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.

[botchagalupe]

Not that you need to hear it from me ... but you are one of the best bloggers out there. Some people are just idiots. My feeling is that if you disagree with a post then say why. just flaming someone is useless and not worth a reply.

botchagalupe (a.k.a. johnmwillis.com)

[Mam00th]

A lot of people are mean on the internet just because they can. The inteweb is like the old farwest, except that you can reincarnate as many time as you want. That's what makes it even worse then the farwest at times.

[j_brendel]

In order to keep discussion relevant, I routinely delete any comments on my blogs that contain any personal attacks or flames. Even if this attack is not directed against me, but against any other commenter or person. In civilized discussion there is no room at all for yelling, cursing or insults. Sure, moderating these things takes time, but it makes for a much more useful discourse.

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.

[Matt Asay]

Thanks for the comments. Makes me feel better that I'm not alone. I am guilty of attacking people/companies online (Just ask Novell), but at least I do it under my real name, not a pseudonym. That accountability has more than once caused me to change my opinion when someone challenged me (not my pseudonym) on it, because I, as a person, care about accuracy, whereas I, as a pseudonym, may not. @j_brendel: I wish I could delete comments, but CNET has a policy against it. I was able to do so at InfoWorld and liked that better. I would sometimes email the posters and ask them if they wanted me to post their comment but with their real name. They never did.

[rcaden]

H3h wasn't anonymous. He referred to his web site (h3h.net) in another comment on CNET, and that site contains his real name, which is presumably how you got it.

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.

[rcaden]

H3h wasn't anonymous. He referred to his web site (h3h.net) in another comment on CNET, and that site contains his real name, which is presumably how you got it.

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.

[Penguinisto]

Hey Matt? You're familiar with Gabriel's Greater Internet D**kwad Theory, yes? Chin Up!

[kenneth.barber]

Opening your opinion up to a forum will always get positives/negatives ... can't please everyone as the song goes ... I think generally your about 80% on your posts - which is pretty good. Sure you sometimes get on your soapbox - but this is the nature of the blog and people should just deal with that. I read this blog as you seem to get a good summary & cross-section of 'stuff going on' that I would only get if I read 15 blogs. Personally, if I have a problem with your post - I post a constructive comment not a silly flame ... that way you get real feedback - and you get better at posting ... helps everyone right?

[akiba_freak]

Sorry Matt, but most of the readers of your blog are computer geeks (this is an open source blog right?) that like to debate about who's brain is bigger. With a wide readership, you should be expecting both ends of the spectrum (nice guys, real ********), and take comfort in the fact that the flames you see here are nothing compared to the ones you see on comp.os.linux or comp.lang.c . You're blog is very good and I, for one, enjoy reading it every single day.
Akiba - FreakLabs

[kiwibuntu]

One of the strengths of Ubuntu is the civility (enforced if necessary) of the community that goes with it.

[phendrics]

Matt...I've been an anonymous reader of your blog for several weeks now. I agree with what you say - it's amazing what some people will do when they think that nobody is looking or nobody knows who they are. I hope that you won't get discouraged by those people who show up here and make inflammatory remarks, just because they can.

[Renegade Knight]

Like everthing there is good and bad. Anonymity lets say what you really think. Think China or Cuba, where you can still love your country but want to see it reformed but saying as much can result in some very real consequenses even if 99% of everone agrees with you.

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.

[TheStairMaster]

Word. im happy someone said it.

[Indn Maid]

Kola (kohLAH), a jerk is a jerk is a jerk; anonymity doesn't bring it out if it isn't already there. I think anonymity just morphs jerkhood. It seems to me we're seeing more people triggering off things than we used to, and things we didn't think would be such hot buttons for anyone, though. This said, I admit to being a privacy fanatic. But - "if" I'm going to take a hard shot at anyone, I have no problem telling them who I am, either. I work to limit my hard shots by subscribing to 3 teachings of my Elders - (1) Consider the source (of the remark) & rise above it. and (2) Some remarks are so stupid they don't deserve the dignity of further response. (3) is, "You should do an in-depth meditation on the old teaching that it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool, than to open it and remove any doubt". In my People's Way, we turn our backs and walk away on such dummies. Tougher to do on the Internet, but one way I use is to just quote (2) or (3) & go to someplace else. Besides, such boneheads show themselves for the tiny little people they are when they make such stupid remarks. When my grandchildren have pulled such behavior, I can always fall back on our Lakota Traditional approach and ask them, "WHERE is your respect??" WHERE IS your RESPECT?!?" Then go on to some other activity, saying nothing. Never fails, regardless of race.

[newe1344]

I'm sorry, there's not really a boxing gym near where I live so I berate others online to release pent up aggression I build at work. I blame my boss...

Mike
http://www.personalsidekick.com/

[G-hero47]

Dude your so right, this is the problem with talking to people on myspace, they will say really stupid things they normally wouldn't say because your not right there.

[dirty55409]

only commenting, anonymity, blogs etc. Does anyone think that, over time, this problem will get better or worse?? Granted the super-web is still a relatively "new" concept, and the technology behind it is growing and morphing at a frightening pace, will anonymity be a thing of the past? or is it our Civil Right to be jerks in the shadows? Great blog by the way Matt, I've felt that way a long time about jerk comments(not that the people are jerks, just their anonymous words)

[gcribner]

I agree with Renegade Knight's point. Also, there is the out of control PC environment that causes people to tow the PC line when anonymity is not an option . It does get very annoying when personal attacks arise instead of intelligent back and forth banter that may lead to enlightenment of the people reading the blog. I would prefer every blogger having the option to be anonymous, but be banned by a moderator if they keep personally attacking people.

[h3h]

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.