This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Pseudonymous/Anonymous Publishing: Good, Bad or Ugly?
- The good/best blogges/tweeters share some information about their background so readers can judge whether they're credible.
- Even without biographic information, the only measure is the
quality of the content and the strength of the arguments contained
therein. It DOES NOT MATTER WHOSE NAME IS ATTACHED TO THEM. Our country was founded by Men (and women) who understood this! - Bloggers/tweeters - contrary to the complaints of some - DO, in
fact, have reputations to build/foster/protect. The
blogosphere/twitterverse observes fairly Darwinian dynamics: the
high(er)-quality blogs/tweets tend to float to the top and get noticed
by other authors of high-quality material. The crap tends to sink to
the bottom. There are exceptions to this rule, but it generally holds
true. - Professional writers/tweeters/bloggers/whatever are by definition
public persons. Dealing with criticism comes with the territory. If
you can't handle the heat, get out of the fire. Trolls have been
criticizing Public Persons since the beginning of time (if not
earlier!) and it doesn't matter from whom the criticism comes. If its
an ad hominem attack, ignore it (I'm the subject of many ad hominem attacks, too, and it bothers me just as much when I'm the subject of such an attack whether its under my pseudonym or real persona).
If its a valid argument, debate it on its merits. It's really as
simple as that (short of outright and blatant harassment, of course) - Everyone gets criticized in their job (especially if they're doing
it well!). I've had colleagues/bosses/etc SCREAM at me, call me all
sorts of names, tell me I'm an idiot, tell me I just totally f*cked up
an project in front of dozens of people. It sucks, especially when the
criticism is not just about the quality of your work but attacks you
personally. I do feel for Public Persons because there's alot of hate
out there, but you're the one who chose your path, if you don't like
it, find another career. Otherwise, It happens. Learn how to shrug it
off and get back to work. That's the only way to deal with it. - The whole point of this blogging/tweeting thing is to share
information and engage in healthy debate. Surely, we're all human and
every single one of us will resort to ad hominem attacks eventually,
but we need to make a conscious effort to not only avoid doing it
ourselves, but understanding that when others do it to us, they're
likely doing so out of impulsive anger, and responding in kind is
counterproductive. I say this fully acknowledging that I have made
these mistakes myself several times. I'm not perfect - no one is - but
we all need to be cognizant of our behavior and others' as well, and
try to be civil, that's all.
Let's take a poll. Are you for or against pseudonymous/anonymous writing/blogging/tweeting? Please say why in the comments!
- advertisements -
You make a good point:
"Even without biographic information, the only measure is the quality of the content and the strength of the arguments contained therein."
I would argue, however, that the context in which these blogs are presented and used does bear some relevance. I read a lot of Hedge Fund blogs and a lot of Hedge Fund letters from managers and there are arguments made by both types of authors as to why something might happen in the financial markets. Now, it is up to me, the reader, to judge which of these arguments makes most sense and which can be applied to whatever end use I prescribe. There may be arguments made by bloggers that make great sense but without any credibility as to their background or qualifications, they may be equally viewed as right or wrong. A HF manager might give the same argument as Mr. Anonymous blogger, but the manager will have results, good or bad, to back up the connection between his arguments and the results of using his arguments to invest. The HF manager could also be equally right or wrong but if the manager has good results then I would be more likely to give his words credence in making future investment decisions.
One could say that if Mr. Anonymous blogger keeps writing beneficial blogs-if all of his arguments bear out in the financial markets-then it doesn’t matter who he is. It just matters that the quality of the content was high. But this takes time to judge without any connection to results so for long term readers of anonymous blogs, there are no ramifications of putting a name to a blog. But that is a fluid dynamic and a more static read of a blog one time or for the first time will be more fruitful if a name or background is attached.
