Apologies for the loss of my blogging mojo of late... can't explain it. Must be the warm weather here in England...
Is there ever a case for making commenting anonymously on blogs/discussion boards and the like?
I admit, I have done it once or twice. But, as a rule, I think it is something a Christian person would not do. I think I am committed to the view that words attach to persons, and detached from them they lose their truth - or, at least, the reader of those words loses the opportunity to evaluate the truth of the words by the character and actions of the writer. Words are of their nature personal, and by anonymity become depersonalised, and unanswerable - a status no human word should really have.
The same would hold for writing anonymous letters: what is the case for ever writing one? What circumstances would justify it? How does anonymity transform it as a speech-act?
The counter argument would be that anonymous comment allows the vulnerable and the fearful to have a voice where they might not have. But even so, I would call these exceptional circumstances.
30 comments:
Do you think this would be analogous to the way early Christians viewed pseudonymity? Should we have the same ethic with anonymous commenting?
(thought about leaving this anonymous but decided not to... :) )
I have used anonymous commenting before - mainly on work related issues so there's no comeback on me personally (as there could be, particularly if I'm critical - I'm a civil servant).
That said, I tend to agree with you -and it should certainly not be the norm.
Given the long shelf life of anything said on the web, might it not make sense to preserve partial anonymity (i.e., identify yourself enough so that who you are becomes generally apparent, but keep yourself from easily being googled)? Obviously, we should be held accountable for our words, but at the same time, it's nice to be able to say things while you're in process without having to fear it coming up in a job interview 15 years from now.
(paul knight) I don't think it is a moral issue at all... people are entitled to assume when using software that its configuration is intentional, ie: if you have a blog that has an anonymous option for commenting, then people will expect that you must be game for anon. comments. As a christian I think we are accountable to God for things that we say anonymously on a blog, but I think its not fair to offer the option of anon commentary, and then think worse of people who use it, I mean, God at least warned us about the tree.
I agree with Paul Knight. Anonymous posts and blogs should be read as just that - anonymous. One might even say there is something morally dubious in going around trying to guess who wrote something they intended to remain unidentifiable, especially since they may feel vulnerable (as you observe).
Lots of people, of course, think that the Pastoral Epistles were pseudonymous. If they were, does that make them morally dubious? Most Christians have not thought so.
Ah, not at all, anon! I would accept the argument of vulnerability in, say, cases of sexual abuse. But to use anonymity as a veil from behind which to offer scurrilous comment about someone who is readily identifiable... well, no, it's not problematic. It's just wrong.
The Pastoral Epistles? Well - if they are pseudonymous - the question is whether a deception is being practised, or whether it is a convention. Seems quite a different case.
Would you include anonymous articles in magazines or publications? ... I can think of recent articles in The Briefing that have been anonymous. Very tricky.
I'm with Paul Knight too. Firstly to deal with Michael's comment, we shouldn't be making scurrilous comments ever, whether under the veil of anonymity or not.
Secondly, commenting can be helpful, humorous, demonstrate wisdom, etc, and therefore could be something to be boastful about. So with Matt 6:1 you ought to do them anonymously.
So maybe you should only comment anonymously when you want to do the opposite.
If that's the case I think it's unfair that some of us have sirnames that are more trackable than others!
I guess we're getting back to the old chestnut of the peculiarity of the blog medium. They have all the feel of a chat but then they last forever...
Maybe the answer is, like you said, that we need to give more thought to our words wherever we say them ... but then, as an extrovert, I'm not sure I could reach the stage of having a fully formed thought (or magazine article or whatever) without talking it through with other people when the ideas are half baked. Shooting the breeze with friends seems pretty important for some people even if those friends are half way across the world. Maybe we need blogs with limited access!
Also - is the stuff Paul says to Timothy about letting people see his progress relevant here? (I dunno - maybe that's a bit half baked!)
What about hte partial anonymity of only putting your first name?
I liked one of Michael's earlier points that words shouldn't be abstract. It seems pretty important in the Bible that the words of God are linked to his personhood. Does God ever speak anonymously? (question not a point)
I think God first spoke anonymously and then his revelation became increasingly attached to his personhood and then was finally embodied in the incarnation.
In line with what Michael said perhaps the truth of his revelation corresponded with that progression - from vagueness to clarity.
