More thoughts about anonymity ... engaging an abiding distrust for anonymous speech
I've had cause to think about this topic again recently with the sensational 'Gay Girl in Damascus' hoax bringing up the issue of long-standing pseudonyms and use of anonymity on the internet.
A very good article from The Guardian's Dan Gillmor on the issues contains this passage:
Now, clearly not many of the pseudonyms and glovepuppets posting here on PropertyTalk are in fear of their lives, and some of my favourite contributors were never 'outted' (living treasures like poormastery and Xris whose identities were never revealed). Others (not so favourite) have been revealed and marked as manipulative dissemblers of misleading statements. Still others maintain their tissue thin glovepuppet status.
I respect Dan Gillmor and agree with his view about the need for audiences/readers to deploy 'an abiding distrust' for anonymous speech. Damn right.
It depends what the pseudonym-user is saying, of course. If the communication is trivial, who cares? But if impressive claims of 'results' and 'expertise' and testimonials offered (Anonymous? Yes. Go figure) are being published ... well, distrust sounds like just the recipe to me.
As noted here and on my blog, sometimes a whistleblower needs protection from reprisals and retribution.
Tom MacMaster, the man behind the illusion named Amina, is a gifted and talented writer ... but, it seems to me, just a dishonest one.
- P
I've had cause to think about this topic again recently with the sensational 'Gay Girl in Damascus' hoax bringing up the issue of long-standing pseudonyms and use of anonymity on the internet.
A very good article from The Guardian's Dan Gillmor on the issues contains this passage:
Sounding real is not the same as being real. The fake Amina's blog was especially well done, with details that sounded authentic even to native Syrians. Its unmasked author said he was telling larger truths, but we have a name for this technique: fiction.
We also have a name for the technique of identity in this case: pseudonym. This is a much-used method online – not revealing one's own name but having a consistent identifier. It's one step away from outright anonymity, where there is no accountability whatever. As I wrote last week, the lack of accountability in such cases puts more responsibility on the audience. It is up to us to cultivate an abiding distrust for speech when the speaker refuses to stand behind his or her own words – that is, by using one's own name.
We should temper that scepticism, however, with the recognition that in places like Syria, where vicious dictators are ordering wholesale killings of dissidents and rebels, standing directly behind one's own words can be literally life-threatening.
We also have a name for the technique of identity in this case: pseudonym. This is a much-used method online – not revealing one's own name but having a consistent identifier. It's one step away from outright anonymity, where there is no accountability whatever. As I wrote last week, the lack of accountability in such cases puts more responsibility on the audience. It is up to us to cultivate an abiding distrust for speech when the speaker refuses to stand behind his or her own words – that is, by using one's own name.
We should temper that scepticism, however, with the recognition that in places like Syria, where vicious dictators are ordering wholesale killings of dissidents and rebels, standing directly behind one's own words can be literally life-threatening.
I respect Dan Gillmor and agree with his view about the need for audiences/readers to deploy 'an abiding distrust' for anonymous speech. Damn right.
It depends what the pseudonym-user is saying, of course. If the communication is trivial, who cares? But if impressive claims of 'results' and 'expertise' and testimonials offered (Anonymous? Yes. Go figure) are being published ... well, distrust sounds like just the recipe to me.
As noted here and on my blog, sometimes a whistleblower needs protection from reprisals and retribution.
Tom MacMaster, the man behind the illusion named Amina, is a gifted and talented writer ... but, it seems to me, just a dishonest one.
- P
Comment