The internet has given access to more ideas, good and bad, from more sources, than ever before in our history. No one has a crystal ball and there are no free lunches in the financial markets. Everything is risk versus reward and markets can move for an endless number of reasons. Stocks can go down even if the best analysis is right or if the theories make sense. It always falls to the reader, not the writer, to decide if the writer knows what he or she is talking about so putting a name to the knowledge can be helpful.
i love anonymous, it is the greatest thing since sliced bread†
Another aspect that may be overlooked is the idea of branding of a certain perspective and attitude. Anonymity allows the author to create a character with those traits of attitude and write from that vantage point without the fear of public reprisals or name-calling. Once the author can remove himself from the mainstream paradigm, he can establish his own ground and be able to stand it with only the acceptance of the populace as a measure of worth.
It is within this framework that Tyler Durden has created one of the most remarkable stories on the web simply by staking out a piece of lonely ground, raising his flag and inviting others to join him, Tyler-style; Fight Club, pissed off and knowlegable. That's gotta scare the bejeesus outta somebody somewhere.
The branding comes in handy when there may be a need to pass the torch on to someone else...or in case of a simple need for sleep. Seriously, you think Tyler Durden is one guy? I have tried to stay awake long enough for Tyler to stop posting stuff and I couldn't do it.
With that comes the idea that anonymity can also be led by committee. No one has their name above the marquee and someone's below. No squabbles, no credit, no finger-pointing. They all did it- all the Tylers- and I think they know that there is some safety in numbers and have a certain pride in the group effort.
To the anonymous, it is an admission that it doesn't matter who gets the credit, as long as the job gets done.
In a public forum, pseudonyms is fine. However, it seems practical that there should be a limit to the number of posts per day per person, or a limit to the number of people who can post, for example. Without limitations, a board can degenerate into vulgar macho displays that waste readers' time.
Just post the number of posts and number of junks every account has issued.
Transparency, and no restriction. We'll work it out just fine.
Sounds reasonable too.
Stone Street<
+1,000
Says it all. Too bad all he mental horsepower cannot be better organized.
Many bloggers prefer to go nameless,
So as not to be fired if blameless,
But a public display,
While constraining their say,
Might cause them to curse and defame less.
http://www.limericksecon.com
Thanks for all the comments guys/gals!
Hell, I'd be in favor of anonymous Presidential candidates.
The less we focus on persona, the better. Decide on facts, decide on merit, decide on everything other than the superficial. The more the cult of personality can be undermined, the better.
On a separate note, some people only feel comfortable speaking the truth anonymously. If that's what it takes to get the truth out, I'm all for it.
Wow. Someone is having a bad day, or maybe their junk key is stuck. Jw. Is that you? I think all trolls should be self identified and registered, even if you are the practical joking troll. Roll a nice one for me if that's you JW.
what kind of commie job does this guy have that he can totally fuck up over and over and still 'go back to work' ?? Is he Ziggy Sobatka??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBI4TSbihrE
Let's put it this way: Your credentials are not your mind, a measure of critical thinking, or your ability to put together data that makes sense from a myriad of sources.
A few select cases in point: Bernanke, John Meriwether and Myron Scholes.
One is the "expert" on the depression. He is also printing us into global food inflation and sees no unintended consequences in his actions. He is destroying savers and retired persons and the US currency. But hey, Mr. Princeton Phd. Yeah, gotta respect that--Head of the Department, no less.
The others managed to blow up LTCM. Now you might think that if they had blogs before LTCM they would have been considered gods of finance and risk managment. You would have been wrong. The 1998 crash was all due to their ignorance/stubbornness in not letting go of trades when they went against them. After all, Myron had the Nobel Prize!
Anonymous--All for it. You can easily spot someone that doesn't know what they are talking about in finance. Background means nothing if you cannot assimilate various input and make sense of it.
It is not he who speaks but what is said.
hey top dog at twitter is ex state dept. so you just keep thinking you're anonymous.
I've known for years that I'm not anonymous (but because the words are so often used in place of one another, wrongly, I included it). It would not be too difficult for someone with an axe to grind to find me out, although when that day eventually comes, I hope its not a messy and wholly vengeful as what happened this weekend and inspired this post.
