Anonymity in blogging and comments
Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006Sarah Carey’s post on the latest chapter in the Waghorne/Udaras spat has weaved its way towards the debate over internet anonymity, something that is a big part of blogging in Ireland.
There is no right or wrong as far as anonymity online goes; being anonymous and being public both have their positives and negatives and they can help and hinder in equal measure.
There are many genuine reasons why an individual may choose to be anonymous when blogging. Perhaps the topic they are discussing is a private or personal one and not something they want to publically be associated with. Perhaps they are blogging about their workplace, and while not revealing corporate secrets still cautious about their company’s policy on blogging. Perhaps they are even feeding controversial but worthwhile information to the wider world, acting as a type of source to anyone who wishes to read. Or, in the case of one of our most celebrated blog comedians, it’s done to enhance the whole experience of the site.
Of course then there are more negative reasons for blogging anonymously; it may be done as a tool to facelessly attack other people, spread vicious rumours about members of the public or perhaps even carelessly defame whoever comes to mind with little chance of recourse.
The positives of “anonblogging” are quite apparent; they allow the blogger more freedom to discuss issues they otherwise could or would not and it may allow for the creation of characters and facade’s that aid a routine or act. The negatives are equally obvious; besides anonblogging giving people the opportunity to say things they may not be brave enough or legally entitled to say in public it can also lessen the impact of said blogger’s statements.
For example, should a public blogger break a story or make a claim on their website they are putting their name and reputation on the line and even leaving themselves open to legal action. While that doesn’t automatically make what they say reliable it certainly creates a level of trust that an anonblogger may have a harder time building.
It is probably no coincidence that the Irish blogosphere’s best and brightest are hiding nothing; look at Damien, Piaras, Sarah, Tom Raftery, Cian O’Flaherty, Mick Fealty, Cian Ginty and Fiona to name but a few. the same comment may have a harder time earning.
From a professional point of view anonblogging isn’t extremely advantagious. Sarah herself has benefitted from being crystal clear about who she is. For someone in a position like myself, where a blog can be used as a platform for ideas, work and as a showcase of talents blogging under a pseudonym is not going to be of any great benefit.
The Irish blog community has its fair share of anonbloggers; the good, the bad and the cunty and each one offers a different justification for blogging without a name, for better or for worse.
Anonymous commenting is a slightly different beast however; just like in bulletin boards pseudomyns are used and abused to back up points of view. Some muppets might continually comment under different names to make it look like there are many voices singing off the same hymnsheet while others may post under different names just to make comments they’d rather not be associated with (possibly due to their obscene or trolly nature).
The only remedy for this problem is to force people to register with each site in order to comment or worse still disable the comment feature entirely. It is my opinion that both of these factors are completely counter-productive and where the former may not stop discussion it will certainly injure it.
Wordpress gives IP details of commentators to its admin’s so at least the comment spam can be dealt with at the best of times. Other than that the natural order of things is likely to return; a commentator who states their name (or pseudonym) and links to their site is far more likely to be conversed with than one with a made up name, fake e-mail address and no weblink, especially when they later just spouts out crap.
The internet is always going to have relative anonymity (that is anonymity in general terms that can be removed in extreme circumstances by authorities), however it is not something that should be despaired over.
Anonymous blogs and anonymous comments all have their use and place, even if they are abused from time to time. Even in the real world we have to deal with people who just want to cause trouble for fun, and the safety net that is the anonymous internet is only going to encourage them. Just like everything online though the dreggs quickly sink to the bottom and the good bloggers and commentators, secret or public, will quickly make themselves known.
Blogs elsewhere
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
[…] Adam’s expanding the “anonymous or not” question. (and also flatters me into the bargain..Hurrah!!and thanks). More to this definitely. […]
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:14 pm
How dare you hide behind that veil of total transparency and call me ‘cunty’?
I am appalled.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Another point is people who blog under an assumed name or anonymously but don’t allow comments on their blog.
