Anonymity
Posted by Yam on December 1st, 2006
Hi there!
So obviously, I’m writing anonymously. I have my reasons; I’d tell you, but that’d defeat the point…
Truth be told, we’re all anonymous to some extent. We have names, but what’s that really tell you? I’m pretty sure most of us only know each other through our online presence; the only difference between “Connor Boyack” and “Yam” is that if you really wanted to, you could find Connor in the real world, and ask him questions. (Yeah, like “Who is Yam?” He might tell you, too. It’s hard to be completely anonymous.)
So all we really know about each other is what we choose to read, what everyone else chooses to write.
There’s kind of a distancing there–I’ve seen people write things online which they’d never say to a physical person. It’s as though, even though their actual name is out there, and someone else’s actual name is out there, being online makes it easier to set aside the fact that behind the identity is a real, living, breathing, human being.
It’s not so different from the physical world. We all have names, just like our online aliases; it’s harder to have multiple identities… but we still only know each other through what we say, what we do. We’re more likely to act without thinking in the physical world; people tend to think a little more before posting… although not always.
People often distance themselves from each other in the physical world, too. Most people don’t see the guy in the blue car who just cut them off as another human being, full of his own hopes and fears and needs; they see the guy as just some rude jerk who cut them off. And they get angry with the guy, and curse him, and maybe honk their horn if it was particularly egregious. They let it get to them, they snarl at the dog, they let it ruin their day.
Okay, maybe it’s not always that bad. But you get the idea.
I’ve tried to make a habit of catching myself when I think along these lines, so I can turn my thoughts to Matthew 22:36-40. Particularly verse 39. Because that guy in the car might be anonymous, but he’s also a real person. He’s had decades of experiences, so many unique thoughts… it’s amazing! Maybe he’s trying to get home to take care of his wife; maybe he’s late for work and his boss is going to yell at him; maybe he’s just an unenlightened oaf delighting in getting just a little bit further ahead. It doesn’t matter; see Matthew 5:43-48. The guy’s real; instead of getting angry or upset, you can love him, you can wish him the best, and hope he makes it to where he’s going in time, or if he’s not doing it for a good reason, that he someday wakes up and sees that he doesn’t have to hurry so much.
We can do the same thing online. That distancing is easier; people forget that they’re writing comments to other people, other children of God, so when they react with anger to a post or a comment, they sometimes write awful things. Other people take those comments and get hurt, taking it so seriously, not understanding that they’re written by people who aren’t yet thinking of the people they’re writing to as, well, people.
There’s a lot of power in anonymity; you can say what you want in the comments to this, and odds are you’ll never pay any consequences at all in this world. But there’s a spiritual peace that comes from responding with love; not just to this, but in all of the interactions in your life, even with others who don’t get it yet. The commandment really does lead to happiness and peace.
Thanks Yam.
One of the things I am learning in recent weeks, is that I can control my attitude and reation to things. And while that may have limited affect on things around me, it has a profound effect on me.
(Am I using affect and effect properly here? One of my weaknesses. Try not to let it ruin your day if I use imperfect grammar)
You have also made me think of how we judge others and are judged by others. People will make impression of others in just a few seconds. This is usually based on how we look, what we do, what we say, and how we say it. Since we usually do not know what others look like in this world, nor how they behave, we only have what we say and how we say it to influence others. A difficult task.
Good job Yam.
Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on December 1st, 2006
Great post,
I have always wondered why people use anonymous names when on the internet, especially in forum type of discussions. Are they too ashamed to use their real names? Or is it truly like you said, they can be somewhat evil in their disposition to others without being noticed in their real lives? It’s as if they think if they can use an alias that no one knows, they can be spiteful towards others, or even act out through words things they normally would be to shy or ashamed to talk about.
I decided when I first started writing to thers and responding on forums and blogs that I must use my real name because that name will always keep me in check from lashing out at others in a harmful or unproductive way. When i do get heated through my words, I feel I am more honest with who I really am and I make changes accordingly. I wish everyone would use their real names. It’s not like we should feel ashamed of who we truly are or that we might be afraid of people stalking us.
If we ever bring up topics that are sensitive or intimate, we should be extra careful that we use our real names and that we keep our opinions on those matters within guidlines of moralistic character and Christ-like disposition.
