
0 0 To say “anonymity is a mask for idiots” isn’t fair IMO. The fact that some use a “screen name” in place of their own name shouldn’t really matter. As long as there are intelligent discussions from each poster that to me is whats important.
Personally I don’t care what people think about me, so I don’t mind using my name. I’m not out to impress anyone and I will always speak my mind. And I do think by keeping the same name each time we post a comment does show integrity and that willingness to own up to our comments.
However…aside from a few posters on this site, nobody really knows anyone else “personally”. So isn’t that still anonymity? We know each other by the screen name we choose and the thoughts and comments we bring to the table. But we’re still anonymous. And at the same time, the internet will always have trolls wanting to argue for arguments sake but their usually very easy to spot. Some get drawn in, but most just ignore them and they usually go away. But whether or not someone wants to use his/her real name or a screen name thats their perogative and it shouldn’t affect us either way.
Like Gypsy, I don’t listen to Idaho’s talk radio or that much music radio either. I switched to Sirrus sat. when I moved up here. I was used to having so much to choose from when I lived in Florida regarding different formats of talk radio. Even the DJ’s on the music stations were so funny you were guaranteed to laugh all the way to work each morning. I really miss that but I can’t complain. I couldn’t be happier living here and like everything else in life, we learn to adapt to our surroundings and make the best with what we have.
My point is, even though some of us may use our real name on this site, for the most part we’re all still anonymous. And even though most of us own up to our comments & opinions under our name OR screen name, if I were to walk by any one of you on the street I wouldn’t know you from Adam.
People choose “screen names” for different reasons, it doesn’t make their opinions or comments any less important than yours. As long as they stay true to their beliefs and participate in these discussions in a thoughtful and civilized manner, just as those of us that use our names do, then I don’t see a problem.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymity has a special place in our democracy. Please remember that Idaho’s own “deep throat” was a major contributor to the demise of Nixon, a President who, like our current President, played by the same rules of a ’secret’ and ‘unchecked’ executive branch.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymous: that is an awesome point about Deep Throat, and that he was an Idahoan makes the point even stronger.
We should cherish Mark Felt’s example to follow his own personal ethical compass and express what he thought needed to be out.
And again, nobody disagrees that there is a double standard to anonymity on talk radio vs. on IdahoFallz.com?
And again, nobody disagrees that there is a double standard in accepting anonymity on most blogs, but that somehow anonymity is a problem on a locally-focused website like IdahoFallz.com?
Vote:
0 0 Anonymity is not a mask for idiots or a problem on this web site.
Vote:
0 0 I’m not sure that there a double standard per se regarding anonymity on ifz.com. It seems, to me at least, at only a few people have problems with the anonymity of only a few other people. Generally speaking, I don’t see anonymity as a problem.
For example, several people have repeatedly harassed ok4now about his anonymity, when he has made it abundantly clear as to why he remains anonymous. By contrast, myself and many others here respect that anonymity because he uses the same handle for each of his comments, which still makes him accountable for the things he says.
Vote:
0 0 Anonymity has it’s place and purpose. Using it as a way to divulge information or discuss sensitive topics to avoid retribution is justifiable. I really have no problem with it if the person is being true and honest in the things they post.
I guess a good clarification to my point would be that, in my experience, there are many people that use anonymity on the internet to be really mean or hateful, lie, attack, make fun, post thoughtless replies, etc.
Because of that, I rank online conversations as the lowest on my trustworthy scale. If someone does back up what they say with identity, it carries a little more weight. “Deep Throat” was a real person who met with another real person and provided real information that could be verified. That isn’t saying that a type of that can’t exist here, but it really is a different dynamic.
I enjoy conversations on line, but the face to face interaction I have with the people in my life are the ones I cherish and ultimately trust. The point is some use it, some don’t; some abuse it, some don’t. In the end, nothing beats a good couple hours of banter over a cup of coffee.
Vote:
0 0 Some excellent points.