They’re just as bad as anonymous commenters and their views should be held in the same regard.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
I’m shocked, Twenty, surely ‘cunty’ is some kind of twisted compliment? “he who is full of cunt”?
I don’t really have time for blogs that don’t allow comments at all, and it is even worse when they cover their identity up too; I basically see them as people who look for a mouthpiece to spout crap, who don’t have the stones to back it up personally and don’t have the stones to engage their potential readers in a discussion (for people who blog publically without comments remove the first stone-less bit but keep the second).
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
I’m secretly chuffed, Adam.
And you sum up non-comment blogs perfectly.
August 2nd, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I’ve seen a few instances of Irish Bloggers using fake personas just for making bitchy comments on blogs that their real life persona would never do. I don’t know do they even know about the IP address and even cookie matching.
Anonymity and protection of sources is very important. Whistleblowers are needed. I don’t think the same respect that whistleblowers get should be given to people who seem to deal with their self-hatred by projecting it on to someone they don’t like.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I plead guilty on the not-enabling-comments issue. Part of it is the occasional pangs of doubt that I’m spending too much time blogging already and that running a proper comment section (i.e. responding to good comments, clearing out the spam, avoiding the tricky legal issues that can arise with rogue commenters) would be even more of a time sink than blogging is already. People are always welcome to take shots at me via e-mail or indeed anyone really habouring a grudge that they want on public display can fire away in my Irish Election posts, where comments are enabled.
As EWI mentioned on a GUBU thread a few days ago, there’s a distinction between anonymous and pseudonymous, with the latter in turn dividing into people who maintain a single identity online versus hit-and-run posting which can derail a comment thread very first. I think a lot of commenting ethics issues can be dealt with by Slugger’s simple rule “play the ball, not the man” — if that rule was observed, a lot of the other issues wouldn’t arise.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Anonymity and protection of sources is very important. Whistleblowers are needed. I don’t think the same respect that whistleblowers get should be given to people who seem to deal with their self-hatred by projecting it on to someone they don’t like.
Indeed it is; the new blog Wagging The Dog claims to be looking at Irish politics from the inside; if that’s true then they’re probably in a position where public comment would make them jobless.
The fact is that whistleblowers are probably going to be met with a bit of caution until they prove their claims or something they say turns out to be a fact, they certainly won’t be as trusted as someone more transparent from day 1…
As I said though, the genuine and decent bloggers, named or not will quickly rise to the top, the ranters with nothing to say will fade away.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:07 pm
is your fault i am no longer anonymous-you and your journalistic exposes on the seedy project irishelection.
I quite enjoy not being anonymous anymore-it makes me think more about what i write-though you wouldnt know from reading it. I understand those who need to do it for work purposes etc.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
That’s fair enough P, but sadly a lot of important debate on some of your posts can be forsaken; I know people can email you but that kind of halts an actual discussion and just creates a one way stream or numerous isolated debates that are out of the public grasp.
Maintaining a good comments section is easier than you think; on blogger you can cut down on spam by forcing people to enter a random sequence of letters etc.; look at Slugger as an example of that… as for your own involvement, well it may only take a few minutes here and there but it makes things much more interesting IMO, and it’s great to get feedback and alternative views (just like your own here, which is a reason I’ve not heard before; usually people disable comments claiming they’re getting too much abuse).
Anonymous and single-identity pseudonyms are very similar IMO; they’re both just another way of hiding the real identity, for valid reasons or not. The worst are the hit-and-runners though or people who do so because their real identity is losing a discussion online.
August 2nd, 2006 at 3:13 pm
is your fault i am no longer anonymous-you and your journalistic exposes on the seedy project irishelection.
You love the attention, admit it!!!
Yeah, when I went online first I was really paranoid about my identity; I guess I had some stupid notion of what could happen if my name got out or something. Once I realised that there was little to fear I let it slip a little, eventually it got to the point where I was blogging about personal things and most of my readers knew me personally anyway; by the time I moved over to blogging about the media and my work there was no point in hiding anymore, if anything there was more reason not to.
