Anonymity is Lame!
Posted by Wade on October 4th, 2006
This is not a substantive post; just a little rant about my beef with those who love to be anonymous.
In general, I don’t get it. Why are people so affraid to reveal who they are on the internet? This is especially perplexing to me when it concerns topics they think are important enough to discuss and give their opinions about. For me, it undermines their credibility and for some reason I can’t take anything they say very seriously. It seems they are afraid of their own views, or perhaps they’re afraid someone who knows them will find them out–and they will be embarrassed? Or perhaps they really don’t hold the views/opinions they spew forth and just like to play “devil’s advocate” with impunity? Whatever it is, it’s dumb (in almost a literal sense).
In particular, there are several people who submit posts and websites on Sustain’d who for some reason refuse to reveal their identity. This is frustrating to me because I have wanted to visit their websites or find out more about them. But their anonymity makes this impossible; they are mere names in the blogosphere.
Why do people insist on being anonymous? Any thoughts? And how do we start a campaign to promote identity?
Then again, perhaps some of them don’t have a website to go to.
Comment # 1 left by Doc on October 4th, 2006
Doc,
Yeah, I thought about that; but then I thought about how extremely easy, free, and quick it is to post a bio on any one of the many free blog providers on the internet.
Comment # 2 left by Wade on October 4th, 2006
And what would you learn from a bio, other than a reason to dismiss their opinion?
Comment # 3 left by Johnna on October 4th, 2006
I’m not all that opposed to people posting without having a link to their own site. Like Okie, or Johnna, or Hhhh, I don’t see a big problem with minor anonymity.
I do, however, have a problem with people posting as “anonymous” or something to that affect, where one cannot associate their comments one with another on this blog as well as others. Seeing Hhhhh’s comments here, for example, as well as on Sustain’d and Provopulse and others places, I’m able to “connect the dots” and associate the comments with this person, even though I don’t know who he/she really is.
I don’t see that being much different that you (Wade), myself, Ryan, or anybody with a bio posted. All that does is let us put a face to the name, as well as perhaps some historical background as to who they are. I’m not all that concerned with that stuff. I’d rather know the person’s thoughts and opinions, which one can ascertain upon reading the comments they leave with their online moniker.
Comment # 4 left by Connor Boyack on October 4th, 2006
And what would you learn from a bio, other than a reason to dismiss their opinion?
Lots of things: 1) where they’re from; 2) how old they are; 3) what they’re interests are; 4) whether they are LDS; 5) and most importantly, whether their statements are at least semi-legit (but I suppose this probably isn’t true because anyone can post a sham bio). Contrary to your assertion, my primary objective is not to “dismiss” people’s opinions.
I don’t see a big problem with minor anonymity.
Yeah, I suppose it’s actually not all that bad. Perhaps my curiosity leads to frustration? What spurred my thoughts was my inability to find out more about someone who commented on one of my posts on Sustain’d.
For the record, Okie actually has a bio posted. And it’s not the absence of a name that gets me, it that I can’t learn at least the basics about people. Guess I’m weird?
Comment # 5 left by Wade on October 4th, 2006
Wade:
I occasionally post anonymously for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) Someone is asking about a very “sensitive” issue that I have personal experience with but don’t want any joe blow on the internet to find out that I have struggled with. So I post my experience “anonymously.” Usually, the owners of the blog will know who I am, as will those who I am hoping to help. The owners of the blog know because they either (a) can see at the click of a mouse what other comments have been made from my IP address, or (b) are familiar enough with me and my personal life to recognize a certain situation as uniquely mine.
(2) While not really playing devil’s advocate, perhaps for the sake of argument in legal matters I am taking a position that I would not like to see used against me at some point by opposing counsel in a deposition or during argument to a judge. Attorneys can be sneaky that way, and I have seen more than my share of it (not directed against me, thank goodness).
(3) Some people view me favorably and others less so. Sometimes I type anonymously to see how people respond to my arguments rather than how they respond to me personally.
Perhaps these reasons are cowardly or stupid as you suggest, but I think otherwise.
In any case, it seems to me that a person’s comments should be judged on the merits of what they say, not on the demographic characteristics of who they are.
Wade- of all people should understand this. Don’t you use blind submissions on law review? What about when law students apply- aren’t they subject to a blind (or even double-blind) application process? Why do you do this- allow students to apply anonymously? Shouldn’t they take responsibility for their applications?
Academic journals also often work the same way- double blind submission and review of work. There is a good reason for this, and one of those reasons is so that what a person writes is not “at least semi-legit” just based on their bio alone. It is so that the person reviewing another’s work really concentrates on its substance, rather than on the person who is saying it.