It is only a few people I have heard express concern about the anonymity at IFz.
I wanted to bring this conversation about to point out the other side of this issue.
I cannot understand concerns that IFz anonymity is a problem until those same people express their concern with talk radio anonymity.
Vote:
0 0 Do I have to be the one to point out that we don’t live in a Democracy? Our system of government is a representative republic, and a pretty closed one at that.
Doesn’t really affect our conversation, but let’s keep our comments accurate. Accuracy is the politeness of kings.
Vote:
0 0 Joe, what about anonymity in print? Many authors, journalists, and columnists use pseudonyms…how is that any different?
The Bronte sisters all wrote novels using aliases. When Charlotte Bronte penned Jane Eyre as “Currer Bell”, many reviewers questioned the gender as well as the authenticity of the author. For example, if it were written by a man, then it was commended for its insight into a woman’s perspective. However, if it were written by a woman, then it was condemned as crude and improper.
Charlotte stated that because she anticipated (and feared) such criticism of her writing, it was imperative that she remain anonymous in order to be creative, uninhibited, and write her best work.
It’s not only the peanut gallery that often wishes to be incognito.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent point nevermind! There are a multitude of examples just like the one you pointed out. The internet was founded on anonymity, thats what made it so appealing to the masses.
imo
Vote:
0 0 I thought of another great reason why anonymity may be prized, and it is a recent development that probably has not been discussed much.
Searchability. Have you ever tried a “vanity search”, where you Google your own name?
You may be surprised at what comes up. Sometimes remarks you made to a newspaper reporter or to an organization gets posted online without your express permission.
Maybe you made a remark ten years ago when you were a much different person or in a much different frame of mind, but that information is still up and accessible.
Many employers will Google your name if they consider hiring you, just to see if any red flags come up.
This represents a serious privacy issue, in my view. Most of the people here are just ordinary citizens, not running for public office. I think they have an inherent right to privacy.
It is no secret that IFz gets indexed often by search engines. I can see from our visitor results how information posted here can start driving search engine visitors for that same information in just a couple hours.
Everyone’s statements here get indexed by search engines and returned as search results. It is not a problem normally, but what if each of your comment entries was tied to your name?
Here you are just shooting the bull, thinking you are having informal discussions, and but then you might discover an employer declines to hire you because of a flippant remark you made a few years ago.
You may not have given much thought to that remark, but if it is one of the top search engine results, many employers would read that and think it defines you.
I believe “search engine privacy” has been and will be a growing concern for many people.
I think search engine indexing is another reason why anonymity is important. Most of us are just ordinary people, just wanting to talk some things over. Our informal conversations will be indexed and displayed in many search results. There is no reason why we need to be defined by these conversations for the rest of our lives.
Vote:
0 0 I can certainly see why people would want to remain anonoymous, especially in light of search engine indexing, but this indexing works both ways. When anonoymous individuals slander others using their real names, maybe they need to think about what the consequences are to the person they are slandering. I am sure that these individuals do not believe they are “slandering” these inviduals, but I know for a fact that untruths and been printed about myself, my family and my coworkers on this website using our real names. I don’t have a problem with people remaining anonoymous, but don’t make comments about other people using their real names unless you know the real facts.
Vote:
0 0 That is a good point, Anonymous.
If you are a private citizen, that could be a concern. Will have to think that one over.
If you are a public figure, especially a politician, then all bets are off because those people can be named, discussed, and parodied in the public domain.
Vote:
0 0 Anyone who posts anything online and believes that they have privacy is seriously misinformed.
Certainly there are measures that increase the likelihood of remaining anonymous, including using anonymizers (which can be very effective) and not entering one’s real name on a blog such as this (which are effective only until Joe gets a court order - even if Joe doesn’t know your real name, your IP address can often be used to track you down).
If you are a public figure, especially a politician, then all bets are off because those people can be named, discussed, and parodied in the public domain.