August 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Be anonymous if you are going to get your ass kicked or sued. Or think this.
Otherwise why not be a real person and say what you think. And being afraid of what you think and expressing is saying that THEY have won. They being those who would want to hurt you. Big Brother, The Government or whoever.
Fear is the enemy. Blog your heart out.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:29 pm
I see that by coincidence, Slugger was discussing his rules of the game this morning.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Well i am semi annoamous.. Simmon is my real name. For some strange reason if you google my full name including my surname you get my blog even though my surname is not mentioned anywhere in my blog. Also I think if you read through my blog you could probably figure out where i am from and from that a find out my name.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Simon or Simmon?
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Semi-anonymous or fully anonymous blogs don’t bother me, but anonymous comments are really annoying and usually don’t bring much value to any sensible debate
August 2nd, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Well I’ve been pseudonymous and out and proud under my real name - I don’t think either absolves you of making a clear editorial decison about what you publish as a blogger or what you say as a commenter.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Yup I have to agree, whatever about anonymous bloggers (hey Twenty!) anonymous commenters almost never add anything constructive to a conversation (Twenty excepted!).
God help us though if you have me down as one of the “best and brightest”!
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:45 pm
I use a nickname online mainly because I don’t want everyone who knows me offline to read me online without me knowing. I’m not sure why exactly, but that is just the way I feel.
Most people that I know online, exchange emails with etc, do however know my real name.
Unless your blog is business/academic related then I don’t see the need in having your real id out there.
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:57 pm
I am delighted that Adam requires our “names” here, and I see that the people commenting so far include a number of what look like “real” names and a number that likely are not! My own attitude is that anyone who is afraid to say who he or she is - except under exceptional circumstances where there are clear dangers to saying who you really are - loses me as a reader. Most often, it just looks immature and usually not worth reading. And, no, Adam and I are not - knowingly - related!
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
I started off thinking I could be anonymous or pseudo anyway and then I was just Suzy. Now I get emails each week from readers who are long lost friends/contacts going ‘are you Suzy Byrne’.
There are interesting issues here for election and political blogging - whilstleblowers/leakers etc - and how we fact check. But these are the same that MSM writers/reporters face - aren’t they?
On another note I am going to be thinking abut the word cunty all weekend. Twenty is the probably the only guy I can ‘hear’ say the word, cunt, and not wince.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
There are interesting issues here for election and political blogging - whilstleblowers/leakers etc - and how we fact check. But these are the same that MSM writers/reporters face - aren’t they?
That’s an interesting point and one that I was thinking about after posting this.
While political and investigative reporting is the type of journalism I’d love to eventually get involved in I’m no-where near that stage yet, in the context of knowledge and contacts.
For that reason I’m not 100% on how leakers and whistleblowers contact and converse with the journalists they leak to; I would imagine that they reveal their identity to the journalist in most cases on the promise that said identity goes no further and I would imagine that any self-respecting journalist would need some documentary evidence (or a positive history with the contact) to be able to trust their leaks.
I know for certain that were I to pick up on some great information that would be a big story no newspaper would touch it without hard evidence and documentation to back it up; that’s party because I’m a nobody journalist in that respect and I’m sure if it were Charlie Bird doing the same he’d be treated less suspiciously… that said I’m sure Charlie Bird is smart enough to be certain of his information before running with it.
Basically what I think on the issue is that anonbloggers who claim to be leaking and whistleblowing are not quite the same as contacts of journalists; in the later case the journalist is staking their reputation and I’m sure does not do that lightly; anonblogs generally have no reputation on the line, except perhaps the person they are blowing the whistle on. Of course they could always provide documentary evidence on their site, and it has been done in other countries but the more a whistleblower puts into the public gaze (rather than just 1 journalist who then reports on the document they saw) the more they reveal about their identity and the higher risk they run of being caught.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Can the development of a consistent, recognisable online persona or identity be described as anonymity in any sense of the word?