I love my fellow man and i hope we can all be honest with each other and can help each other be are true Christ-like selves even when we do slip and make rude or unchristian comments. I firmly believe that ones character is manifest in how true he is with himself, God, and his fellow man which includes posting under ones real name!
Comment # 2 left by Rob Osborn on December 1st, 2006
or spelling (reaction).
Comment # 3 left by Eric Nielson on December 1st, 2006
As someone who hides behind a pseudonym I’ll give you three good reasons for one:
1. Although many people enjoy sharing personal and family experiences with a broader audience, my wife objects to using our private life to formulate “internet object lessons.”
2. I am a surgeon. When patients start thinking about doctors, they often do an online search. The last thing I want them to find is some random comments I’ve made about Mormon underwear.
3. Using a pseudonym helps me keep things in perspective. My perception is that there are some “cults of personality” on the bloggernacle. A pseudonym reminds me that the discussion isn’t about me, it’s about my ideas.
Comment # 4 left by herodotus on December 1st, 2006
FWIW, Wade had a post on this a while back as well.
I have mixed feelings. I, personally, have no problem putting my name out there. Google Analytics reveals that my name is frequently searched for when coming upon my own blog and this one. I’m not afraid of my ideas or stances, and thus don’t feel the need to add a layer of personality abstraction by witholding my name.
I do understand the issue from a professional standpoint. This is one of the reasons why Wade stopped blogging. Potential employers or clients may google your name, only to find that you hold religious or political views that they disagree with, and hence pass you over. But I’ve come to the decision that if a potential employer is going to pass me over based simply on my views (and not talent and ability), then that is the type of employer I wouldn’t want to work for anyways.
I see the argument going both ways, and understand people who post/comment anonymously. I just don’t see the need for it myself.
Comment # 5 left by Connor Boyack on December 1st, 2006
But I’ve come to the decision that if a potential employer is going to pass me over based simply on my views (and not talent and ability), then that is the type of employer I wouldn’t want to work for anyways.
Very good. And I feel a bit inclined to take this view too. But what if these people could have their view and perspective of Mormonism changed if they first have experience with a person/employee/professional/attorney/legislator/etc. who they gain a relationship of trust with before making judgment calls about what this person may or may not believe based on what he/she wrote in a blog post/comment about some obscure element of a historically misrepresented religion?
I have put numerous hours of thought into this and have come to the opposite conclusion as you Connor. I.e., I would actually rather work for someone who would “pass me over based simply on my views” because it is this type of person that needs to be converted in their way of thinking about Mormonism; a sort of “sneak attack” if you will.
And this is a very interesting topic that may seem benign at first.
Comment # 6 left by Anonymous on December 1st, 2006
But what if these people could have their view and perspective of Mormonism changed if they first have experience with a person/employee/professional/attorney/legislator/etc. who they gain a relationship of trust with before making judgment calls about what this person may or may not believe based on what he/she wrote in a blog post/comment about some obscure element of a historically misrepresented religion?
Excellent point. But I’m not one to let my actions be guided by future “what if’s”, “maybes”, and “mights”. Yes, such a situation would be good for the employer who would (hopefully) learn of the person’s character and virtues, rather than judging them outright based on some comments and posts. However, the anticipation of such a potential situation doesn’t make me want to hide in the mask of anonymity.
People will judge and act as they normally do, and the hope of possibly changing something/someone doesn’t justify, to me, changing my mindset and course of action. I strive to “be not ashamed” of my testimony. I will bodly testify and defend that which I believe and know to be true, let come what may.
Comment # 7 left by Connor Boyack on December 1st, 2006
the hope of possibly changing something/someone doesn’t justify, to me, changing my mindset and course of action.
And therein lies the difference between thee and me. I do believe having real interpersonal relationships (not psuedorelational experiences in the bloggernacle) “justifies” a change in our actions; it is required to place ourselves in the position to influence people, institutions, and general misperception.
I don’t see my decision (a fairly new understanding) to be anonymous on the internet qualifies me as one who is “ashamed” of my testimony. To the contrary, one could argue my new perspective is calculated to place me in situations to bring about change in a much more substantive way than quibling with half-wit disgruntled members of the Church (my personal view of many who comment in the bloggernacle). I don’t comprehend how being anonymous online prevents me from “bodily” testifying and defending the faith. But perhaps you were not making such an implication?
Comment # 8 left by Crito on December 1st, 2006
My view now is the same it has been since the last thread topic. There are just too many privacy issues associated with the Internet. Not that you couldn’t easily find me, but at least you will have to look a little harder.
