One of the patients I used to visit long ago was a lady of around 40 who had long retired from contact with the human race. She was diagnosed as Autistic, a highly intelligent woman. A previous visitor had arranged for her to have a computer in an effort to keep her in contact with the world outside her front door.

When I arrived the curtains were tightly shut. It was 3pm in the afternoon. I banged on the door in vain for some time. Eventually it opened to display a hugely overweight woman virtually naked. She beckoned me inside. She would offer me coffee she said, but I would have to make it myself, she was ‘late for work’.

Slightly puzzled for I was unaware that she worked, I glanced at the kitchen as we passed and elected not to have coffee – it was beyond filthy. As was the bedroom, words cannot describe the pitch dark sitting room for that was where she spent most of her time.

She positioned her improbably large body on a minute stool in front of her new computer. Huge folds of flesh hung down either side of the stool. Hunched forward, peering at the screen, her belly completely covered her knees. As Windows fired into life she started to swear. ‘*uckers’, ‘*astards’ – it went on for some time. Impossible to hold a conversation with her. Now she was typing furiously, expletives flew around the room, she invoked curses, spells, and various untimely ends on whoever she was addressing. It took some time to establish what was going on.

It seems that some time ago, years ago in fact, she had been in the same building, although not actually met, a member of a famous rock band. She had appointed herself his protector in life, and when he acquired an on-line presence, had commenced her ceaseless vigilance and invective towards anyone who failed to understand that he was a human God. She had discovered life as a commentator on Web 2.0

Meanwhile he had become ever more famous, and there were now some 200 web sites around the world devoted to him. She had, she told me, more than 400 different identities, and she used them to ‘put the *uckers right’, otherwise known as post an abusive and invective filled comment whenever anybody made a suggestion that could in anyway be construed as his being a mere mortal. It was what she did, obsessively, from early afternoon until dawn broke.

I often think of her during my new life as Blogger. Especially when comments arrive in the middle of the night saying ‘*uck my *ick’ with no further explanation. You do wonder who or what is sitting behind that particular computer. So I was interested to read Neil Swidey’s article in the Boston Globe “Inside the mind of the anonymous online poster”.

Swidey carried out a survey of the anonymous – and frequently vitriolic – posters who responded to a recent article regarding Obama’s aunt:

“The raging commentary on Obama’s aunt is a microcosm of the thorny problem many websites are grappling with right now over what to do with anonymous comments. At many of these sites, executives have begun to ask themselves: How did we get into this thicket, and is there a sensible way out? But a more basic question needs to be answered first: Who are these people who spend so much of their days posting anonymous comments, and what is motivating them?”

He found out who some of them were, but, surprise, surprise:

“But here are the people I didn’t hear back from: the screamers, troublemakers, and trolls (Internet slang for people behind inflammatory posts). Not a single one. The loudest, most aggressive voices grew mum when asked to explain themselves, to engage in an actual discussion. The trolls appear to prize their anonymity more than anyone else.”

It is an article worth reading in full.

There has been much discussion recently, notably in the Independent, when editor Martin King announced that the free speech free-for-all for anonymous posters was to end.

“Websites have been encouraging cowardice. They allow users to hide behind virtual anonymity to make hasty, ill-researched and often intemperate comments regardless of any consideration for personal hurt or corporate damage.”

It used to be that you had to put your name address and daytime telephone number at the top of your carefully scribed in green ink ‘letter to the editor’ to have any chance of publication, now possession of a computer is all you need to access the debate.

Some people have a genuine need for anonymity, and journalists have been quick to point out that the ‘cloak of anonymity’ which is so embedded in Web culture, allows some of the most useful tips offs to appear in comments sections. Where would Guido be without his anonymous tip-off line?

“Others, like The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, are probably wishing they’d taken that step earlier. In March, the paper outed a local judge for allegedly posting comments on Cleveland.com under the handle lawmiss that included critical commentary on cases and individuals appearing before her in court. The judge denied authorship and is now suing the paper and its affiliated companies for $50 million. Her denials might seem a smidge south of persuasive, and The Plain Dealer may well have been journalistically suspect had it not gone public with the information once it discovered it. But the judge has a valid point about her expectations of anonymity.”

One of the problems with the embedded culture of anonymity is an equally well embedded tradition of ‘outing’. ‘Outing’ is the on-line version of the punch on the nose at closing time from the pub regular who is losing an argument. ‘Outing’ is the weapon of the grudge holder, not the debater or the intelligent commentator. It is the petulant response from the petulant. (Though speaking personally, my own ‘punch on the nose’ from someone who could not refute my argument had such a happy outcome, and allowed me such freedom to write of things I did not feel I could write of before, that it is difficult to bear a grudge!)