I am saying this out of genuine sympathy for some person that goes by "Phlox". I believe the insane Bastard erroneously singled her out as being me to her collegues. I am not Phlox, and don't know Phlox. I am not a journalist. I do value my privacy.
If "Phlox" did say she was the author of my posts at some point, then she gets her deserts now. Otherwise she should be left alone.
With an identity like "Dirtt"...I'll give you one guess. Dirt is very misundertood.
The Fruit Washers of the 80's set out to slander dirt to comfort their rather bizarre obsessions. The fruit-washing Yuppies grew up and had children living in bubbles sheltered from the dirt. A culprit is comforting to them. And now the fruit-washing Yuppies and their plastic wrapped adult children are slandering away to comfort the culmination of their rather bizarre obsessions. The Progressive Agenda.
And these mentally ill families have somehow co-opted RINOs over the last couple decades. (Enter Squidly of course) Why not let the fruitcakes do the heavy lifting? Can't argue with that. Long story short.
What the fruit washers should have been concerned about is the Mexican labor who were picking the produce spitting on the produce. Not dirt. Rejection of the Progressive Agenda, RINOs and those who they inadvertantly/advertantly protect (collectively destroying the USA) has reached a critical point in our history.
Some don't want to make a name. At the same time, the Fruit Washers can not be allowed to slander and LIE. And for those who have no interest in making a name or making money from trying to wipe the Progressive Agenda(&RINOs) from the planet like it is the Plague, ALL that is asked in return is that one day I'm not trying to club 20 wannabe hippies off my property because "They can't handle the truth."
When did the Fruit Washers forget that it GROWS in dirt? Whatever. They took that logic to Fannie and Freddie. Same with Net Neutrality. Progressive Fruit Washers HATE pseudonymous/anonymous comments because there is NO ONE to slander. They can't defend WHAT is being said. No culprit.
Finally. There is something else the Fruit Washers are forgetting. Dirtt is everywhere.
Even clowns appreciate their anonymity.
Well done. Anonymously junked for stating the above.
My premise has been supported.
Q.E.D.
I was looking at the comments junked, and wonder if the joke isn't on us. I mean, we DID all voluntarily post in response to a contribution tagged "CRAP."
Heh.
Well ..., one man's CRAP may be an other's fertilizer.
For anonymity
Why? How long have you got!
The anonymous bit takes out reputation, status, background, qualifications, even looks all of which cloud our judgement with predetermined values before we even start the debate. All fog the windscreen if not block it completely to the actual issue under debate and what that blogger knows and his/her understanding. Anonymity is simply brilliant because it puts us all on a level playing field at the starting gun. Thereafter opinions work and build on merit.
The anonymity has a few downsides such as allowing a bit more rudeness and name calling than would normally be accustomed in either social settings or say other mediums (radio phone-ins etc). But really who gives a crap... a bit of sledging as i'm more than used to from sports and business life is all part of the rough and tumble of life and actually quite enjoyable most of the time.
The roughest debates also test your metal as well as your mental skills so i don't rule out we do it in the same way we go to Judo practice or play rugby to toughen ourselves up in life. If you take out the tough stuff by Mods people will turn to soft pieces of mush and where would we ever be if the aliens attacked then? Too mentally weak to take out the fuking invaders thats where!!!!
We should be able to say what we think (free thought and expression thereof) as apposed curbed thought or half a thought (half the truth) we believe. And as in the free market and a free society we self-regulate. What you'd find is fighting may break out but soon, days or even weeks, an impasse would evolve. Free anything always beats restricted or curbed or regulated. No contest.... and let's not forget being prepared for the f'n aliens.
Free blogging, a work out for your brain
I disagree with your basic assumption of anarchy but will defend to your death your right to say it. I'm glad to see someone else enjoy a good debate too. I would have never known that anarchists believe that most or even all human ills would disappear of the pathology of government were lifted. I figure that the human ills have to disappear first before we are ready for anarchic governance.
