Who Goes There!!?
I remember watching old black and white feature films on TV, about life in France during the second world war. There was often a scene where one of the characters had to get past a check point, using forged documents. The tension would build as I sat on the edge of my seat, hoping the guards would be fooled by their false papers, and would let them pass. In most cases, the deception worked and I could inwardly cheer. The notion that the deception was unacceptable, that they were morally wrong to attempt to conceal their true identity never entered my head. After all, they were the good guys, so none of that mattered.
There's been a lot of discussion on the net of late about the issue of anonymity and real names. Google+, in particular, has been at the centre of debate because of their policy of requiring real names from users. Some supporters claim that it helps to keep people civilised in their interactions if they are identifiable, while detractors claim that it can prevent people from speaking their minds in an open and honest way.
I find myself agreeing with both sides, but that's because I think the two sides are talking about different things. Anonymity comes in different flavours, one of which is typified by the anonymous 'drive by' commenter who leaves a racist, sexist, or other obnoxious comment (on a blog, for example). Another is characterised by someone who uses a pseudonym, such as an author who uses a pen-name or an internet gamer who uses a 'handle'.
The unwelcome input from anonymous 'drive by' commenters is an unfortunate by-product of making commenting as easy as possible for legitimate commenters (ie. no registration, login or what have you). It's like snipers taking pot shots and disappearing. However, people who use a pseudonym to identify themselves fall into a completely different category.
And that's the point. For the most part*, they are using their pseudonym to identify themselves. It means they have a history. What they say has a connection to what they have previously said. They have a reputation based on what they have said. They are accessible through their pseudonym and accept responsibility for what they say. In my book, that's a legitimate mode of operation.
By way of example, let's suppose that my name is not really Jo, that Jo S Wun is not the name on my birth certificate. Would that be the same thing as Jo S Wun not existing? Of course not. I undoubtedly do exist - I am writing these words. And the "I" that is writing these words is known as Jo S Wun. If I secretly changed my name by deed poll to John Doe, but continued to write as Jo S Wun, would it make a difference to the value of what I write? Could you tell just by reading what I write?
There are numerous legitimate reasons for using a pseudonym, not least of which is protecting a person from physical harm. It is a sad fact, but some people resort to violence to silence those who do not share their opinions, rather than engage in debate.
Anonymity in itself is just a tool which can be used for both good and bad objectives. Not much different from a scalpel, which in the hands of a murderer is one thing, but in the hands of a surgeon, another. Anonymity can be used as a cloak for nefarious purposes, or as an invitation to open discourse. It's a matter of perspective.
* I say 'for the most part' because there are those that do use pseudonyms to hide behind. Internet 'trolls', the bane of forums and blogs, adopt pseudonyms to hide their real identity while they cause trouble. However, they view a pseudonym as a temporary means to achieve their ends, frequently adopting a new one when their current one is banned, and sometimes using several at the same time, including some which are operated as sockpuppets.
[image error]
No comments have been added yet.