Comment # 6 left by Jordan on October 4th, 2006
In a way, I am anonymous. My name is completely fake. The reason isn’t because I am trying to hide something about my comments or my opinions. It is because I don’t trust the Internet. There are too many possible dangers that I would rather avoid.
On the other hand, I don’t like “anonymous” posts either for the reasons you stated. You can’t tell at least on a basic level who you are talking with. As an example, how terrible is it when you are reading a book and lose track of who is talking during dialogue? Most of all, usually those who use it are the least likely to be courteous in responses.
Don’t get me started with “anonymous sources” in newspaper reporting. I automatically thinks the quotes are highly questionable, if not unethical.
Comment # 7 left by Jettboy on October 5th, 2006
Wade, your primary objective isn’t to dismiss people’s comments, and yet the most important use you have for bios is to see if commenters are “at least semi-legit.” Contradiction?
1. Grew up in Southern CA, now back on the west coast. 2. 40-something (married with kids) 4. believing and practicing LDS.
3. organic food/art films made under communism/captology/Paul’s letter to the Romans/day hikes/shoes.
and obviously, argumentative.
Comment # 8 left by Johnna on October 5th, 2006
This post is ridiculously lame. L-A-M-E–O
Man, I love being anonymous.
Comment # 9 left by anonymous on October 5th, 2006
I want to thank everyone who has commented on this thread! Even though my post is obviously not “thought-out”, I really appreciate your candid responses; they have actually changed my view quite a bit. I will explain how as I address your points:
First, I should say I agree with Connor and Jettboy that quasi-anonymity doesn’t bother me (and you’ll soon discover that due to your comments and my introspection, I am no longer as troubled by total anonymity as I was before). I don’t care whether I know the person’s actual name or not, I’m just interested to know more about those who post comments; it’s those who leave absolutely no trace who are frustrating.
Jordan:
perhaps for the sake of argument in legal matters I am taking a position that I would not like to see used against me
I am going to be brutally honest: this comment strikes at the heart of my change of mind! Before I even read your comment, I thought a lot about why anonymity really does bother me. And aside from my remaining weak reasons for disliking anonymity, I came to the conclusion that I’m just jealous.
I don’t write/say anything in an argumentative manner that I don’t honestly believe–I just don’t work that way. And often my views are developing as I blog–this is a main reason why I blog to begin with; I like dialogue in search of truth. Because of this, my blogging activity has torn down any veil of privacy concerning many of my once privately held views on various matters. This is because anyone can find out about my views by simply googling my name in quotes (”Wade Poulson”). This search pulls up not only my personal bio, which positively identifies me beyond doubt, but it reveals many of my comments and leads the searcher to BoJ where they can discover many things about me and my views.
On one hand, I like this because I’m not embarrassed or ashamed of 99% of what I say and it reveals who I am. Yet, on the other hand, I fear it reveals too much about me and those who don’t really know me (particularly potential employers, or future constituents and/or clients) will be illegitimately–or perhaps rightly so–biased against me based on my personal views. I’m not concerned about depositions, but rather being judged by personal views rather than integrity, work ethic, or personality. Indeed, I have recently considered leaving the blogosphere altogether because I fear it may prevent opportunities for me in this manner (in fact, it is still a debate in my mind whether to leave or not). At the same time, I don’t think I could blog anonymously; and it’s definitely too late now!
So, after some reflection, I have discovered my negative outlook on anonymity arises from my jealousy of it. I think I had to proclaim it as “lame” because I was suffering from cognitive dissonance and attacking anonymity made me feel better.
In any case, it seems to me that a person’s comments should be judged on the merits of what they say, not on the demographic characteristics of who they are.
Yes, that is right. And this is where my attack on anonymity wasn’t well thought out! Perhaps I wish I could learn as much about other people as they can find out about me, and in that way be able to understand why they have the views they do. For example, those reading my bio will discover my religious and social conservative roots; and they may discover other insights about me that give them more context for what I say. I wish I could have this same background for many who comment and dialogue with me and others. I’m jealous that I can’t be as anonyous as they are; but at the same time I think at least partial disclosure makes for a MUCH more gratifying and fulfilling learning/blogging experience. It’s almost like I have more friends (I have never personally met three of the perma-bloggers on BoJ, yet I feel like they are my friends and that I understand them on some level).
Blind submissions on Law Review
This best makes your point about not judging the person’s ability to research and write based on who they are. I guess to make my point I would say that it would be extremely upsetting for me if those we eventually invite onto Law Review based on their skill would be forever unknown! One of the best things about being Executive Editor is to see how different people write with different style, ability, and persuasiveness; and being able to learn about really smart people and make many friends. All this would be impossible if anonymity was retained. And yet, your point remains that the merit of one’s skill should be based in their product, not their personality. I guess I am just interested in the why of people’s varying skills and views.