Glen Beck did a refreshing redesign of the political spectrum. Instead of Left and Right politics he put Fascism and Marxism on the extreme left, socialism of the left and on the right he put freedom with extreme right, anarchy. He was explaining various levels of authority or totalitarism. It was better than our traditional view but like the Founding Fathers of America and the great Greek philosophers, he got it wrong.
Anarchy is actually lawlessness in the face of rules, namely breaking the rules (Law). The correct place to put anarchy is on the extreme left, not the extreme right with freedom. Anarchy sits its insane arse next to fascism and Marxism because nobody makes more rules than these parasites and nobody breaks more rules than them either.
Totalitarism and authoritarism regimes all make the most oppressive rules but their regimes break the most rules. Mao and Stalin were both mass murders yet promised "equity" and progress for all. Washington has waged not 1 but 2 false wars both in contravention of international law of the right of a country only to defend itself - neither Iraq nor Afghanistan threatened the US nation state, the US had no right to either attack or invade.
All the biggest rule makers in the world are also patently the biggest rule breakers in the world. That's because everyone with a mindset to tell others how to behave are without exception complete arseholes themselves. Nobody in the world has more banking rules than EU and US Regulators. Yet nobody has left the goal more wide open for fraud, theft, incompetence, bankrupt (simple over-leverige) and dangerous (to depositors) business practices.
So I do not believe in "anarchy". I believe the free market and free society learns from mistakes and evolves its own rules to handle them. We cannot be protected by rule makers when they are the biggest rule breakers. We have to find our own way. Not listen to others telling us how to behave.
US regulators had 6 years of whistleblowing regards the Madoff scam and still didn't even apply their own rules. If rule makers won't follow their own rules why the fuk should anyone else!
Free society and free markets resolve all issues, they are self regulating (learning, adapting, understanding). We are self governing and only we can be responsible for ourselves. I think most of us have had it up to our necks with being Governed by the biggest clowns (and human frauds) on Earth.
Totally lost me at Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck Limps into 2011 with Sinking Ratings AlterNet
Perhaps my favorite thing about whatever Tyler Durden is, is the suppression of ego.
All for it, myself.
The whole point of this blogging/tweeting thing is to share information and engage in healthy debate.
i think this is too limiting. way too limiting.
but, not bad for one sentence.
the medium itself is so interactive and immediate that there is a kind of theater/improv involved, sometimes. and if people enjoy writing, which i do, there can be self-discovery, also. there is a creative, artistic dimension. if someone wishes to develop a theme or thought past one or two sentences, why not? different moods and voices can speak from the same person. and, we can hear different parts or voices from others, too, and different emotions. humor is plentiful here, from pure corn and eye-rollers, to belly laughs, to irony, and so on.
you're right that we all screw it up, tho, too. you can miss some punctuation and misunderstand everything! foot in mouth; egg on face; and if it's been nose in air, ouch!!! also, some people are so ambiguous, it's difficult to know WHAT they're saying. and, they're good at it, too!
what i get from your poll is that it is not a poll.
you've gone into your concerns and journey a bit, and so have i.
tickhound has gone for honest and efficient.
you, for debate and poll.
moi for expression.
and so on---must get back to reading them! thanks!
Great people talk about ideas.
Average people talk about things.
Small people talk about other people.
I'm all for anonymity, too, even though I decided to always post under my real name a long time ago.
We're up to our eyeballs in certifiable idiots that we can't get rid of because they've "built a name for themselves." The fact that their ideas are shit escapes many.
The anonymous writer relies more on his skill as a writer, his ability to present truth coherently. What a writer says is infinitely more important than who he or she is.
I use my real name because I am the kind of writer that will attack someone, call them an idiot, or worse. If I'm going to behave that way, I should at least have the courage to identify myself. That's what works for me, but to each his own.
After a while, it doesn't matter anyway - the pseudonyms become personalities to the reader. Ms Creant, Cognitive Dissonance and Chumbawumba are distinct, three dimensional voices to me and I'm glad to hear those voices for what they are, not because of what school they went to, or how they make thier living. And Mish could never pass himself off as Tyler to me.