P.S. I want to thank everyone who (my own mistakes and uncontrollable circumstances) knows my name and doesn’t use it. That means a lot to me.
Comment # 9 left by Jettboy on December 1st, 2006
But perhaps you were not making such an implication?
Yes and no. (Also, did you mean to type “bodily”? :)) My testimony is representative of who I am. Imagine an Ensign article where President Hinckley published and article under an assumed name. Would people treat its content differently? Would the words carry as much weight? Would we learn anything about the author, or be able to relate his/her words with his/her person?
I think that the bearing of testimony (be it on religious things or not) is a personal thing. Missionaries wear name tags and go door to door for a reason. Communication is (err.. should be) intimate and personal in nature. I personally am willing to pay attention to the words of my family, friends, and acquaintances over the words of somebody posting anonymously. This is because I do not know where this person is coming from - it could be a bitter ex-girlfriend, a snarker with a vendetta, a co-worker with alterior motives, or a person that has any other number of reasons for remaining anonymous.
I like the point that Yam brought up about dehumanizing other people we don’t know. This directly applies to the anonymous realm of the internet. Anonymous commenters feel much more courageous in childishly posting an accusation or vitriolic statement when there’s no chance it can be traced to them. In a sense, I think such people are trying to evade accountability. We would all be wise to remember that—whether posting anonymously or not—we will be held accountable for everything we say (or type)…
Comment # 10 left by Connor Boyack on December 1st, 2006
Also, did you mean to type “bodilyâ€
Yes I did. Incidentally, I thought this was your meaning because you actually typed “bodly” instead of boldly in your previous comment. And coincidentally, it relates directly to our disagreement.
I would MUCH rather testify and exemplify my religious beliefs “bodily” (i.e. in person) to someone who really does know me (or at least have the opportunity to perceive me for who I really am), rather than do so in a pseudodiscussion with someone in the ‘nacle.
I think that the bearing of testimony (be it on religious things or not) is a personal thing.
So do I. And that is why I believe the effect of it is not nearly what it could be when done merely through computers. This is at the heart of my decision to influence people in the real world rather than turn them away from me due to my obscure comments about religion that I may or may not adhere to. Indeed, blogging (for me) actually puts up a false front for those who actually may have had the opportunity to know me wholistically. And that is why I think there is probably only one person in all of the ‘nalce who actually knows my real character because we are friends in real life. But this is not to say blogging and the internet are not valuable or constructive, only that it is a bit like being bound in the depths of a cave and believing shadows on a wall are reality; when really those depictions are mere shadows of depictions of what really is.
Comment # 11 left by Crito on December 1st, 2006
…you actually typed “bodly†instead of boldly in your previous comment.
Oops!
And that is why I believe the effect of it is not nearly what it could be when done merely through computers.
I’ll agree with you hear. But is that a reason to go to the opposite end of the spectrum and pursue complete anonymity, simply because online “testifying” isn’t as effective as doing it in person?
For example, I am aware of somebody who has read my blog and been positively influenced by what I have said. Would my impact on this person been as strong had I been posting anonymously, without allowing this person to get a glimpse into my life (through posts of a personal nature, Flickr photos, etc.)? Perhaps, perhaps not. The dehumanizing aspect is all too easy in the anonymity of the internet. But as the More Good Foundation agrees, I think the internet needs people who will raise their voices, share their testimonies, and reach out to people using this communicative method (among others).
I guess the issue boils down to the fact that I think a person’s words don’t carry as much weight unless they are able to be associated with that person. Does that make sense?
Comment # 12 left by Connor Boyack on December 1st, 2006
I guess the issue boils down to the fact that I think a person’s words don’t carry as much weight unless they are able to be associated with that person.
Well said! And I agree. In fact, that is why I have decided to be anonymous. Ah, the irony!!!
You see, a person’s words don’t carry any weight if the person isn’t known. But a person CANNOT be known via the internet. Sorry, but it’s just not possible. For example, in the ‘nacle I make many arguments and comments about very nuanced views derived from several years of thinking and studying. But these small snippets of my “views”don’t represent me as a man. A perfect example is all the anit-mormon junk out there that is full of truth about statements made by many leaders of the Church. Because these statements are not in context and are the equivalent of slapping a 24 ounce rib-eye on the plate of a 2-month old, they are rejected outright and we come off looking like freaks.
