Letters to the Editor
Matty D.
Published Letters: 132 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Anonymity <> free speech
[Read the article: Men who hate women on the Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don’t think that the clear opinion trend here toward non-anonymity is necessarily to be compared with people not rising to defend free speech.
A couple of good examples were given earlier about people who need anonymity to say what needs to be said, and would needlessly invite bad things by abandoning it. The key there is that they’re using free speech to say what needs to be said and not spew worthless garbage, which is a distinction that’s not lost on most people. It’s like saying that whistleblowing and speaking truth to power is equivalent in gravity to name-calling. Clearly not.
You hear sometimes a variation on “First they came for the trolls, and I wasn’t a troll so I said nothing. Then they came for the anonymous posters, and I said nothing because I wasn’t anonymous. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”
I just can’t get behind that kind of slippery-slope thinking. I have faith in brakes. Neither am I inclined to the common variation on it that you hear, which is essentially that insisting on rudimentary civility also means you’re insisting on lack of strong opposition, dissent, or are crippling the marketplace of ideas. I’m just not buying that one either.
Thanks to the magic of the Internet, the “conflict” between “anonymity” and “free speech” doesn’t have to be so sharply defined as one extreme or the other. Perfect example: I myself am not posting my full name (the D is for Dunphy, and Matty is a variant on Matt, if I must expose myself to seem legitimate); however, Salon has my full name. They have my phone number, my mailing address, and even some other billing details. Horrors.
Thus do I open myself to consequence for what I do on Salon, and conduct myself in the knowledge that they could act with their knowledge of me if it came to that. As could I if I find them to be abusing their trust of that information, et cetera.
I wrote in another post that this is no more a public space than a hotel lobby is (I’ve had to throw a lot of drunken and obnoxious people out of hotel lobbies, as it happens). The common thinking from lobby inhabitants is that because you can generally enter and even loiter publicly, that must mean it’s not privately owned, and so all the public freedoms apply. Not the case. It is privately owned and the owner’s rules apply. Pretty simple.
So anyway, I’m not anonymous, but as regards the average browser, I pretty much am. Thus it’s not necessary for, say, a woman writing to be mandated to give her full gender-revealing name here, or a whistleblower to give his. But I submit that it is at the very least desirable, if not necessary, for there to be accountability somewhere when the content of the speech is not factually verifiable and it’s pure opinion.
If that’s too much responsibility and accountability for anyone to handle, I suggest there are other places on the Internet to go to fulfill your needs. GO already.
The slightest whiff of the fragrance of accountability is enough to deter a whole lot of trolling, in my experience to date. Failing that, just the knowledge that they’re being ignored is also enough to steer away a lot of it—that they’re being filtered and effectively muted. Which Salon provides nearly no options to do; thus do the trolls congregate.
The problem at Salon at the moment is simply that it’s at an extreme end of the range of options. It’s a total free-fire zone. I mean, it’s so bad that even the trolls steal each other’s usernames to try and make each other look like they’re saying different things at different times. It wasn’t being done in this particular thread before I started writing, but it is now that I’m checking just prior to posting! How ridiculous is that?
I look forward to the changes Ms. Walsh said were coming. And as I’ve also said prior, if you think your new letters content management isn’t working (IS limiting the marketplace of ideas, IS stifling diversity, et cetera), then you can always change it right back to what it is now. It’s a beautiful thing.
-
Thank you.
[Read the article: Salon's new letters registration policy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd still remove the option for "Publish Anonymously", period, though.
-
Evolution
[Read the article: Salon's new letters registration policy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the top of this thread I opined to eliminate anonymity. I would like to clarify that I meant anonymity as it's been previously practiced at Salon. I also would like to thank the posters who came up with compelling reasons it should be retained.
Ceci before me puts this pretty well. I'm fine with Anonymous as an option for some of the reasons given (I resist going to the place where you fully equate that with freedom of speech; this is simply a place we disagree, for those who hold that position). The distinction is that somebody (Salon) has your information, as opposed to nobody.
The critical point being that Salon can and will use it to moderate upon abuse. The missing piece here is that the intended policy on this is currently being given a light treatment as far as details are concerned. Looking forward to hearing more about that.
I also agree with the poster who commented that the blog of the Editor is not the ideal place to announce policy decisions like this.
To those who fear stalking and other consequence as a result of this change: Giving away too much information has always been your responsibility and not the responsibility of any website you post to. You can be Anonymous and give enough details to be real-world found. Anonymous in and of itself provides you no protection. You should always act accordingly.