I think I am committed to the view that words attach to persons, and detached from them they lose their truth
I always post using my name. Not only is this fair to others, but it says that I am perfectly content for my name to be associated with these comments. I also don't want my comments to be given less credibility because they are anonymous - although I suspect that many people automatically because they are mine.
The fact that I'm working for a particular government department unfortunately mean that I no longer wish to comment on certain issues, lest the department be associated with my opinions.
although I suspect that many people automatically because they are mine.
What I mean to say is that I suspect that many people automatically dismiss my comments because they are mine.
So who are you Mr/Ms Anonymous? Do we have to wait for progressive revelation? And why do you hide? Are you humble about your wit, wisdom or experience? ("I knew a man who was caught up into the third heaven") Is your issue the imbalance of power in the blog dynamic between writer and reader? Or is this a cunning ploy to intrigue us into response so that a greater level of relationship may be established that might one day deserve the revelation of your name??!
There could be more than one...
No I meant the one who responded to my question... this is the problem with anonymity though hey!
As you can see i am not anonymous but pseudonymous, which is another thing again. Not only am I hiding, I am positively deceitful! How wicked of me.
I see nothing wrong with anonymous posting in most contexts unless it masks vindictive or slanderous words. I wonder whether most of those who are negative towards anonymous posting are extroverts and most of those in favour of it are introverts? I suspect it has more to do with personality traits than objective morality.
Furthermore, although I wouldn't go too far down the deconstructionist path, words do have objective meanings and subjective effects apart from their authors or the relationship you have with them. A thing can be true, right, wrong, helpful, unhelpful, insightful, stupid, foolish, wise, etc in itself, whether or not you know who said it. Just because I know nothing about the author of a book I read doesn't mean I can get nothing out of it. Besides, what's the practical difference between an anonymous poster and one who uses their real name but is someone on the other side of the globe you've never met in the flesh? You may not have as personal a relationship with them as you do with those who identify themselves as your friends or colleagues, but what they contribute to the discussion is no less worth considering.
Ummm no offense but I tend to find this obsession with anonymous commenters dominant in a particular corner of the god-blogosphere. Get over it or else just delete the comments and don't keep mentioning the topic. (I deliberately refuse to even post under a moniker here because I know it annoys you :-O)
There is no anonymous comment by a Christian. We are accountable for every word we write. Some of us are also accountable - even under contract - to our employers.
In some countries blogging under your real name guarantees you a visit. Yes there are bloggers in jail. You want all of them to blog under their name too?
Thanks, anon 4. And to all commenters: I think I have modified my original position.
My original post was prompted by an example of anonymous/psuedonymous commenting on the Fulcrum website which I found to be quite appalling. It was so clumsily done that it was quite easy to tell who it was and who it was that he was slagging off - it happened to be his former employer. It was quite cowardly. It seems to me that the problem is exacerbated by the anonymity, because people can slander others. And do.
I speak as someone who is frequently tempted to comment anonymously, because of my name. If I comment, I have to be aware that people will assume all kinds of things about where I am coming from, and about what my relatives do or don't think.
But I take anon 4's point: and I am not at all offended or even annoyed by the his/her anonymity in this case. I don't think that there ought to be a blanket 'no' to anonymity. But there is a principle that I am grasping for here that is regularly contravened in blogland... what is it?
Michael - I have thought about the anon commenting frequently. I dislike anonymous comments on my blog, because I don't think that's how people should relate to others...the old 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'...has too often turned into...'if you can't say anything nice, say it anonymously'!!
I think that anonymous blog comments are really the owner of the blog trying to drum up business.
I speak as someone who is frequently tempted to comment anonymously, because of my name. If I comment, I have to be aware that people will assume all kinds of things about where I am coming from, and about what my relatives do or don't think.
Yes, I can understand that rationale. I, for one, would like to think that I try to read your comments on their own merits. Perhaps this is why I've enjoyed reading what you've written!
Oh the coincidences. Anonymity. Comments on their own merit.
I was just reading this an interview with Michel Foucault that was printed in Le Monde in April 6, 1980. For the interview Foucault wanted to remain anonymous, 'the masked philosopher'. This is what he said when asked why he wanted to be anonymous:
"In our societies, characters dominate our perceptions. Our attention tends to be arrested by the activities of faces that come and go, emerge and disappear. Why did I suggest that we us anonymity? Out of nostalgia for a time when, being quite unknown, what I said had some chance of being heard. With the potential reader, the surface contact was unrippled...A name makes reading too easy..." from The Masked Philosopher
I love the line "a name makes reading too easy". How very true.