Overall, thank you for setting me straight Jordan! Incidentally, thanks for not being anonymous too! I don’t think I’ve ever visited ABEV until I was curious about who you were.
I really like your blog and shall probably visit there again.
Johnna:
Wade, your primary objective isn’t to dismiss people’s comments, and yet the most important use you have for bios is to see if commenters are “at least semi-legit.†Contradiction?
I think you missed my point, no doubt due to my lack of clarity. But I was trying to say that it’s important for me to see whether people are being consistent with who they are. I don’t think this is an undergirding desire on my part to “dismiss” people. As I have set forth above, I just like knowing about people. I try not to automatically dismiss anyone or their comments, despite the way I often come across.
And most of all, thanks for giving me some information about yourself! I don’t know why, but it is just much more satisfying for me to have context. Plus, now that I know you’re from Southern California I can automatically dismiss everything you say because everyone knows people from the “left-coast” are crazy leftists!
Comment # 10 left by Wade on October 5th, 2006
I began to participate anonymously when I found out that one of the more prominent members of the bloggernacle (he’s a permablogger at a couple different sites that I frequent) with whom I frequently disagree and I both were moving into the same home stake. Online we had participated in some quite heated debates and I decided that I did not want that tension to bubble up in person when we met. My retreat to semi-anonymity was the result of a desire to keep the peace as best as possible but also to put to rest some misconceptions this particular blogger has about me and others of my ilk (our heated disagreements were typically centered on classes of individuals). Eventually, I’ll remind him of who I am which will likely be a very interesting day in both our lives.
Comment # 11 left by endlessnegotiation on October 5th, 2006
Wade,
I enjoyed and disagreed with the original post. My thoughts were along the lines of Connor’s and Jettboy’s. I am impressed with the way you have changed your view so openly throughout the discussion. I suspect that one reason some post anonymously is so that they will never be caught changing their mind (admitting they were wrong) or contradicting themselves. (I doubt that this is a conscious decision, but I still think it is behind the decision in some cases.)
In response to Johhna, I would say that I usually don’t care what someone’s background is, I just read the post and judge it by what it contains. But there are some reasons I don’t always do this:
1) Short on time: if I see a very long comment by someone who I know regularly makes very good comments, then I will will take the time to read it. I generally do not have the time for long-winded comments, so I often skip the anonymous ones.
2) Context: knowing who made a comment can help me understand it, though it would have been vague if submitted anonymously.
3) Background: like Wade, I think there are times when identity leads to credibility. Not just in the “I can trust that the facts are correct” sense, but also in the “this guy really knows what he’s talking about” sense. For example, I was following a thread about remaining faithful to God through trials, and I was most interested in the comments from people who I know have gone through severe trials.
There are probably more reasons for “name-checking”, but those I’ve given are good enough for me.
Comment # 12 left by BrianJ on October 5th, 2006
Brian,
Thanks for the kind words and for your insightful take on why knowing more about commenters is sometimes important.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on October 5th, 2006
In today’s online environment, I can understand why sometimes people want to be anonymous, especially when discussing a sensitive topic, revealing sensitive information, or having a history in an environment. Usually, I think it’s good to be consistent, but I don’t blame someone who has that desire.
Comment # 14 left by mullingandmusing (m&m) on October 5th, 2006
M&M:
I can understand why sometimes people want to be anonymous, especially when discussing a sensitive topic, revealing sensitive information, or having a history in an environment.
Yeah, that is why I’ve come full circle and acknowledge that my dislike for anonymity was based in my jealousy of it.
Comment # 15 left by Wade on October 5th, 2006
Wade:
Thanks for addressing my comments. I have often had the same concerns you cited, though I have decided to keep my own blog.
You may not be able to or want to blog anonymously, but there are some things you can do not to be quite so “searchable”, but to remain known to those you want to be known to. Many of us in the bloggernacle now know who you are. Perhaps you could consider simply going by Wade on here- then you would not get this blog pulled up each time someone googles Wade Poulson. I recently removed my last name from my own blog, and now only go by Jordan F. Ben S. over at M* did the same, for the same sorts of reasons.
We are not anonymous to anyone who knows us, but we are not as easily findable by people searching us out on google for various reasons (though sometimes, I LIKE people to find me on google…)
Keep up the good blog! Blogging during law school was, for me, quite a relief indeed.
Comment # 16 left by Jordan on October 5th, 2006
This post brings up many reasons why people remain anonymous. Beyond blogging though, I think people are afraid to share their opinions, in person especially, because they do not have the necessary supporting evidence (or confidence) at that moment to back up their point of view. And if they cannot support their view, they choose not to share, to avoid feeling embarassed. As for internet anonymity…I simply do not have time to set up and maintain all the bio stuff and quite frankly there are many other things I enjoy doing more so. BUT, I find that I learn a lot from participating in the blog, which is the only reason I do it now…and Wade asked me too.
