…of Peter Beaumont’s pathetic little whinge about online discourse, we get another from a poor, delicate little journo who doesn’t like pseudonymity online.
Yet take a glance at any comment thread on the Guardian site, YouTube or even on the government-recommended website Mumsnet, and you’ll find discussion boards littered with gruesome and, crucially, anonymous mud-slinging.
This isn’t about trolls (their viciousness is merely a symptom of something more serious); this is about people who would never class themselves as abusers or hecklers, let alone “nasty”. And yet, liberated by user-name anonymity, ordinary citizens – work colleagues, your school-gate fellow parents, your son, your mother – will type statements they would never dream of saying to the subject’s face. They probably wouldn’t even gossip it to mates in the pub – the mates would look away, shocked by this needless vitriol.
To which I would reply; so what? Who cares? Outside the rarified atmosphere of the professional [sic] world of journalism. It isn’t who people are that matters, it is what they have to say. What they choose to call themselves is neither here nor there and if some of them are abusive, it can be managed.
So who exactly decided that pseudonymity is a crucial brick in the wall of free speech, whether on the web or elsewhere? Maybe user names once boasted a valid internet purpose. But any such justification is now thoroughly subverted, and we are left with the queasy ethics of the untended playground, where the nastiest bully wins out simply because he knows he can.
I don’t know, did anyone declare any such thing? Perhaps it was George Eliot, or maybe George Orwell and John Creasy had them coming out of his ears… The Nom de plume has a long and distinguished history. That some folk use them to sling mud is a price worth paying, frankly. And if it winds up the petty, lying, deceitful and downright disreputable MSM journalists, well, that’s a bonus.
When South Korea recently introduced a law demanding all online users identify themselves before posting to message boards, a Carnegie Mellon study of the effects showed that online participation did not drop in the long term but “uninhibited behaviours” certainly did: “swear words and anti-normative expressions” were significantly reduced.
Yeah, that’s right, let’s copy Korea. Jolly good idea, that…
In spite of the court reversal, many observers believe South Korea is ahead of the curve (as with many matters of technology) in its desire to pin names to users, that it has recognised that this is a freedom too far.
Only a complete authoritarian arsehole could consider it a freedom too far. What I choose to call myself when publishing my thoughts is none of your bloody business – or, more importantly, my real name is none of your bloody business unless I choose to make it so. I do not, so fuck off.
But imagine (as I have done for a new play) if all user names magically reverted to the individuals’ real names. Go on, think about it – what would actually be different? What, most importantly, would be lost? What have you ever posted – on a discussion board, or Twitter or elsewhere – to which you are not willing to put your name? If user names had never been invented, would you have not still wanted to participate? How can any of us stand for the right to say something that we dare not own?
My online persona is but a thin veneer, so is relatively easily uncovered. I use it, however, because I choose to keep this part of my life separate from other parts of my life, just as I keep my professional world and personal one in separate boxes. This is my choice – it is not the choice of totalitarian control freaks who write risible articles on CiF who feel threatened because we do for free what they are paid for, to make it for me – and, frankly, many do it a damned sight better. And, as I pay for this place, the name I choose to use is up to me, not some shit-bag writing in the Groan. Go fuck yourself.
As I said, arseholes the lot of them.
A small point which seems to have escaped Mr Beaumont’s notice is that usernames tend to be, if not unique, at least not often replicated. For those with names like “John Smith” or “Jack Jones” (my late grandfather’s name!), they would be lost in the white noise of cyberspace. A username generally sticks – I’ve used the same one for nearly ten years, and I can be readily identified by that name. If, like my grandfather, I was Jack Jones, and forced to post as such, it would beg the question “Which Jack Jones?”. And as you point out, a username will not generally confer complete anonymity if someone is interested enough to search out the real name.
“…or maybe George Orwell…”
Speaking of nom de plumes/fake names, I do believe you misspelt “Eric Arthur Blair” there.
Or did you actually point that out, and I missed it because it was subtle?
Oh bugger – ignore that question; just discovered I’ve shown my ignorance of the other two… as you were.
And no – with hindsight, it wasn’t subtle in the least. Sorry.
“How can any of us stand for the right to say something that we dare not own?”
Very simple Pete, because you and your authoritarian mates have no problem locking people up for what they say.
And I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that those blogging for freedom would be attacked, in both their professional and personal lives, by statist lunatics for daring to question the wisdom of their god.
XX What have you ever posted – on a discussion board, or Twitter or elsewhere – to which you are not willing to put your name? XX
Hard to tell really, because something you say yesterday, is all of a sudden illegal when you wake up the next morning. Even when it is only the turds from the “media” that THINK it is/should be illegal.
Take the recent media witch hunt against a woman member of the German olympic rowing team, who not only was thrown off the team mid games, but is now under “investigation” at GOVERNMENT level because her FRIEND is an EX MEMBER (Yes thats right he IS NO LONGER! And has not been for some years now.) of the NPD. The German equivalent to the BNP.
Last I looked, membership was NOT illegal. EX membership deffinately not, and to have a FRIEND that once attended a few meetings, is MOST definately NOT BLOODY ILLEGAL. But the woman has now lost her place on the German team, her own rowing club have quietly “disowned” her, and she is the subject of some spurious Government inquiry/investigation.
And how did the scum bag shower of imbicilic bastard media stooges find all this out? Because her friend had used her “real” name on a web/blog site which was run by another NPD member.
So who exactly decided that pseudonymity is a crucial brick in the wall of free speech?
It was never decided. Just accepted over time as a way of protecting free speech against those who would seek to personally destroy anyone who opposed them. Err, don’t the Guardian pride themselves as defenders of civil rights and opposers of dictatorships? Denying web anonymity is an abuse of the former which would be handy in encouraging the latter.
Good grief!
and, don’t the Guardian, as well as other media outlets, have to be dragged through the courts kicking and screaming, before they reveal their “sources”?
I think that there are good reasons why using your real name on the internet could be unwise. Like nisakiman, I have used the same username since I started commenting. Stonyground is a bit like a brand in a way, it has a reputaion for reasonableness to maintain. Anyway, no-one is forced to read comment threads on blogs, if you don’t like what you read on them, don’t read them.
Oh yes, and +1 what Andrew said.
I lead an everyday life of blameless dullness. Under a pseudonym I can give vent to the thoughts my children would rather not hear and of which my colleagues are unaware. There now, I feel much better!
“Anti-Normative Expressions”
Now THAT is Orwellian. 😯
This is a very worrying case and also it saddens me to see the Guardian, which was once a newspaper that supported the idea of free speech, supporting censorship of words and thoughts.
I use a non-de-plume for security reasons, which I think is valid.
Robert the Biker I agree with you that the phrase ‘anti normative expression’ is chilling because my questioning of the growth of Islam and Islamism is most definitely considered ‘anti-normative’ by those in local Govt and the diversity industry.
Gosh, hope no one can work out who wrote this or I’ll be in trouble. Signed Anonymous.