It all depends on how serious the discourse is intended to be. Anonymity can be taken to indicate a lack of integrity. This should be a clue as to how seriously we need to take statements and comments posted to social media platforms.
jim peden
10 months ago
It all depends on how serious the discourse is intended to be. Anonymity can be taken to indicate a lack of integrity. This should be a clue as to how seriously we need to take statements and comments posted to social media platforms.
Mark Goodhand
10 months ago
I’m not anonymous here, but that may come back to bite me.
Although I’m generally careful to avoid offence (whether anonymous or not), there are always social and professional risks to stating controversial beliefs openly.
It’s one thing for public figures (politicians, journalists, think tankers) to express their scepticism about masks, MRNA treatments, BLM, trans and Net Zero. It’s another for an ordinary citizen to do it, when they must consider the reaction from friends, family, colleagues, bosses and potential future employers.
As for the risks of anonymous accounts, they’re overblown. Online, people just have to accept that the posts they see may be dishonest, whether the account has a real-sounding name or an obvious pseudonym. Caveat lector.
Agreed.
It’s rare that I post without the pseudo-cloak of avatar-driven anonymity.
It’s not that such a cloaking provides impervious protection but it does tend to insulate from the casual googling of friend’s/neighbor’s/colleague’s names. Does that make this dialogue in some way toxic? I don’t think so.
Rather it allows the continued & relatively healthy compartmentalization of our lives (a thing which is actually quite critical to most normal life functions). I am different with my brothers than with my wife. Different with my wife than with my closest friends. Different by myself than I am with anyone.
My political perspectives fit with some audiences at some times and not with others.
The digital public square combined with avatar-masking allows us to maintain that separation. We can greet our in-laws with a big smile without worrying that our thinking on trans ideologies will taint Christmas dinner. And that’s a good thing.
Agreed.
It’s rare that I post without the pseudo-cloak of avatar-driven anonymity.
It’s not that such a cloaking provides impervious protection but it does tend to insulate from the casual googling of friend’s/neighbor’s/colleague’s names. Does that make this dialogue in some way toxic? I don’t think so.
Rather it allows the continued & relatively healthy compartmentalization of our lives (a thing which is actually quite critical to most normal life functions). I am different with my brothers than with my wife. Different with my wife than with my closest friends. Different by myself than I am with anyone.
My political perspectives fit with some audiences at some times and not with others.
The digital public square combined with avatar-masking allows us to maintain that separation. We can greet our in-laws with a big smile without worrying that our thinking on trans ideologies will taint Christmas dinner. And that’s a good thing.
When people lose their livelihoods for merely saying out loud what the vast majority is thinking then you need anonymity for any discourse at all.
Mark Goodhand
10 months ago
I’m not anonymous here, but that may come back to bite me.
Although I’m generally careful to avoid offence (whether anonymous or not), there are always social and professional risks to stating controversial beliefs openly.
It’s one thing for public figures (politicians, journalists, think tankers) to express their scepticism about masks, MRNA treatments, BLM, trans and Net Zero. It’s another for an ordinary citizen to do it, when they must consider the reaction from friends, family, colleagues, bosses and potential future employers.
As for the risks of anonymous accounts, they’re overblown. Online, people just have to accept that the posts they see may be dishonest, whether the account has a real-sounding name or an obvious pseudonym. Caveat lector.
Anthony Roe
10 months ago
Quackery has a long and distinguished history in America. Roll-up! Roll-up, one and all!
Anthony Roe
10 months ago
Quackery has a long and distinguished history in America. Roll-up! Roll-up, one and all!
Ted Ditchburn
10 months ago
I think some kind of greater weight should be attached to things said, and especially points made that depend on real life experience or the supposed career of someone trying to win a cheap gotcha in arguments.
Being a rocket scientist didn’t impress Shania Twain much, some anon claiming to be rocket scientist, or journalist, or doctor/virus/counter intelligence expert impresses me even less.
And for libel or contempts of court, or just general libellous ranting directed at non-anons, especially egregious cases, , instead of the sledgehammer of traditional legal redress just removing annonymity and publishing the offender’s names by the platforms might be worth a try?