I have a comment on something BrianJ said:
“I am impressed with the way you have changed your view so openly throughout the discussion. I suspect that one reason some post anonymously is so that they will never be caught changing their mind (admitting they were wrong) or contradicting themselves.”
Introspection or self-evlauation is very difficult for most people. But I would venture to say that just because someone changes their mind DOES NOT make them wrong. It simply means they have had a change in opinion. Wade would be perfectly correct in maintaining his view of “For me, it [anonymity] undermines their credibility and for some reason I can’t take anything they say very seriously. It seems they are afraid of their own views, or perhaps they’re afraid someone who knows them will find them out–and they will be embarrassed.” But, through further discussion, Wade conducted some self-evaluation and came to the conclusion that the supporting evidence, in this case the blog, warrants a change in opinion. I myself find participating in blogging allows me to substantiate the supporting evidence I have on my opinions. Sometime my opinion changes, sometimes it remains the same. Whatever the case, I am not wrong simply because I disagree. Changing ones opinion can be a very sensitive subject. I think this is the case becasue people think in doing so they are wrong. Changing your view sometimes means right or wrong, but the fact still remains that we all have independent minds and we can think on our own. One of the great benefits of living in a free country.
Comment # 17 left by shane on October 6th, 2006
Shane,
I sort of agree with your statement:
“…just because someone changes their mind DOES NOT make them wrong.”
And I disagree with:
“It simply means they have had a change in opinion.”
I would agree with:
“…just because someone changes their mind DOES NOT necessarily mean they were wrong. It might simply mean they have had a change of opinion.”
The point of my comment to Wade was that many people seem reluctant to admit they were wrong—whether that means insensitive, ignorant, unintelligent, careless, etc—depite having it made known during the course of discussion.
Wade’s post was not stated as opinions, and even if it had been, it still would not have been a “Chocolate is the best flavor” kind of opinion that one can change without admitting to being wrong. Wade admitted to being too absolute, not well thought-out, “suffering from cognitive dissonance”, etc. That sounds like Wade was admitting to being wrong—and that’s great because 1) Wade was wrong and he realized it, and 2) it means Wade is mature enough to openly admit public mistakes.
Comment # 18 left by BrianJ on October 7th, 2006
I was wrong. It’s never easy for me to admit fault (because I’m a prideful jerk). But there are times when not admitting fault makes one out to be even a bigger jerk (for lack of a better term–no integrity perhaps); and when he does not express fault and his changed position, he in fact does lack integrity and it shows.
Yet, I do see Shane’s point here, and I think he’s right for the most part.
Comment # 19 left by Wade on October 7th, 2006
“I’m a prideful jerk”
Wrong again, Wade.
Comment # 20 left by BrianJ on October 7th, 2006
Wrong again, Wade.
Dang it!
Comment # 21 left by Wade on October 7th, 2006
They are anonymous because they are dishonest and up to no good. An honest man puts his name on what he says and does, and he makes sure that what he says and does is something he won’t ever have to be ashamed of.
For instance, I am a Mormon. I can say, “President Hinckley is a true prophet of God, and I love him for it,” and it will never come back to haunt me. But I can say, “President Hinckley is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and he has led the Church astray,” and I better post my opinion anonymously because it will probably get me kicked out of the Church if my Bishop or my stake president ever find out about it.
A drug pusher or a pornographer never signs his name to the things he does online for obvious reasons. But an honest man has no reason to hide and can feel free to affix his name to the things he writes.
Now, I know that Benjamin Franklin and some of our Founding Fathers wrote anonymously using pseudonyms when they were agitating against the English crown preparatory to the founding of this nation. And Joseph Smith and some of the early Brethren used pseudonyms for much the same reason. So there are special circumstances where an honest may might have a legitimate reason for using a pseudonym to write anonymously. But those occasions are the exception rather than the rule. Most anonymous writing and posting is done by dishonest people with something to hide.
Comment # 22 left by John W. Redelfs on October 17th, 2006
John,
Would you say that semi-anonymity (which is actually what I’ve decided to do now in the blogosphere) is one of those special circumstances when one legitimately believes his religious or private views may be misinterpreted by potential employers, clients, or constituents and therefrom used to wrongfully dismiss, judge, or even mistreat that person?
I still don’t know about the answer to this question and it’s something I’ve struggled with. I guess perhaps one shouldn’t be expressing his views if he is so afraid of them. In this manner, perhaps it is fair to say I am a coward by being semi-anonymous (i.e. no longer displaying my first and last names)?
Comment # 23 left by Wade on October 17th, 2006