Thus, I have chosen to be who I am in real life and allow people the opportunity to know me as an individual instead of dismissing me (as an employee or Church member etc.) before they get that chance.
Comment # 13 left by Wade on December 1st, 2006
Uh oh! I guess I blew my “anonymity” with that last comment eh. I forgot to change the automatic setting on BoJ from my usual info. before clicking “submit”; and I have recently been ousted from any admin. abilities to edit my comment. But of course everyone knew who I was anyway I’m sure.
Comment # 14 left by Wade on December 1st, 2006
While I’m more open now about my true identity, I originally tried to keep my identity private mainly to protect my family. When I first started the blog thing, I wasn’t sure if angry people would track me down and harrass my wife and kids. I used to be a federal law enforcement officer and investigated crimes involving the Internet. No fun. I’ve slowly let more and more of my identity out as I’ve grown more comfortable that we’re OK. There’s enough information on my blog and Blogger of Jared to probably find me, but I’m fine with that at this point.
On a related note, knowing that I’m relatively anonymous when I’m out and about (commuting, traveling, vacationing, etc.), I put a BYU sticker on my car. This reminds me to be Christlike always. I’d hate to do something rude on the road, for example, and leave someone with a bad impression of the Church as a result. I also try to wear BYU clothes when traveling or vacationing. Like a CTR ring, it reminds me who I am and what I stand for.
Comment # 15 left by david on December 1st, 2006
I don’t know why, but there’s one aspect to all of this that everyone (in discussions and in the heat of any given moment) is that our accountability extends beyond anything witnessable by another person, be they a physically-present acquaintance or yet another pair of eyes at the other end of the internet. Even our very thoughts are known–always.
Comment # 16 left by Naiah Earhart on December 1st, 2006
People often distance themselves from each other in the physical world, too.
I don’t think this just happens with perfect strangers. I think we do this more than we would like to think with those we know and interact with on a regular basis. I think, especially in the Church, the more we can be vulnerable enough to say, “I’m not perfect” and “I’m struggling” and also share how we found strength in our imperfections and our trials, we will be more able to help and serve and strengthen each other and be more of one heart and one mind.
And, incidentally, I think that can happen on the internet to a degree regardless of if we use real names or pseudonyms. I am not convinced that it really makes that much difference if we use real names or not. But I totally understand why some people do use their real names. And yet I also understand reasons for not doing so. I don’t think there is necessarily a “right” answer to this in an arena like blogging where no one has any authority anyway (different if the prophet were to avoid using his name). The most important name I think we need to worry about representing is Christ’s always, and we can do that regardless of whether we use a pseudonym. But I agree that unless we see other people as people as we interact, it will likely be difficult to bear His name well.
Nice post, btw.
Comment # 17 left by Michelle on December 2nd, 2006
Hey, thanks for all the comments! And sorry it’s taken me so long to get around to replying…
Rob–you’ve given me an additional idea to be worked into a future post; thanks! I agree with you in part; we’re more likely to treat each other well when posting under our own names, if only because we don’t like to see that name besmirched. But I do think it’s possible to always treat each other well even when we’re relatively anonymous.
It might be interesting to strive to eliminate anonymity in other situations–suppose we all wore name tags all the time, and put our names on our cars when we drive them, along with where we work, our religious affiliation, &c? It might make for more polite interactions… I’d never thought about it before, but maybe that’s one factor behind bumper stickers; if you have an LDS sticker, are you more likely to be a nice driver?
I agree that bearing of testimony is much more powerful when the person’s name is known; there is a sense that “I know this to be true to such an extent that I’m backing it up with my name; I’m not hiding from it, I’m not fearful of what other people might think.” When your name’s right there, you can’t walk away from your words.
Michelle–it definitely doesn’t just happen between strangers; people wear all kinds of masks. I think it takes a certain amount of self-confidence to live without a mask; it might be healthier, and more valuable for others, but vulnerability is hard. There are definitely areas where my testimony could be stronger; I don’t let it worry me, but it would still be a little awkward to stand up in front of everyone and talk about it. (That’s probably another good subject for a future post; thanks!)
Comment # 18 left by Yam on December 3rd, 2006
Gifts that do a world of good!
Christmas Gifts - Postcards
We send personalized cards for you!
Comment # 19 left by acuttyRartela on December 21st, 2007