"From the start, Internet users have taken for granted that the territory was both a free-for-all and a digital disguise...," began the article in the New York Times to announce that "New Sites Rethink Anonymous Online Comments."
Yeah.
Since I started blogging, social networking and emailing, I have corresponded with, literally, thousands of anonymous people. I was brought up, thanks to Emily Post and Miss Manners, to communicate with people with names. Baby Boomer etiquette was to address people by name, refer to their interests, relatives, geographical location, interests or something personal. You know, "Thanks for your note. Hope things are well with you in Peoria, even though you didn't like what I said/wrote/wore/my husband earned for the TV series you didn't like."
That can't be done with people who comment anonymously on what I said/wrote/wore/earned, or what the millions of other people who are on the receiving end of anonymous comments said/wrote/wore/earned. More importantly, it can't be done with intentionally untrue and misleading comments by anonymous posters who choose to attack and hide.
So, when I read the Times and other stories about everyone from HuffPost to the Washington Post re-thinking the policies of readers posting anonymous comments on news sites, I was glad they were looking at what has become the norm.
Please, anonymous posters, know that I am not against free speech. If you don't like how I look, or you think I'm not smart or I shouldn't have a gift-wrapping room, it's all right because I have thick skin. I'm a big girl.
But, when you intentionally and dishonestly shape actual news and disparage people because of your a clear agenda and hide behind some silly made-up name, it's different. You can change the subject or create a new one under the guise of anonymity, and there are no consequences for not telling the truth.
The Times story quotes Leonard Pitts, Jr., of the Miami Herald who wrote that "anonymity has made comment streams 'havens for a level of crudity, bigotry, meanness and plain nastiness....'" I'd like to add bullying to the list. A lot of the anonymous meanies do sound like school bullies; but at least we knew who the bullies were.
It's not an easy issue, and there are no clear cut answers or generalities. I'd like to hear Emily Post's view, but I fear she'd even be befuddled by the options technology presents.
I'm just glad there's discussion going on. I will now sit up straight in my computer chair and prepare myself for anonymous comments.
Follow Candy Spelling on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cscandyland
Is that because you're completely, bone-headedly, or because you're so insecure you fear any hint that you're not held in overarching esteem be absolutely everyone?
Yes, the borrow a line from Johnny Hart - the Peasants are Revolting.
She is just saying what thinks about what others say about her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/16/AR2006041601027_pf.html
Annoymity knows no limits.. whether confidential sources for msm or just comments section
There are many, many times during any day that a guy with little social skills and less intelligence will feel insulted. On the street or in the shop, he will stuff it, because everything he does or says will be assigned to him. So he merely goes home and beats up the wife. Or posts online.
I recognize the Gatsby Syndrome, where someone who was not invited to the prom seeks revenge against the Homecoming Queen behind a mask. This is not a recent phenomena. Anonymous writers are a staple of American life. Shoot, we have a secret ballot, and the Federalist Papers were ostensibly by someone named Publius, and the most vile slanders were perpetrated during national campaigns under a cloak, and old Honest Abe himself was challenged to a duel as the suspected author of insults posted anonymously (Mary was probably the Kansan in the Kornkrib, in that instance).
However, some vulgar lout spewing his hate really adds nothing to any conversation, and that's why I no longer march in the First Amendment Always and Forever parade.
Hmmm, but it is okay to intentionally distort news, fail to report news, or disparage people if you use your real name and work for main stream media?
It must be easier to shut down the malcontented citizenry than to challenge the clear agenda of the main stream media, huh?
Surprising.
You mean us anonymous commenters have that much power, THAT'S NEWS TO ME.
Most of us don't live like you we don't have any influence or money and no one listens to us-remember we are NOT rich famouse celebrities and even it seems 'corporate internet' has to edit comments. Can you please get over yourself. I can understand all the rambling and *** words and such but the reality is is that it's very very very RARE. Can you cite specific examples where anonymous commenters have actually shaped 'actual news' and disparage people--please if you are a public person it comes with the territory and can youcite an actual anonymous commenter who has damaged economic or the reputation of a public person (aka a celebrity) and where to we change the subject or create a new one with out consequences---I'd like there to be less reporting on Tiger Woods escapades or what happens on Dancing with the Stars or American Idol but dya think
there's less reporting on that....hey I don't think so. Need a REALITY CHECK!!!!!!!!
"... shape actual news and disparage people because of your a clear agenda and hide behind some silly made-up name..."
1. shape "actual news" -- see this is way off. If we shaped actual news we'd be paid for it. We'd have a byline or an article blog ....like yours.....above.
2. disparage people -- yes, we often disparage people. But in all honesty 60- 70% of the posting public get it right. The other 30- 40% are on medication and we just ignore what they say.
3. clear agenda --- we're not a foreign government (as far as you know) we're just the people who watch TV. We're the victims or rather audience who have no sayso in whats on TV or movies. Producers decide that, not us. We're just the consumer. We eat whats fed to us. Do we like 24 hours of Hannah Montana ? Nobody asked us.
4. My names not silly. Are you disparaging me ? Candy is silly. Why did your mother make up that name ? Or were you named by the corner 5 & dime manager ?
5. Anonymity provide the reader with the ability to express an IDEA opposed to attacking THE PERSON. Which you obviously want to do. You dont want to address an idea you want to attack the messenger, .........personally. Your not interested in an exchange of ideas when you need to know the personal identification of the speaker.
Facts are immutable, hence the nomenclature, "NEWS."
When witnessessing the manipulation of news, giving it a slant, diverting
or ignoring the factual aspect, it becomes commentary, and as such
should be clearly stated as a disclaimer.
A clear example of this is the word "News"employed by the Murdoch-Ailes
Network, which I've taken to calling The Fox Comedy & Commentary Channel.
Why? Cause it fits.
I have a theory: A lot of the people who comment on sites like the huffingtonpost are loud, obnoxious types who can't get the guy next to them at the bar to listen.