Not really. The main difference in libel law between public figures and private citizens is that public figures have to show the additional element of “actual malice” to prove defamation.
Public figure, of course, is a very broad term - having your name mentioned in a newspaper story essentially makes you at least a limited public figure for the purpose of defamation law.
Vote:
0 0 I personally have probably replied to over a 100 comments here and most of them have been under varying guest names or as anonymous. I do it simply for privacy reasons. Because of my position in the community some of my comments could be construed as coming from my employer. I don’t want that connection especially if what I say happens to be negative towards my employer which a few of them have been although many have also been positive. Having the same moniker over and over again makes it much easier for people to track you. Eventually you may something that pinpoints you or they can simply track your posting times vs your work schedules and soon you’ve been figured out. And whether your employer can actually do something to you directly for something you say here is irrelevant since they can and will find other ways to get even.
Vote:
0 0 Amen.
There can be positive intent even behind anonymity.
Sometimes anonymity can protect more than hurt.
Vote:
0 0 If you have ever read or written any comments in Post Talk, at the Post Register online site, are you aware of the proposed change?
This isn’t a rumor - you can find Roger Plothow’s post in a Post Talk thread. I was surprised when I read it.
The Post Register is going to make a decision soon about allowing people to post remarks using anything but their real name.
As both “Anonymous” - Post #24 and Joe - Post #25 address, not all of us can use our real names.
Many of us have signed agreements with our employers or other business partners that we will NOT use our real names, so any comments we make cannot be considered the view or opinion of the business.
Anonymous (#24) makes a good point about the timing of posts and when peope are scheduled to work. Bosses who may be looking for “dirt” about employees may have an easier chance to do so, if a person’s real name is used.
I’ve written this elsewhere on IFz.Com, but I’ll state again, especially in light of what the Post Register is planning to change: Idaho Falls Magazine has that clause of usage, about posting the user’s real name instead of what they call the user’s “Handle.” Maybe this has recently changed, but as a week ago, it hadn’t.
Where does that leave us, except at sites like IFz.Com to express our views without either being fired, putting contracts on the line, or constantly worrying someone will learn something that could harm our careers?
I thought the goal of the various local websites was to have people discuss local issues and potentially suggest solutions or ideas that improve our collective community.
Not all of us can use our real names, given contracts or other agreements we’ve signed at work. Additionally, while it’s mere speculation on my part, I would guess that any member of Kimball Mason’s family who wanted to post here probably wouldn’t want to use their Mason name.
What do you think and are you considered or not about the Post Register’s proposed change?
Vote:
0 0 Joe, Have you ever had anyone approach you wanting to know identity information — email or IP? I just wondered because some of that city police dept. stuff got pretty close to home for a few down there.
Vote:
0 0 Nobody has tried asking me for identity information of any IFz writers or guests.
I imagine anyone who might want that would have read the site policy and would know it’s not as easy as just asking.
This month’s Wired magazine has a great article about companies becoming increasingly transparent. Microsoft’s channel 9 initiative and a company’s fight against the powers in their own industry had great insights to our evolving online culture.
If you ever wonder if your organization is falling behind the times, I encourage you to read those articles this month.
One example is a shift from trying to launch sting operations on employees who secretly blog, to actually trying to fix the problems that drives those employees to secretly blog.
Of course I thought of our IFPD when I read that.
Vote:
0 0 John was mostly right in comment 23. There are a small hand full of people who can achieve true anonymity on the web, but most users don’t have the know how on doing that.
But then there is this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/31/1828/16663
Vote:
0 0 I don’t see it happening Davin. And if we as Americans allow it to happen, then shame on us! Our government already has too much control of everything we do. It’s bad enough people let the Patriot Act pass without raising a stink! It’s a real shame that we’re too wrapped up in ourselves to worry about what our government is doing by stripping our freedoms away one by one, little by little.
