Comments on: Anonymity On The Internet Needs To End

By: Sheamus

Sheamus — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:08:29 +0000

Indeed. I’m not for a second saying anonymity has to completely go – there are always valid reasons where this is important. For example, with very personal (or medical) discourse, or when an individual can be at risk of losing his or her job by presenting themselves in a certain way (say, sexuality) or in a country where freedom of speech is seriously oppressed.

But I believe in any standard situation where the writer of an article is putting his legitimate name to a piece – say, a journalist in a newspaper – it’s not too much to ask that all those who wish to comment do the same, is it? I don’t think that’s too radical a step. It’s common courtesy.

As said, if you’ve got something to say, then have the courage to stand up and be counted. Otherwise, feel free to anonymously complain and attack, but you’ll have to do so elsewhere.

Appreciate your comments Jack.

By: Jack M

Jack M — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:08:33 +0000

In a era where transparency counts, I really apprechiated your approach to the matter. Through this importance of commenting will rise even more and open up for more quality discussions. Still the “unauthentification” on discussion boards, forum etc. offers a space where it’s possible to overcome race&gender&age barriers, that’s a fascination about it … as you said this communities will continue to exist, for some movements it’s fundamental (like anonymous) … now it’s about to determine on which extend

By: fraserke

fraserke — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:10:52 +0000

Unfortunately there are a lot of “window lickers” out there who seem to think they can do/say/behave as they wish. Here’s no accountability. Regrettably even people with impeccable credentials have to “be the bigger man” and “rise above” the rubbish and take it from where it comes. This is the downside of being high profile on such a public platform. No, abuse in any form is not acceptable. What action can we take? Blatantly block people & advertise that this is the action we’re taking and why, but eventually we may run the risk of it coming full circle & may be a case of who will police the police?

By: Sheamus

Sheamus — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:58:11 +0000

No need to worry – your opening paragraph is essentially the point in a nutshell. And your example of Jack Schofield is a valid one – I’m a big fan of Jack’s, too. So tell me – how is it in any way fair if he puts his good name to an article (that might be controversial, say, albeit valid) and then a mob of anonymous commentators rip him to shreds? It isn’t, and I fail to see how anyone could make a valid case for it.

Opinion and constructive criticism is fine and to be encouraged – as long as you’re prepared to put your (real) name to it. Hiding behind somebody to make defamatory comments or threats of violence to and/or about them, is not. That’s really what this is about.

By: fraserke

fraserke — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:52:40 +0000

Slightly worried with all this talk about anonymity. I agree with you 100% that if you wish to have your say, have/say it…just have the balls to sign your name to it.

Point to ponder here: I am not in a profession right now that necessitates my true identity to be known. I am here to learn & enjoy the interaction. Were I promoting myself I wouldn’t hesitate to reveal my true identity.)

Although I do believe a good article/Tweet/blog stands on its own feet, credibility can only be established once someone is prepared to put themselves ‘out there’. A good example of this and someone whose opinion I respect is Jack Schofield @ The Guardian. He has an excellent reputation and I value his Tweets highly, i.e. credible reputation.