I don't think that there ought to be a blanket 'no' to anonymity. But there is a principle that I am grasping for here that is regularly contravened in blogland... what is it?
Um.... could it be courtesy? Or perhaps something deeper, like Dignity?
The good thing about Blogger blogs is that if you do dislike anonymous posts, you can disallow them. If you don't disallow them, then you can't really complain when they happen.
I think that's a good point someone made also, about people in countries where they will be persecuted if they make traceable comments on a blog. I hadn't thought of that.
Not offended at all by any anonymity either. This isn't THAT big a deal!
However, as we're talking about it, I don't want to loose the idea that communication should have a fundamental link to relationship (however small and limited that relationship might be through one thought in a blog conversation)... and relationship (even on the most basic level) isn't possible if the commentator is anonymous.
A blog, particularly a blog that deals with theology, isn't like the sort of information on traffic signs... there has to be some link to the actual person. As I said it's not that big a deal but if pushed I still fall on the side that you'd need a pretty good reason to override the idea that Christian words should be “truth in love” and that “love” implies some level of relationship.
Risk free information gathering isn’t how we're supposed to work out what we think about God!
I speak as someone who is frequently tempted to comment anonymously, because of my name.
Young man; well can I relate to your problem, and the frustration of one's comments being dismissed (or even deleted!) simply because of one's name.
"But there is a principle that I am grasping for here that is regularly contravened in blogland... what is it?"
I would go with courtesy (following the pook's remark) and responsibility. Ideals (or ways-of-being, or virtues) like this play out differently in different situations, which incidentally provides a way of understanding why it might be wrong to post anonymously in one circumstance, but acceptable in another.
Along these lines (and as discussed once previously) I think the sentiment "if you don't like anonymous posts, just ban them" is far too simplistic: and, if I may say, obviously too simplistic. This is related to the debate about legalising this-or-that, or the appeals cigarette manufacturers make to the legality of their product, when complaining about restrictions: there can never be a one-to-one correspondence between the illegal and the reprehensible. Behaviour and circumstance are too complex to allow it.
Rudeness should not be illegal, but if someone is egregiously rude one has grounds for complaint. This is, it seems to me, an obvious point, and if it's difficult to see clearly, I wonder if the preoccupation in (some parts of) our society with process --- exacerbated by an immaterial forum like a blog --- is obscuring our intuitions here.
Hello Yabbers, you always were a deep thinker.
Saying that if you allow anonymous quotes then you can't complain when they happen is not the same as saying the solution is simply to ban them. That is just one option.
Not allowing anonymous quotes on your blog is a valid choice according to the blogger preferences, but not something that can be compared to making something illegal in society. It is more like choosing not to allow pets in your hotel, or not inviting people into your house unless they remove their shoes. It's a (virtual world) preference or lifestyle choice rather than a legal thing.
Furthermore, there is a confusion of categories here. Rudeness is an attitude or character trait exhibited in certain ways, and as such is not something that legislation is the answer to, I agree. But anonymous posting is an ACT, and as such may be allowed or disallowed by a blogger in just the same way that a property owner may choose whom they allow to enter their house (or more precisely, HOW they allow them to enter). Prohibition IS a valid option for an act.
Some bloggers allow anonymous posts but then have a request on the page that people don't post anonymously, or at least sign their name on an anonymous blog. That may be the best of both worlds.
Greg (see, I'm now only partially pseudonymous!)
Greg / the pook: thanks for both the compliment and the more careful attention to terms (I was not being careful, as you noted), but I still don't think this defeats the essential point. Anonymous posting is indeed an act, but one that can carry different meanings according to context. One doesn't want to ban it for this reason --- especially as some people particularly need to have recourse to it, as discussed earlier --- but it does stand in need of justification: complaint is then not complaint against anonymity merely as such, but complaint againt frivolous, cowardly, or rude anonymity.
Again, one may have to take trouble to define this clearly, but I think the point is more or less obvious, and implicit in Michael's initial post. A better analogy than rudeness would have been shouting, or the use of coarse language in company: justifiable case-by-case, but something it's otherwise reasonable to complain about. Yes?
Post a Comment