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
I disagree. Anonymity drives the toxic culture of social media. It’s killing legitimate public discourse. No doubt, anonymity has allowed people to express views they otherwise couldn’t, but the bad far outweighs the good IMO. Genuine whistle blowers will continue to find ways to expose corruption and misdeeds. They don’t need the protection of anonymous social media.
The use of anonymous sources in the legacy media has grown out of control as well. It was rarely used when the media served an important role. Now it’s standard operating procedure for elected politicians to publish garbage without accountability. When Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff becomes an anonymous source within the intelligence community we’ve totally lost the plot. He drove the Trump collusion garbage without ever being held to account.
The world will be a much better place when evil people can no longer hide behind anonymity.
If only it was that simple.
Who decides who are evil people?
We know from Twitter after Musk takeover that so called “covid deniers” were censored for what now, slowly, become mainstream views.
What about views about gender or race?
How many people lost jobs because of holding “wrong” views?
Can you have career in academia if you disagree not even about global warming but just policies used to tackle it?
So, I am sorry but unless censorship by the left is stopped, anonymity is the best tool we have.
If only it was that simple.
Who decides who are evil people?
We know from Twitter after Musk takeover that so called “covid deniers” were censored for what now, slowly, become mainstream views.
What about views about gender or race?
How many people lost jobs because of holding “wrong” views?
Can you have career in academia if you disagree not even about global warming but just policies used to tackle it?
So, I am sorry but unless censorship by the left is stopped, anonymity is the best tool we have.
Jim Veenbaas
10 months ago
I disagree. Anonymity drives the toxic culture of social media. It’s killing legitimate public discourse. No doubt, anonymity has allowed people to express views they otherwise couldn’t, but the bad far outweighs the good IMO. Genuine whistle blowers will continue to find ways to expose corruption and misdeeds. They don’t need the protection of anonymous social media.
The use of anonymous sources in the legacy media has grown out of control as well. It was rarely used when the media served an important role. Now it’s standard operating procedure for elected politicians to publish garbage without accountability. When Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff becomes an anonymous source within the intelligence community we’ve totally lost the plot. He drove the Trump collusion garbage without ever being held to account.
The world will be a much better place when evil people can no longer hide behind anonymity.
It all depends on how serious the discourse is intended to be. Anonymity can be taken to indicate a lack of integrity. This should be a clue as to how seriously we need to take statements and comments posted to social media platforms.
It all depends on how serious the discourse is intended to be. Anonymity can be taken to indicate a lack of integrity. This should be a clue as to how seriously we need to take statements and comments posted to social media platforms.
I’m not anonymous here, but that may come back to bite me.
Although I’m generally careful to avoid offence (whether anonymous or not), there are always social and professional risks to stating controversial beliefs openly.
It’s one thing for public figures (politicians, journalists, think tankers) to express their scepticism about masks, MRNA treatments, BLM, trans and Net Zero. It’s another for an ordinary citizen to do it, when they must consider the reaction from friends, family, colleagues, bosses and potential future employers.
As for the risks of anonymous accounts, they’re overblown. Online, people just have to accept that the posts they see may be dishonest, whether the account has a real-sounding name or an obvious pseudonym.
Caveat lector.
Agreed.
It’s rare that I post without the pseudo-cloak of avatar-driven anonymity.
It’s not that such a cloaking provides impervious protection but it does tend to insulate from the casual googling of friend’s/neighbor’s/colleague’s names. Does that make this dialogue in some way toxic? I don’t think so.
Rather it allows the continued & relatively healthy compartmentalization of our lives (a thing which is actually quite critical to most normal life functions). I am different with my brothers than with my wife. Different with my wife than with my closest friends. Different by myself than I am with anyone.
My political perspectives fit with some audiences at some times and not with others.
The digital public square combined with avatar-masking allows us to maintain that separation. We can greet our in-laws with a big smile without worrying that our thinking on trans ideologies will taint Christmas dinner. And that’s a good thing.
When people lose their livelihoods for merely saying out loud what the vast majority is thinking then you need anonymity for any discourse at all.
Agreed.
It’s rare that I post without the pseudo-cloak of avatar-driven anonymity.