I’m not afraid to tell anyone who needs to know who I am, er, who I am. It wouldn’t make a difference to anyone else’s opinion of a contribution of mine whether they read “copernicus” at the end of a post or comment than if they read “Mick Nash of Knocknagoshel” (oops).
August 4th, 2006 at 12:12 am
For example, should a public blogger break a story or make a claim on their website they are putting their name and reputation on the line and even leaving themselves open to legal action. While that doesn’t automatically make what they say reliable it certainly creates a level of trust that an anonblogger may have a harder time building.
It is probably no coincidence that the Irish blogosphere’s best and brightest are hiding nothing; look at Damien, Piaras, Sarah, Tom Raftery, Cian O’Flaherty, Mick Fealty, Cian Ginty and Fiona to name but a few. the same comment may have a harder time earning.
You do realise that Cian was a pseudonymous blogger until recently, and that several Slugger contributors are pseudonymous too?
From a professional point of view anonblogging isn’t extremely advantagious. Sarah herself has benefitted from being crystal clear about who she is. For someone in a position like myself, where a blog can be used as a platform for ideas, work and as a showcase of talents blogging under a pseudonym is not going to be of any great benefit.
First, there’s no such thing as “anonblogging”, it’s pseudonymous (unless you’re a arch sock-puppeteer like a certain FI member). Second, there’re a alot of different degrees of “pseudonymity”. What about people who blog under their firstname only? How do we know that “Joe Bloggs” is really who he says he is, in the absence of real-world acquaintance? What about someone whose name is real, but about whom the reader knows absolutely nothing? What about those who blog under a pseudonym but their real name is clearly widely known among their blogging friends (there were a few such on the defunct FI blog)?
I blog under a pseudonym, but I do not sock-puppet or post anonymous comments anywhere. I also have prominently displayed more biographical detail about myself (including my political affiliations) than nearly all ‘named’ bloggers. Several people have met me in real life. You want to find that I lack credibility in comparison to someone who gives their name but disguises crucial details of their political affiliations, fine, I can’t stop you. But don’t expect me to play along.
August 4th, 2006 at 1:01 am
You do realise that Cian was a pseudonymous blogger until recently, and that several Slugger contributors are pseudonymous too?
Cian didn’t use a pseudonym, he just didn’t reveal his surname and from posts I read before his surname was “publicised” he never shied away from giving information about himself.
Re Slugger please note that I named Mick Fealty and not Slugger in general.
First, there’s no such thing as “anonblogging”, it’s pseudonymous (unless you’re a arch sock-puppeteer like a certain FI member).
Of course there is; although a pseudonym is a direct symptom of being anonymous; for example if someone makes a statement but fails to put any kind of name to it and others discuss it they will in turn give it a name to make reference simple (Mr.X’s comment, for example). Saying that you can have a pseudonym and be well known and you can be anonymous with a pseudonym, they are different things.
Anonymous does not mean giving no name at all, it means not disclosing your real identity… technically it is possible to give your real name and be anonymous, that is to say that if your real name was so common that narrowing the real writer down would be impossible from those two words alone; that’s impractical generally though.
Second, there’re a alot of different degrees of “pseudonymity”. What about people who blog under their firstname only?
That’s not a pseudonym as the name is not assumed, it is simply a portion of the persons real name; it can be classed as anonymous as me only calling myself Adam only narrows down the potential possibilities to a smaller (but still relatively large) pool of people.
How do we know that “Joe Bloggs” is really who he says he is, in the absence of real-world acquaintance?
Fair point but I think people who assume pseudonym’s under the pretense of it being their real name can only go so far and a blogger with or without a name will be respected only for their content in the end; as I said in the piece being crystal clear about who you are doesn’t instantly make your comments worth heeding.
What about someone whose name is real, but about whom the reader knows absolutely nothing?
