- comment
The Squeaky Wheel - body
- I blog under a name and it is for work reasons and the fact I want to be able to spout off at will without worrying about venedictive people harrassing me or my family.
But trust me, I do not work for the party or any candidates... None of them would hire me :-)
- comment Shaun Kenney
- body
- I have nothing but disdain for anonymous bloggers, which is why (a) I've banned them here and (b) I don't get the number of comments you might see elsewhere.
But the comments here are top notch! So it's a fair trade in my mind.
As for pseudonymous bloggers...
Some are just fine (John Behan, JadedJD, and NLS for a wide range of examples). They blog pseudonymously because they have to, they add to the discourse, etc. I can see an argument for that.
But let me step back further. This whole internet business was created for the purpose of exchanging information (scientific and defense oriented to be precise). In that spirit, news outlets, Google, Yahoo, Tripod, Lycos, and eventually the good ol' blog have transpired.
In that comes with a certain bit of trust, accountability, and so forth. If this is the marketplace of ideas, so be it. Let it be honest and free.
Now I know I bump heads with some of the other members of the Virginia blogosphere when it comes to regulating blogs, codes of conduct, etc. I don't believe in any of that because I set a fairly high standard on the character of the individuals who participate.
All that disappears when people blog with handles, titles, pseudonymns, and so forth. All of the sudden, we're exchanging in the information of - not individuals with opinions - but personalities with opinions.
Seems like a semantic difference, but the "road rage" example I cited is a good example. People will do the darndest things if they can project it into a character, or even worse do it with a degree of anonymity. Pseudonyms afford both unfortunately.
Now there are noble instances where pseudonyms become necessary. Heck, weren't the Federalist Papers written pseudonymously? But there was a clear reason why those men had to write pseudonymously.
Can we honestly argue that the vast majority of pseudonymous commenters and bloggers must blog pseudonymously? I'd say no -- especially given the fact that most of the commenters you see have handles of some type.
In short, there's an ethical problem with the vast majority of people who blog behind a false name, because it's (a) false, (b) unnecessary, (c) lessens the discourse by virtue of human nature, and (d) discredits the entire blogosphere, both the good parts and the bad.
All of this having been said, there are a select few where this guideline does not apply. Whistleblowers are an example, but - as the Minnesota GOP operative demonstrates - even these cannot be 100% trustworthy, and in the end are extremely difficult to hold accountable (and will only become more difficult in the end).
For those demanding an ethical blogosphere, this is a problem that has to be pulled up root and branch IMO.
Interested to hear others thoughts!
2 Comments:
But trust me, I do not work for the party or any candidates... None of them would hire me :-)
But the comments here are top notch! So it's a fair trade in my mind.
As for pseudonymous bloggers...
Some are just fine (John Behan, JadedJD, and NLS for a wide range of examples). They blog pseudonymously because they have to, they add to the discourse, etc. I can see an argument for that.
But let me step back further. This whole internet business was created for the purpose of exchanging information (scientific and defense oriented to be precise). In that spirit, news outlets, Google, Yahoo, Tripod, Lycos, and eventually the good ol' blog have transpired.
In that comes with a certain bit of trust, accountability, and so forth. If this is the marketplace of ideas, so be it. Let it be honest and free.
Now I know I bump heads with some of the other members of the Virginia blogosphere when it comes to regulating blogs, codes of conduct, etc. I don't believe in any of that because I set a fairly high standard on the character of the individuals who participate.
All that disappears when people blog with handles, titles, pseudonymns, and so forth. All of the sudden, we're exchanging in the information of - not individuals with opinions - but personalities with opinions.
Seems like a semantic difference, but the "road rage" example I cited is a good example. People will do the darndest things if they can project it into a character, or even worse do it with a degree of anonymity. Pseudonyms afford both unfortunately.
Now there are noble instances where pseudonyms become necessary. Heck, weren't the Federalist Papers written pseudonymously? But there was a clear reason why those men had to write pseudonymously.
Can we honestly argue that the vast majority of pseudonymous commenters and bloggers must blog pseudonymously? I'd say no -- especially given the fact that most of the commenters you see have handles of some type.
In short, there's an ethical problem with the vast majority of people who blog behind a false name, because it's (a) false, (b) unnecessary, (c) lessens the discourse by virtue of human nature, and (d) discredits the entire blogosphere, both the good parts and the bad.
All of this having been said, there are a select few where this guideline does not apply. Whistleblowers are an example, but - as the Minnesota GOP operative demonstrates - even these cannot be 100% trustworthy, and in the end are extremely difficult to hold accountable (and will only become more difficult in the end).
For those demanding an ethical blogosphere, this is a problem that has to be pulled up root and branch IMO.
Interested to hear others thoughts!
Post a Comment
Home