Its no wonder we’re losing our soldiers by the dozens each day! Nobody gives a crap unless it directly affects them and by the time people wake up and realize what has happened, it will be too late!
Vote:
0 0 It is possible. The Government is great at getting the things it wants through either intimidation or enticement. The problem with this is that it is in the hands of ICANN/IANA and how much of a fight they put up. Hopefully it will gain more attention before it happens and not after when it is too late.
Your other points Scooby; I couldn’t agree with you more.
Vote:
0 0 The new Idaho Falls Magazine issue (May/June 07) issue had a reader letter responding to Steve’s editorial the month before about online anonymity and the potential for trollish behavior.
Steve acknowledged he had “heard many valid reasons for the allowance of anonymity on a public forum”, but he still felt those reasons were “overshadowed by lame excuses”.
His point was that anonymity gives you “free reign … to distort, bully, inflame, … hijack an otherwise thoughtful and intelligent discussion.” but also admits this can happen “until the moderator steps in”.
The second part there would seem to negate the first, wouldn’t it? Either it’s free reign or it’s not, right? We have a wide reign here, but of course it’s not completely free, because moderators can leash back those occasional over-the-line comments. What’s the slogan, life’s messy so clean it up?
I’d rather deal with the occasional cleanups for all the great discussion that we get as a result of the risk.
One other point Steve makes is balancing freedom vs. accountability, asking “Do you honestly believe you can tout the former while shirking the latter?”
That is a great point, and I don’t think anyone can have both completely. The PR’s letters to the editor and The IF magazine online forums certainly favor accountability at the cost of freedom of speech.
If there was a way to ensure people could freely speak without behind-the-scenes retribution, I would enforce full-disclosure registrations in a heartbeat. As soon as someone eliminates retributions in the form of whisper campaigns and the good old boy system (like telling employers not to hire someone because of what they believe), I’ll nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Alas, we already have forums where accountability is favored over freedom, for me to style IFz after that would be to merely ride their coattails. With IFz we have the other end of it, and so we have balance in our community.
I also think of the instances where people have been attacked without merit by anonymous people. Of the ones that were not deleted, I can only think of a handful at IFz, I’ll say maybe as many as 10 comments exist here like that. Out of 5k plus comments, that amounts to less than 0.002%
I’ll take that risk factor any day in any situation! If this risk factor is so insignificant, why do some people zero in on this as a reason to trash talk IFz?
“lame excuse” I looked lame up, it means “weak, inadequate, unsatisfactory” which is just what I’m sure Steve intended. I recognize the point, but I pose the unsolveable problem of persecuting people who do speak their minds.
I noticed lame also means “out of touch with modern fads or trends, unsophisticated”, and I wonder if this applies to some of those people who zero in on the insignificant accountability issue at IFz?
Vote:
0 0 Great analysis, Joe, and I am grateful you offer the Anonymous outlet that P-R and IF magazine do not. Idaho Falls is not like LA or NYC where a resident can easily compartmentalize their life: work, social and political, with little or no overlap. Here each of these spheres greatly overlaps the other two.
IFz offers a more free exchange of ideas, as recently witnessed for example with Jeremy’s 5 ideas thread.
The more traditional media, like print, have always been able to control the exchange of ideas to a degree. The Internet has loosened that stranglehold, and IFz has changed it for Idaho Falls (thank you). Not surprisingly, IF magazine–a print media–is having the problem with Anonymous ability here.
I think that you, Joe, do a great job of monitoring, striking the balance you have in favor of the freer exchange of ideas. You are, here locally and in our times, a Martin Luther.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religiondebates.blogspot.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Vote:
As another example that we do not live in a true democracy where people can speak freely, consider the allegation that a prominent local businessman started investigating the lives of people who disagreed with him in a local newspaper.
For what purpose could those people have been investigated? The only reason I can think of is to dig up dirt on their personal lives and throw it against them in the public forum, or to discover ways to leverage their silence (like threatening their professional livelihoods).