I know very little about the people I list as the best and brightest, only what they make public on their blog and leave in their wake as a result of their public work; bar Piaras I’ve never met any of them face to face (yet, I hope that will change soon) and I’ve only spoken to one or two others via phone/email etc.
Part of blogging is supposed to be about finding other opinions similar to yours and creating a community based around a common interest, regardless of location and so on. Each person can decide on their own terms and at which point they feel they have something to gain from a conversation with another.
What about those who blog under a pseudonym but their real name is clearly widely known among their blogging friends (there were a few such on the defunct FI blog)?
Well that’s not anonymous but it is a pseudonym.
I blog under a pseudonym, but I do not sock-puppet or post anonymous comments anywhere.
That’s good to know; I don’t claim that all anonymous bloggers and commentators are to be disregarded, I simply point out that in my opinion anonymity can hinder a persons gravitas in certain circumstances and as it is easier to abuse it is more likely to be ignored.
I also have prominently displayed more biographical detail about myself (including my political affiliations) than nearly all ‘named’ bloggers. Several people have met me in real life.
I would go so far to say, in that case that you are not really an anonymous blogger but you do use a pseudonym; after all your identity and personal information (within reason) is apparently available for all to see… Just out of curiosity (and not that anyone needs one) but if you’ve made your identity clear in the past why are you keen to remain generally un-named? Perhaps you have an honest fear that it will effect you in the future somehow?
You want to find that I lack credibility in comparison to someone who gives their name but disguises crucial details of their political affiliations, fine, I can’t stop you. But don’t expect me to play along.
I don’t want to find anything about you, I’m not sure why you’ve taken this so personally (especially considering your self-proclaimed transparency).
As far as political affiliations go, perhaps people aren’t forthcoming with them because they don’t have any? I personally am a member of no political party and I do not vote for one party over another for any reason other than their ability, policy and promise at that time. As for me giving a more archaic personal political leaning all I will say is that I don’t pigeon-hole my beliefs in any way to any party or ideology. I’ve found myself agreeing with people on one thing and passionately disagreeing with them on practially everything else and no party or ideology speaks to me through and through, so I will not say I am left or right or centre, socialist, marxist, capitalist etc..
If you want an idea of my political beliefs you need only read through my posts; any political blogger would be the same, I imagine.
August 5th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Found this via Doc Searls: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
August 5th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
My, you’re quite the wit this weather, Damien. Care to stick around and compare lists of “self-hating” pseudonymous vs. named bloggers? I’ve a couple of names in mind.
August 5th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I would go so far to say, in that case that you are not really an anonymous blogger but you do use a pseudonym; after all your identity and personal information (within reason) is apparently available for all to see… Just out of curiosity (and not that anyone needs one) but if you’ve made your identity clear in the past why are you keen to remain generally un-named? Perhaps you have an honest fear that it will effect you in the future somehow?
There are a number of legitimate reasons why people use pseudonyms; sometimes it’s for their own protection, sometimes for the protection of close family members.
There are a number of occupations where any sort of public utterances or political activity are frowned on (there are also occupations where the activities of family members can also come under scrutiny). The disgraceful, and entirely mean and petty, acts of one particular individual in the recent past provide an illustration of why pseudonymity can be a good idea.
(Perhaps Damien might care this time to actually share his thoughts on whether he approves of what Mr. Waghorne did?)
August 5th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
There are a number of legitimate reasons why people use pseudonyms; sometimes it’s for their own protection, sometimes for the protection of close family members.
There are a number of occupations where any sort of public utterances or political activity are frowned on (there are also occupations where the activities of family members can also come under scrutiny). The disgraceful, and entirely mean and petty, acts of one particular individual in the recent past provide an illustration of why pseudonymity can be a good idea.
I know why pseudnym’s are used, although you don’t seem to be keen on explaining why you use one. That’s your right entirely and none of my business but if no genuine reason is apparent it only goes towards casting doubt on a blogger.
I could assume that the list above features your own reason for being anonymous but I’m not going to.