It’s not that such a cloaking provides impervious protection but it does tend to insulate from the casual googling of friend’s/neighbor’s/colleague’s names. Does that make this dialogue in some way toxic? I don’t think so.
Rather it allows the continued & relatively healthy compartmentalization of our lives (a thing which is actually quite critical to most normal life functions). I am different with my brothers than with my wife. Different with my wife than with my closest friends. Different by myself than I am with anyone.
My political perspectives fit with some audiences at some times and not with others.
The digital public square combined with avatar-masking allows us to maintain that separation. We can greet our in-laws with a big smile without worrying that our thinking on trans ideologies will taint Christmas dinner. And that’s a good thing.
When people lose their livelihoods for merely saying out loud what the vast majority is thinking then you need anonymity for any discourse at all.
I’m not anonymous here, but that may come back to bite me.
Although I’m generally careful to avoid offence (whether anonymous or not), there are always social and professional risks to stating controversial beliefs openly.
It’s one thing for public figures (politicians, journalists, think tankers) to express their scepticism about masks, MRNA treatments, BLM, trans and Net Zero. It’s another for an ordinary citizen to do it, when they must consider the reaction from friends, family, colleagues, bosses and potential future employers.
As for the risks of anonymous accounts, they’re overblown. Online, people just have to accept that the posts they see may be dishonest, whether the account has a real-sounding name or an obvious pseudonym.
Caveat lector.
Quackery has a long and distinguished history in America. Roll-up! Roll-up, one and all!
Quackery has a long and distinguished history in America. Roll-up! Roll-up, one and all!
I think some kind of greater weight should be attached to things said, and especially points made that depend on real life experience or the supposed career of someone trying to win a cheap gotcha in arguments.
Being a rocket scientist didn’t impress Shania Twain much, some anon claiming to be rocket scientist, or journalist, or doctor/virus/counter intelligence expert impresses me even less.
And for libel or contempts of court, or just general libellous ranting directed at non-anons, especially egregious cases, , instead of the sledgehammer of traditional legal redress just removing annonymity and publishing the offender’s names by the platforms might be worth a try?
I disagree. Anonymity drives the toxic culture of social media. It’s killing legitimate public discourse. No doubt, anonymity has allowed people to express views they otherwise couldn’t, but the bad far outweighs the good IMO. Genuine whistle blowers will continue to find ways to expose corruption and misdeeds. They don’t need the protection of anonymous social media.
The use of anonymous sources in the legacy media has grown out of control as well. It was rarely used when the media served an important role. Now it’s standard operating procedure for elected politicians to publish garbage without accountability. When Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff becomes an anonymous source within the intelligence community we’ve totally lost the plot. He drove the Trump collusion garbage without ever being held to account.
The world will be a much better place when evil people can no longer hide behind anonymity.
If only it was that simple.
Who decides who are evil people?
We know from Twitter after Musk takeover that so called “covid deniers” were censored for what now, slowly, become mainstream views.
What about views about gender or race?
How many people lost jobs because of holding “wrong” views?
Can you have career in academia if you disagree not even about global warming but just policies used to tackle it?
So, I am sorry but unless censorship by the left is stopped, anonymity is the best tool we have.
If only it was that simple.
Who decides who are evil people?
We know from Twitter after Musk takeover that so called “covid deniers” were censored for what now, slowly, become mainstream views.
What about views about gender or race?
How many people lost jobs because of holding “wrong” views?
Can you have career in academia if you disagree not even about global warming but just policies used to tackle it?
So, I am sorry but unless censorship by the left is stopped, anonymity is the best tool we have.
I disagree. Anonymity drives the toxic culture of social media. It’s killing legitimate public discourse. No doubt, anonymity has allowed people to express views they otherwise couldn’t, but the bad far outweighs the good IMO. Genuine whistle blowers will continue to find ways to expose corruption and misdeeds. They don’t need the protection of anonymous social media.
The use of anonymous sources in the legacy media has grown out of control as well. It was rarely used when the media served an important role. Now it’s standard operating procedure for elected politicians to publish garbage without accountability. When Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff becomes an anonymous source within the intelligence community we’ve totally lost the plot. He drove the Trump collusion garbage without ever being held to account.
The world will be a much better place when evil people can no longer hide behind anonymity.