On one side, anonymous comments give users the freedom to be completely candid in a public forum. On the other, that freedom can be abused and manipulated to spread lies or mask hidden agendas.

But what difference does it make if instead of ‘anonymous’ or ‘sidefartingchink’ the comment appears to come from ‘John Smith’ who has an e-mail address registered to a John Smith? You are still none the wiser as to whether he is really John Smith outside of his computer. Most of the usernames that the lady I visited had were male ones, and many implied an active lifestyle shifting the heavy equipment belonging to the rock band – which couldn’t have been further from the truth of her identity. !

While news organizations debate scrapping anonymity, the ground may be shifting beneath them. With all of our identifying information getting sliced, diced, and sold, by everyone from credit card companies to Facebook, is there really such a thing as the anonymous Web anymore?

“Consider this demonstration from the late ’90s by Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Latanya Sweeney. She took three commonly available data points: sex (male), ZIP code (02138), and date of birth (July 31, 1945). Those seemingly anonymous attributes could have described lots of people, right? Actually, no. She proved they could belong to just one person: former governor William Weld. She tells me that 87 percent of Americans can now be identified with just these three data points.”

This is the dilemma facing publishers: How do they stop the abuse of freedom of speech on their websites while protecting those readers who can expose abuses of power and generate content by being whistleblowers only if their identity is protected?

I would be sorry to lose ‘usernames’, the wit and sometimes sarcasm involved in thinking them up owes a lot to Private eye and is a grand tradition; personally I think that a row of comments headed ‘anonymous’ is just plain irritating, are they all the same person or are there five anonymii?

I should be even sadder to lose on-line comments. I had always wanted to write, but couldn’t imagine addressing a vacuum of silence. Writing this blog everyday is more in line with a long e-mail to dozens, hundreds, actually, thousands these days, of old friends. As with all old friends, only the occasional one is churlish, just to keep my feet on the ground. I just imagine his/her flesh hanging over the side of that tiny stool, and I smile to myself and move onto the next comment.

Michael J.
McFadden July 4, 2010 at 14:15

I posted anonymously under several (although regular) names throughout most
of the 80s and 90s and into the early 2000′s. Unfortunately I generally posted
in a an area where people had a lot of strong opinions and often suspected
each other of being in the pay of a corporation. I eventually decided to “out”
myself from simply being Cantiloper and state clearly who I was in my user
names and bio pages.

When I wrote “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” I was able to identify myself
as the author and thereby even more firmly establish that I wasn’t just
someone on Big Tobacco’s payroll.

But I found myself caught between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. At times
when I would neglect to add the authorship note I’d then get hit with
accusations that I was hiding my “competing interest.” But when I *did* sign
my name in the form I do at the end of this post, I’d find myself getting
yelled at for “advertising spam.”

Generally I’ve tried for a middle ground. When posting about anything
non-tobacco-oriented I simply sign myself as Michael or MJM or somesuch. If
it’s tobacco-involved, particularly if it involves a detailed argument or
opinion I’ll sign with my full signature if I’m on a new board or thread or if
I find myself debating new people who might not already know me. In between
such postings I’ll assume I’ve given folks fair warning of my “competing
interest” and usually just go with MJM at the end.

I like the potential of anonymous posting and would hate to see it end:
anonymous protest against government and the powers that be is a powerful
weapon for those who’ve had their public voice otherwise taken away. But for
anyone involved in a contentious topic where there’s possibly money to be made
by either side hiring professionals, THEN it becomes more important to firmly
establish who you are if you want to be listened to on a level playing field
with your identified opponent.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Kingbingo July 2, 2010 at 13:46

Speaking of which, how do I become a ‘real’ commenter on this site?

So I get my picture displayed.?

Thaddeus J.
Wilson July 2, 2010 at 14:02

http://en.gravatar.com/ is where you need to do the
necessary, Kingbingo.

Pericles July 2, 2010 at 10:33

In choosing a pseudoplume (or nom-de-nym) all I wanted
was a word

mc July 2, 2010 at 09:55

Freedom of Speech cannot be “abused”. It is, quite simply, a freedom; it is
absolute.

Certainly others may be offended by what is said, but that is not an abuse
of the freedom. Society may, and has, decided that the freedom should be
curtailed, presumably for public order reasons, usually to “protect” some
(over?)sensitive section of the society or its rulers.

In a thinking and rational society, whatever was said would be properly
examined by those receiving the comment and accepted or dismissed accordingly.
Naturally, we do not have such a society, and seem to getting further from it
not closer.

Time to re-invent the Enlightenment.

