While I agree with almost everything Alan Jacobs has to say on the topic of Internet anonymity, I want to specifically endorse this section :
The problem is that over the years I have heard from many people who insist on anonymity in order to protect themselves from reprisals when in fact all theyre going to suffer is disagreement. And grownups ought to be able to deal with being disagreed with.Moreover, every protest against injustice is far more meaningful when the person making it is willing to sign his or her name to it. As the literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin pointed out long ago, in his early work Art and Answerability , to undersign a statement with ones own name is a powerful act an act of commitment, responsibility: one becomes answerable for it. This is a strong witness to others. Anonymous dissent, by contrast, is often empty to others because no one is answerable to it. Anonymous dissent requires numbers to have an effect. When many protest anonymously their position gains weight additively; the single anonymous protester comes off as a crank or a troll.
Anonymity on the internet may be desirable often but it is necessary only rarely, and surely in 98% of the cases in which it is invoked the conversation would be better when conducted by answerable individuals.
It probably won’t surprise you to hear that I don’t have a lot of respect for the opinions of people who won’t sign their nametheir real nameto what they write. Sure, I may engage you, agree/disagree with you, thank you for your comment, etc. But I can’t honestly say that I respect such opinions or give them much thoughtand why should you expect me too? I put my name to everything I write on the Web (however imprudent that may be). Why should I take seriously the thoughts of someone who isn’t willing to undersign the statements they make?
Anyone care to make the case for why pseudonymous commenters should be accorded a dispensation from having to take responsibility for their writing? I’m genuinely interested in hearing a reasonable explanation that doesn’t rely on the weak, “My boss wouldn’t like it if she found out what I really thought.”
Time is short, so I’ll be direct: FIRST THINGS needs you. And we need you by December 31 at 11:59 p.m., when the clock will strike zero. Give now at supportfirstthings.com.
First Things does not hesitate to call out what is bad. Today, there is much to call out. Yet our editors, authors, and readers like you share a greater purpose. And we are guided by a deeper, more enduring hope.
Your gift of $50, $100, or even $250 or more will bring this message of hope to many more people in the new year.
Make your gift now at supportfirstthings.com..
First Things needs you. I’m confident you’ll answer the call.