Columnist Claims Anonymity Is Bad For Our Country
from the federalist-papers? dept
Connie Schultz, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and a supporter of special copyright laws is back with another nonsensical column, this time weighing in on the recent debates about anonymous comments and her own newspaper's decision to reveal the name of a commenter. Her summary: anonymity is just evil and should be done away with. Not just evil, but bad for the country. Seriously:Maybe that's the foolish optimist in me, but I want to believe that we will finally admit -- to ourselves and to the public at large -- that allowing people to hide behind anonymity has not been good for our industry, our culture or our country.Apparently, Ms. Schultz is unfamiliar with The Federalist Papers, which were (*gasp*) written and published anonymously, and were instrumental in ratifying the US Constitution. Apparently, that was bad for our country. And, apparently, Ms. Schultz is unfamiliar with the concept of anonymous sources or anonymous tips that often drive important investigative reporting -- the same kind of investigative reporting she thinks will die without special copyrights to protect her employer.
No one denies that when anonymity is allowed people may abuse it. But getting rid of anonymity completely is going way too far and greatly diminishes and limits certain important conversations -- which are not bad for "our industry, our culture or our country." Instead of whining about anonymity, why not focus on providing incentives for people to better identify themselves?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Her problem is that (allegedly) anonymity leads to trolling and sock-puppeting. Both of those are problems TechDirt has resolved quite well (in that trolls here just make poor arguments, instead of "u r retarded" Youtube fare).
Mike, you ought to be referring to several of the great posts you've written about developing a good commenting community, not pointing out the Federalist Papers were written anonymously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, there are management issues with anonymous comments that affect the quality of the conversation but without them, there's no real conversation at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It could, but good mods will correct for that. That's a factor that tends to get overlooked. It's sort of like a business buying a fleet of vehicles and not budgeting for a motor pool. You can bitch about the break downs all you want, but it's your own damn fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and ya know
SO sticks n stones right...
poor columnist did someone say he was a fraking idiot moron pedophile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity can be moderated out when it is bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about shooting ones self in the foot. Remind me to never go to this idiot with a story if I want to remain anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yep
Interesting thing about free speech: you have the right to rant and rave about stupid shit all day long if you want. So I wouldn't dare go so far as to brand someone a traitor for exercising their rights.
And while the emotional rhetorical reference to WWII hits home, I must point out that here we are on the doorstep of all those things, because too many Americans have flat FORGOTTEN the events that occurred only 60 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They must not be teaching these historical trivialities where Schultz obtained her degree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"They must not be teaching these historical trivialities"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heh. Nice claim, but simply not true. I'll stand by anything I say, rude or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Today, most forms of 'anonymity' are public 'anonymity'. Unless you take countermeasures, anyone with a court order is likely going to be able to figure out who posted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"No. They're not going to see this coming." - Mal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why are you against freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I mean, really? What the hell is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
TAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can try to deny it, but once you start down this "this kind of anonymity - good, this other kind of anonymity - bad", then you've already crossed in the totalitarian crowd even if you're not aware of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
{I dare you to actually WATCH a show with an open mind}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity is bad for ...
Anonymously giving opinion, or anonymously revealing facts is a fantastic way to avoid the consequences of your actions if what you say goes against an established power. You don't gather in front of the statehouse to protest the totalitarian communist government of the Soviets because they'd have killed you. You wrote papers anonymously to undermine the government without risking yourself.
More relevant to my life I often have opinions that my employer wouldn't agree with. While I like to believe that my employer won't punish me for my opinions (so long as I do my job) I'd rather not risk it. Sometimes I like to argue a point that I'd rather not attach my name to because it is highly controversial and it really isn't important to me, but I feel like offering my $.02. Sometimes a reporter will flame people who disagree with what was written, so hiding your identity when making the points is the only way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymity is bad for ...
This country wouldn't even exist if people had been afraid to stand up to an oppressive government. The Federalist Papers and, subsequently, the Bill of Rights to the Constitution were written specifically to prevent that situation.
Or was the Declaration of Indepence not self-evident to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymity is bad for ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anonymity is bad for ...
Later documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, were written after there was enough support for an uprising.
If not for the earlier anonymous speech, the later events might not have been feasible. My two cents, anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah blah blah
I strongly suggest everyone else do the same...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why, yes, of course!
She is apparently of the type who would think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(my view of trolls:http://xkcd.com/386/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2008/01/about_connie_schultz.html
She even has a Pulitzer :/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Community enforced conventions
At the same time we do allow for comments by people who do not reveal their real names (although they still must sign-up to comment, which only involves and email address, zip, username and password).
By no means do we have the solution, but we have seen great success in our limited endeavors.
For us the bottom line is no absolutes. We push what we prefer but leave a whole host of options available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing hypocritical about this. Perhaps people want to hide their identity to avoid unjustified persecution or punishment (ie: by vandals who might start throwing rocks through your window or by a crazy hit man who might want to hurt someone). In fact, there are some psychos on the Internet, as the news media repeats ad nausea, there are some crazy and dangerous psychos on the Internet. I don't want everyone who reads my comment to know who I am or where I live. Some crazy psycho with nothing better to do might randomly stock people on the Internet. To force people not to be anonymous can be dangerous. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to voice my opinion to everyone at large just because I want to avoid the crazy people that might hurt someone.
In fact, it's hypocritical of the news media to constantly protest how many dangerous people are on the Internet and how these dangerous people could come after your children or your family or you and then for the news media to subsequently demand that no one who comments on the Internet be anonymous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think it's beneficial and entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Mike pointed out, I think there is probably going to be some conflict between free speech and privacy. Allowing absolute free speech might enable some doctor, for instance, to reveal private information about a patient. We need some degree of privacy laws but at the same time free speech is very important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plusmalquoted Duckspeak
upsub minitrue dayorder rectify above article, memory hole awaits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plusmalquoted Duckspeak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plusmalquoted Duckspeak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Plusmalquoted Duckspeak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymity is required sometimes
As users of the internet we should also develop a sense of what is frivolous and what is not, so that we can filter out the frivolous even if it is not anonymous !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much attention..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]