Nation Of Seventh Graders
I’m a little late to this Whelan-Publius party, but as long as the great blogosphere is speaking, I’ll add my voice. I don’t understand why Whelan needs to apologize for identifying a law professor who thinks he can engage in public debate and orchestrate a targeted attack on Whelan under a false name. I think the law professor’s employers should be taking a close look at such low ethical behavior, and consider what kind of example he is setting for aspiring lawyers, who will operate in a very public world, governed by personal responsibility and consequences.
People voice opinions on politics and politicians and engage in discussion of issues under false names on the Internet for a wide variety of reasons. Despite the fact that we live in a free and open society where that should not be necessary, I understand that some people have legitimate reasons and I don’t have a big problem with that. A lot of them are entertaining, informative, and bring something worthwhile to the table. Although, I’d add, anyone who has professional reasons for not expressing an open opinion, as the law professor seems to think he does, may want to consider whether doing it by pseudonym doesn’t corrupt whatever standards and ethics he thinks pseudonymity is allowing him to maintain.
In my business, we use anonymous sources all the time, in order to get at information that might otherwise not be available regarding crime, corporate behavior, and the actions of public officials and public figures. It is a different business than opining on politics. Reporters and editors who do this in the course of newsgathering should be applying some standards. Allowing gratuitous anonymous attacks on one’s adversaries is not one of them. We usually try to present the background of the individual to establish credibility. The sources often have good reasons for remaining anonymous, and they also sometimes have their own axe to grind. The dimes they drop may be self-serving. Weeding out the personal from the information that is relevant and stands on its own is a critical part of the decision to use their material. Reporters and editors who allow anonymity also face the prospect of criticism and consequences. Sometimes expensive legal ones.
But back to the business of public bloviation, particularly that which is as superfluous as much of this on the Internet is. The value of any opinion is automatically devalued by an individual’s unwillingness to attach his name to it. Attacking individuals and attempting to get a rise or start something under a false name is low. Anyone who blogs is subjected to it sooner or later, if not regularly. I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of it, from commenters to lefty bloggers and even some rightward ones, some of it vile and personal, some of it sticking to the issues if not always accurate in its representations. No one likes to be attacked, but I always consider the source: Nobody. Some gutless wonder with a fake, usually self-aggrandizing name and a keyboard. No little irony in South Texas College of Law Professor John F. Blevins’ decision to pseudonymize himself as “Publius,” a self-aggrandizing ripoff from the Federalist Papers that is also the origin of the word “public,” or “open to all.”
Unfortunately, as the law prof who aggrandizes himself as Publius reportedly states, identity-masking pseudonymity is an accepted norm on the blogosphere, and given how much of our lives is being conducted in cyberspace, it is in danger of becoming a societal norm. That raises the prospect of our (accelerated) evolution into a nation of seventh graders, making prank hangup calls and writing things on walls.
Too bad, when we have come so far in creating the most free and open society in history, built on individual rights and responsibilities, that we might have to see it subverted by a dramatic leap forward in the means of personal expression. For all my mockery of Glenn Greenwald’s sockpuppetry, I admire the fact that the vast majority of his poor logic and handwringing is conducted openly, under his own name. I think. It takes a brave man, of some principles, to attach his name to some of the positions that Greenwald has. Same thing with Andrew Sullivan, whose opinions I have no respect for, but whose willingness to associate himself with his own absurd gyrations, seeing that he actually appears to believe them, is laudable. Even John Cole at the ridiculous site, Balloon-Juice, is big enough to use his own name. Though … maybe because the word ”asshole” is such a prominent part of his political discourse … Cole does throw a fit if anyone notes which university employs him as a communications instructor … not a connection you necessarily want made by any tuition-paying parents concerned about the quality of their child’s education. (Nice overweight nude Pam Anderson video ad, by the way, John. You really need money that bad?)
Sorry. Couldn’t help getting a couple of digs in. That’s one of the great sports of this bloody new public arena. But as Blevins’ “outing” shows, it’s a dangerous game for the chicken-hearted.
Here’s Blevins, by the way, still going by the bogus name, graciously accepting an unmerited apology and trying to peddle the idea none of this was about him or anything he did, it was about pseudonymity. Apparently he hasn’t learned yet that pseudonymity is no effective dodge for personal responsibility.
OK, back to my summer hiatus, which doesn’t seem to be working out so well.
UPDATE: Views from three (named) pals.
Don Surber: “The pros who do not hide scoff at this Legion of Cowards … Screw them. This is why blogging is considered so low in the eyes of many.” Well, yeah, that and all the self-appointed self-righteous ranting. Good discussion in comments at his site. Named commenter harryanderson comments, stridently:
I challenge Jules and Don to acknowledge that bloggers are not bad people, and so-called mainstream commentators usually don’t pass credibility standards themselves.
Bloggers are not bad people, harryanderson, and so-called mainstream commentators usually don’t pass credibility standards themselves. Happy now? Hang on, just caught harryanderson’s next comment, apparently he’s now read this post, I’m absolved and I didn’t need to say that at all.
Dan Riehl: The original Blogging Fathers decreed that anonymity on the Internet shall be respected. Even for those who are disrespecting you. The Elders have spoken! … OK, that’s not exactly how he said it.
Ed Driscoll: “Read the whole thing, as a prominent non-anonymous blogger likes to say.” He means this post, and if you’ve made it this far, you already have.