JuliaM July 2,
2010 at 06:06

“You do know that it is slightly less effort to post as anonymous?
Rather than typing in the name etc. With Google you have to exert some effort
this way. with anonymous

john malpas July 2, 2010 at 00:31

You do know that it is slightly less effort to post as anonymous? Rather
than typing in the name etc. With Google you have to exert some effort this
way. with anonymous – no effort at all.

davidb July 2, 2010 at 00:09

I mostly post anonymously. I live in a country where my freedom of speech
is severely curtailed. I cannot make comments that can be construed by anyone
in any way as racist ( as an example I hasten to point out ). I have my own
home and a little money in the bank. I do not want the authorities to bankrupt
me for speaking my mind. I would not get legal aid if I was prosecuted. If all
the laws which curtail my free speech were repealed I would have no problem
posting in my own name. But the Britain where I live, is not a place where I
can say whatever I like unless I am extremely rich or extremely poor.

Indyanhat July 1,
2010 at 23:38

I am an nonny mouse
And you also are one too,
Though it may be
thought anomolous
That we use a nom de plume!
Some nonny mice
just
won’t play fair,
writing things that are not nice
but ‘they’…they, have
no nom de guerre !

Collect the words of these refuters
Collate them all as one
Give a
thousand chimps computers
and another Shakespeare’s born!
Don’t take it
all too pers’nl
Don’t let them get to you
for foremost in your
arsenal
you have a nom de plume!

They, poor unimaginative dross
in their cowardice may wail and
cry
but…should ‘we’ really care a toss
for the un-numbered, a nonnymii
?

Gildas July 2, 2010 at 08:31

How charming1

lenko July 1, 2010 at 22:37

I do recognise the habit of swearing almost continuously at your computer,
though with me it’s the constant reminders and errors caused by Windows,
Facebook, Internet Explorer etc, none of which work as they are supposed to.
Towards evening, the whole internet seems to slow down to a crawl slower than
the queue at King’s Cross ticket office. It can take up to a whole MINUTE for
the screen to re-paint itself. I admit, to my shame, that there have been
occasions when I screamed in fury at it.

Sorry — gone off topic here.

Nice post…

Eleanor July 1, 2010 at 21:49

Who says I’m not a French Clog?

Whoops, I’ve done it now. But you probably all knew anyway. I post such
utter drivel that it would be hard to miss.

Alan July 1, 2010 at 21:41

“While news organizations debate scrapping anonymity, the ground may be
shifting beneath them. With all of our identifying information getting sliced,
diced, and sold, by everyone from credit card companies to Facebook, is there
really such a thing as the anonymous Web anymore?”

On one level there never was. It all goes through computers. Those
computers keep records. What is changing is how those records get used, who
gets to use them and what is or isn’t legal and acceptable behaviour. Or
perhaps on a more basic level the issue is who [i]owns[/i] them.

On the more everyday level you can by and large choose your own anonymity.
People are not required to post their entire lives Arsebook. You do not have
to use your real identity when registering on a newspaper website or
messageboard. You do not have to post identifying information about
yourself.

Some of this is a matter of obedience. A form appears for people to
register what do you do; Put your real information in? Hell no. Make it up! It
just needs to be valid enough to pass the registration process. Use different
usernames on different websites too, otherwise you can get nosey people
following you from one forum to another or using information gleaned from many
sources to put together a fuller picture. A lot of people are not actually
prepared to lie in that way though. We have been conditioned well…

“This is the dilemma facing publishers: How do they stop the abuse of
freedom of speech on their websites while protecting those readers who can
expose abuses of power and generate content by being whistleblowers only if
their identity is protected?”

I’m sure whistleblowers can take suitable measures to protect themselves.

Speech here or wherever is as free as the webmaster or mistress wants it to
be. This is your patch and the comment rules are yours to set and yours to
police.(or consciously choose not to) Just as it is with newspaper
websites.

One of the examples highlighted by the Boston Globe doesn’t appear to me to
have anything to do with anonymity or freedom of speech. The example given of
the US judge is a clash between data protection and public interest.

The Cleveland.com Privacy Policy (who reads those?) only makes provision for
[i]the use[/i] of private details for business related issues. The User Agreement (who reads those?) also makes no provision for
using the registration details for journalistic purposes. The agreements are
also with Advance Internet not the Plain Dealer. I am no expert though,
however I do sometimes watch Perry Mason.

What the UA does set out is that the web-people can terminate an account
without notice and without reason. If Cleveland.com wanted to shut lawmiss up
because of the manner in which she/he/it was commenting they could have.
Instead curiosity got the better of them and it was turned it into a story.
Whether public interest is a suitable defence I have no idea. If the comments
made by lawmiss were neither threatening or actionable I can’t see how the
Cleveland.com web-people had any basis for trying to determine the actual
identity of lawmiss. Google is so tempting though isn’t it. Just because you
can do something doesn’t mean you should.

