The problem with web anonymity
I mostly have stopped reading comments to this blog because what passes for "discussion" in the comments section tends to be inane, rude, and/or vapid, and often all three at the same time. "On the Internet, no one knows that you're a dog," goes the saying. Or that you're a jerk.
Now, most people are not jerks. They just become losers when cloaked in anonymity. They say things they'd never say if confronted with the people they flame on discussion boards, in comments sections, etc. They're probably nice people "in real life." It's just on the web that they let it all hang out, to the detriment of the web and intelligent discussion.
Take the comments to one of my recent posts. The first is led off by "h3h" who apparently has no sense of humor (completely missing my point in the post), but can't leave it at that, then going on to lob ad hominems into his "argument."
"H3h" turns out to be Brad Fults. Judging from his web presence, like his Twitter feed, he's probably an OK guy. He happens to be wrong in the way he chose to comment on this blog, but he's probably a well-intentioned person, normally. [UPDATE: Brad commented below, and I also talked with a friend of his. Turns out he's a really good person. I caught him on a bad day, apparently.]
The problem is the snowball effect. His negative comment leads to a completely worse-than-useless comment by "mvpcarl," who ironically calls out a fellow Buffalo-ite for a negative restaurant review:
Brighten up simcoe, every post you have ever made on [Buffalo Rising] is extremely negative....If you need some help getting a hold of your negativity, I'm sure there's lots of people who would love to write you a script for some sertraline or fluoxetine.
So, perhaps MVPCarl has his moments when he's a pleasant person, too (apparently even religious based on some of his posts and videos, though I doubt his religion condones anonymous attacks). But not here, for some reason. Not under the cloak of (relative) anonymity.
As The Guardian recently wrote,
It's about culturally privileged people licensing themselves to play with truth, to be nastier than they could or would be under their own name, and to write things that they know in their heart of hearts they shouldn't.
As for "privileged" part, I don't know. But I do suspect that most anonymous (or semi-anonymous) commentators would never say the things they say on this and other blogs if they were talking to the author in person. The lack of civility is disturbing.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 





botchagalupe (a.k.a. johnmwillis.com)
You often bring up really good points in your blog, so it would be a shame if we would not be able to engage in a discussion after wards. So, it would be nice if you could continue to read our comments, even if it means having to delete or edit idiot postings.
Making an example out of him, simply because he posted a single rude comment you didn't like, makes you look like a noob.
To save you time, my name is Rogers Cadenhead.
Making an example out of him, simply because he posted a single rude comment you didn't like, makes you look like a noob.
To save you time, my name is Rogers Cadenhead.
-Nikolas Armendariz
Akiba - FreakLabs
When I saw some under the board behavior at a place I worked I sent in a letter to the editor using someones elses name (they said ok) to preserve my anonymity and my job. They got death threats over the issue. This was local politics.
Yeah, people end up being jerks and that's bad. It doesn't remove anonymity's role though.
Mike
http://www.personalsidekick.com/
- by h3h July 8, 2008 11:44 AM PDT
- My apologies for the earlier comment. I (and a few colleagues) completely missed the humor, likely because I'm not a regular reader of yours. Journalists who don't do proper research annoy me and I'd been more agitated than usual. Obviously that's not the case here and I misfired with my quick judgment. Mea culpa. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Matt Asay July 16, 2008 7:45 PM PDT
- Thanks, Brad. Just keep in mind that I'm not a journalist - I'm a blogger. I don't mean that as a cop out, but it *does* mean that I'm more interested in getting ideas down on "paper," and figuring out what's true as we go along. I'm certainly not as smart as I'd like to be. I *do* appreciate you helping me be a bit smarter.
- Like this
-
(25 Comments)