Rachel Cooke doesn’t get it.
Why should people be allowed to post anonymously? I’m damned if I know. I’ve always found it sinister. In the Agatha Christie novels I loved as a child, the anonymous letter was a standard trope for evil in an otherwise ordered and safe community. Those who advocate web anonymity seem able only to marshall the most feeble of arguments in its favour. Suggest ending the practice, and the cry will inevitably go up that it allows people to express views which might otherwise get them into trouble at their workplace. How stupid this is, and how unbelievably pompous! Do these people ever look at the internet? Only the tiniest minority of the many millions of words posted every day reveal some great secret, conspiracy or truth. Most of what appears is just another form of entertainment: the ephemeral back and forth of opinion.
Firstly; how, precisely, will Rachel propose that we are forced to comply? Secondly, we are not living in an Agatha Christie novel – she wrote fiction and this is real life. Thirdly, as DK discovered recently, expressing controversial opinions online can have consequences with one’s employers and he isn’t the only one; merely the latest in a long line, some of which have been fairly high profile, so Rachel must be aware of them. However, Rachel seems not to have noticed. It isn’t those who are careful to keep their online personas and real life identities separate who are the stupid ones here.
Anonymity (not that this truly exists anyway) is rather more important than Rachel’s hurt feelings because anonymous people said unpleasant things about her.
Aleks Krotoski, on the other hand, does get it:
What the debate really reflects is another issue: journalists aren’t used to feedback from anyone except their editors.
And they don’t like it up ’em…
Why not post anonymously? It’s only words. Opinions which I thought everyone was entitled to, silly me. No one forces anyone to read, for example, blog posts. Those who do make a fuss appear in dire need of cranio-rectal excision.
As for slights and abuse; an insult is like poison, it only harms if swallowed.
But poor Rachel’s feelings were hurt. Have you no heart?
How can I put this gently? No.
Why put it gently?
Why gently? Because a creatively used feather can be a greater torture than a red hot spike up the wossnames. My friend the Marquis tells me so.
What Rachel means is that people who express the correct opinions will not get into trouble at work.
Quite.