In this particular instance though it appears to have been an oversight by the company who run the website. The software
the company uses to maintain the website and comments system allowed the
online-editors of Cleveland.com to see email addresses of commentors. The
company has said they will change it so the online editors can no longer see
that information.

Laurent July 1,
2010 at 21:11

I’m glad that we still have that pleasure of calling ourselves names : you
can call me strawberriesandtenderness* and i can call you Anna Raton-laveur.
Without that kind of day-to-day poetry, life would be dull, don’t you think?
And that is an excellent article, by the way.

*thank god you have the magic of copy and paste to call me that complicated
name

Joe Public July 1, 2010 at 20:06

If commenters are genuinely anonymous, how will you know who to send your
Limerick Prize bottle(s) to?

Anna
Raccoon July 1, 2010 at 20:10

I had already thought of that Joe, I shall have to publicly ask the
winning entry to privately e-mail me a genuine address – or drink it
myself!

Gildas July 1, 2010 at 20:17

Anna Racoon gave a prize
Of a bottle of booze for the guys
Or the
girls who gave vent
Re the current event
Of the mayor and his
troublesome flies!

Gloria
Smudd July 1, 2010 at 21:38

This should surely win another bottle of wine: unexpected,
uncalled-for and unbeatable!

Joe Public
July 1, 2010 at 20:23

But you might be a secret government agency attempting to harvest
nom-de-plumes!

AndrewSouthLondon
July 1, 2010 at 19:50

What an interesting train of ideas. The web is the final frontier, the Wild
West of free speech, and it would be a shame to lose that to the profit of
Carter Ruck.

I use a disposable free mail account because when I mistakenly niaevely
used my real identity posting some ten years back my name was botted and added
to various 20-30m e-mail address databases used by Russian and Brazilian
spammers. To this day I still get offers I can’t understand (But at a guess
they dispense with foreplay)

Gallimaufry July
1, 2010 at 19:45

Me four.

JuliaM July 1,
2010 at 19:39

Excellent post!
I’ve the same concerns as MacHeath & Bert. And I too
cannot stand the legions of anonymongs – or is it all the same one? – who
can’t be bothered to even make up a name for the duration.

Bert
Rodinsky July 1, 2010 at 18:52

Excellent article Anna.

As you might imagine this is not my real name and my reasons for attempting
to maintain my anonymity are pretty much the same as commenter Macheath
above.

My employer, a private sector company, is rabid about political correctness
and although I don’t consider my blog to be particularly controversial I know
that if I could not run it anonymously I would have to stop blogging or find
another job.

Bert

Gildas July 1, 2010 at 20:28

That is a sad and telling post. There are great numbers of people in this
country who now live in the fear of speaking their mind . In a slightly
different context, perhaps you will agree that this was exemplified by the
the great “bigotgate” scandal. here are the facts. “Ordinary” (ie person who
pays taxes) asks awkward questions of a politician. here world has changed.
Who are all these people who have come here? Are they taking our jobs (Note
to self: we are not allowed to refer to “our”, for that is racists). She
does not express hatred, just concern.
Well I live in the next town, and
used to work in Rochdale. Part of this town are no longer recognisable with
the town in which I grew up. Is she not allowed to raise a concern? Am
I?
But if one does, one is “racist” or “bigot”.
And in other
circumstances, Brown and his bully boy spin doctors would have had her in a
6 foot box before you can say “deficit”
Poor England, for we have seen
this before, centuries ago.
Gildas the Monk

Macheath July 1,
2010 at 17:37

An interesting and thought-provoking article on a subject long overdue for
debate.

The assumed persona I use protects me from unwanted attention and identity
theft. I can talk about my children without their friends stumbling across
it,for example, or mention the frustration of dealing with the authorities
without the risk of prejudicing the outcome.

I appreciate that a diligent hacker could probably find me out – I gave you
my e-mail address to publish this comment, after all – but I don’t lose any
sleep over it (anyway, my mother reads my blog so I have to keep it relatively
legal, decent, honest and truthful).

The world wouldn’t end if I had to reveal my identity – although my
employment might – since I’m a very obscure and unimportant person, but the
identity is a kind of security blanket, which is why I felt much sympathy for
you at having yours snatched away.

Obnoxio The
Clown July 1, 2010 at 17:29

I just imagine his/her flesh hanging over the side of that tiny
stool

I am so busted! ;o)

Gloria Smudd
July 1, 2010 at 18:34

Phew! that’s a relief! I thought she was talking about me…