Meanwhile, AmeriCAN-DO Attitude chimes in with a ”what he said.” CAN-DO also means this post. My name is Jules Crittenden, and I endorse CAN-DO’s position on this matter.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:17 am on Tuesday, June 9, 2009
15 Responses to “Nation Of Seventh Graders”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Good points, all.
I like to think I’m not hiding in a cowardly fashion myself, as my online moniker is not false, but merely incomplete, in the interest of not having my craziest relative, or crazy former graduate students track me down with ease, and kill me.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I’ve always thought you were polite and to the point, Becks. Like I said, no problem with pseudonymity, more with its exercise. And abuse.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Great take on the cowards. Hey blogosphere, you want to be taken serious? Drop this protection of cowards.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Thanks Don … one of my favorite named individuals on the Great Blogosphere!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I swear my real name is Potfry. As far as you know.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I agree with RebeccaH. One needs to take some precautions to protect one’s ID online. That’s why I use my real nickname as my online moniker (in the hope that my family and friends aren’t out to get me), but I wouldn’t reveal that my name is Henri LeGrand, because the French are so vindictive.
:)
June 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
[...] this and can just say, with regards to Jules Crittenden’s post, “what he said”: Nation of 7th Graders Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Boulevard of Broken [...]
June 9th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Kind words, Jules. And Henri… we are chickens under the skin.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
I don’t use my real name because… I just dont. But, at least I can safely say that I’m as nasty and aggressive with folk face to face as I am in comments, when such folk are leftist useful idiots, defeatists, etc and so on.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
You guys get a pass. I have different standards for people I like.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
It does come with a cost, though. Stupid me spent a lot of dough on repairs to broken teeth in my younger years. I finally wised up enough to realize such expenses are better left off until I got old and tired enough to not need it so often.
June 10th, 2009 at 6:14 am
My first name really is Terrye. I used my whole name on a blog once and the other commenters got upset about it and said I should ask the blogger to take down the post. They said it was dangerous because there were so many crazy people on the internet. I was surprised at the reaction. So it seems that there really are people who not only do not want to use their real names, they don’t want anyone else to either.
June 10th, 2009 at 9:21 am
@RebeccaH
http://www.whydidthechickencrosstheroad.com/sounds/clucks/cluck6.wav
June 10th, 2009 at 10:07 am
This mini-rant doesn’t make much sense.
A real name often tells you nothing. I could tell you that my real name is William Whitelaw and you would be none the wiser. Googling the name turns up page after page of listings, for sure, but those are for someone else, not even a relative. If you put in mucho effort you might find a few things associated with the real actual me, like some items at the US Patent & Trademark Office, but you still wouldn’t know jack about my background, wacky political ideas, general reliability, blah blah. You would probably come closer to the “real me” by searching for leads about “Tom Swift”. In short, although I have a considerable Internet trail, almost none of it links to my legal name.
But there are no grounds for assuming that any of my Internet identities are masks for different personas. Specifically, there’s no cause to assume that the use of obfuscatory identifiers is motivated by the wish to compromise “standards and ethics”. I use exactly the same language, grammar, vocabulary, and ethical standards whenever I post anything anywhere. I wouldn’t claim that others do too, but it would be rash to postulate a priori that they don’t.
There are several perfectly legit and benign reasons to use weirdbeard names in random Internet posts or on blog sites. Here are a few -
- Spam. Real e-mail inboxes attached to real names fill up awfully quickly with ads for cut-rate Viagra and such dross. It doesn’t take Internet newcomers long to discover this.
- Stalking. Most Internet stalking isn’t particularly dangerous but all is annoying.
- The mix of audiences on the Internet. With different names I can keep nice GP-rated words like these separate from my contributions to, say, the forum of the Large Penis Support Group.
- Comment registration. Some are difficult, like the one for this site (but nowhere near as bad as Blogger, of course). What to do when the little electronic brain doesn’t recognize a perfectly good account name and password? One option is to re-register. But Mr Machine freaks if it thinks it recognizes the name one tries to re-register under. So, use another name. Simple. Or at least it should be.
Then there are many reason which I don’t consider legit but are doubtless common.
- Agents provocateurs. Aside from the damage they try to cause, they are just an annoying waste of time.
- Sock puppets. Not capable of real damage, unlike agents provocateurs, but still a waste of time.
- Scurrilous attacks, name-calling, and in general acting like Oliver Willis. Self-explanatory.
- Signing a post with someone else’s name (George Washington, Jules Crittenden, etc.). This doubtless seems hysterically funny to the perpetrators, even though it’s not.
- Perversion. Old guys pretending to be underaged girls in chatrooms. Eeeeeyyyyuuuu.
- Genuine schizophrenia. It happens.
To assume that anonymous posters or bloggers are part of the second group, airily dismissing the notion that they might be innocent members of the first group, seems excessively uncharitable.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I don’t agree that anonymity is why the blogosphere is held in low repute by journalists. In fact, I don’t really believe it is, I believe that is a pose affected by a threatened people who lack the courage to face the challenges of their market.
The only part of an anonymous poster’s post that should be discounted because of their anonymity is the part that rests on their personal authority–because an anonymous poster has none. Otherwise, focusing on the anonymity is a form of ad hominem.
That said, while I don’t see anything wrong with posting anonymously, I also don’t believe there is a right to it. If you attack someone, you should expect to be attacked back. Unless the ground rules were set ahead of time and agreed to by both parties, there is no reason to expect the anonymity to be respected.
Blevins is indeed a child expecting to be handled with kid gloves. If that’s the case, he needs to stay away from men’s games.