So it's all good as far as I'm concerned.
I'm for anonymous blogging and commenting etc. It's a great tradition.
it's great, though if ZH were to be truly pseudonymous how would we find it?
Why do we as commenters have names on ZH? Why do contributors have names?
To your point it's about the content. SO when Cheeky made his first contribution in months yesterday he really didn't need to use his name (his posts are actually quite unique as many contributors are). We could probably pick Leo, CD and Reggie out of a lineup based on their writing styles, not to mention Rosie.
The fact that users need to "register" to post also seems somewhat contradictory. Of course no one forces any of us to come here. But the bottom line is that ZH talks a good story of pseudonymity and anonymity - but talk is cheap, it's actions that speak
topcallingtroll: good post which I agree with 90% (for what it's worth). But it has become very apparent lately, not necessarily here at ZH, but in many other forums, that there are those who parrot the talking points of those with whom we find fault (the President or Czars, Treasury/WH, Congress/FED/TBTFs, etc who are obviously paid to post by the Ministry of Propaganda/Disinformation, even though they can post anonymously just like the rest of us, which IMO is a good, not bad thing. To be totally honest though, I do have a slight paranoia that the fascist control now evident with TSA, "rat out you neighbor" signs at Walmart, domestic drones, and searches now OK without warrants, makes me wonder if a list of dissenters (per Napolitano=domestic terrorist) puts us all in jeopardy (Even Tyler would give up our ISPs if his life depended on it).
Don't get me wrong. I wear my seatbelt not because I expect or hope for a crash. I got my year's supply of food and lots of cool doodads, and I got bored with my career for a while and learned how to forage and live off the land with just a rock, a certain type of rock, mind you, hard to find in my parts, so I have nothing against the preppers and people who are suspicious of government action. However I always think it is important to remember...Never believe in conspiracy when simple incompetency will suffice as an explanation.
I really don't think anyone bothers with paid shills on these sites. We don't matter enough to those in power. Stalin wrote about useful idiots and there are useful idiots who believein doom and gloom and conspiracy and their are useful idiots who parrot the conventional wisdom. They usually work for free.
yep. they showed up on another site. all i could think was: "paid assassins".
then, i just started writing how several bloggers obviously must have english for a second language, b/c they obviously couldn't understand a simple sentence from anybody and were only able to misunderstand the article or essay we were addressing.
i just kept pointing it out: well, the folks who have english for a second language are back, today; can anyone mistake who they ARE? 3-4 days, they left!
Of course it's a good thing to post anonymously. And the facts are all that matter.
However, if you are mentally instable you shouldn't blog. When you experience honest direct criticism it needs to be met with refutation or concession, not the tweet I quote below:
"I swear to fucking God right here, right now, if you people (you know whom I'm referring to) don't stop talking shit, I will make it my personal goal to dig out every bit of info on you, I can. This is not me a threat, this is a fucking promise. I've had had it with this. You are nobodies, and what the fuck gives YOU the right to do this? Nothing. This can turn real ugly, real fast. That's all."
Life's too short for this kinda stuff. See ya.
Isn't that quite obvious? You've brought up the mental stability thing before without ever mentioning the agent provocateurs. But you don't believe in conspiracies, right?
4.... Unless your a really hot smart woman, then I may have to see a picture to really judge your eh credentials...
Regardless of the arguments for or against posting pseudonymous/anonymous, nobody has the right to make that choice for me.
I used to write only in my real name. But with HR-bots scanning for every instance of my name, I now only use pseudonyms. After multiple years (!) of job-hunting for a position in financial services, I see no gain in giving anyone additional reasons to gig me.
Besides if it is good enough for Publius, Cato, Silas Do Good, etc., it's good enough for me.
Poor Richard.
Anonymity is good in general. Because we couldn't really hear what people truly think and they wouldn't be able to disclose certain information if it weren't anonymous. Yes you have to put up with a certain amount of trolling, but one should distinguish between a troll who argues against the majority opinion on a blog, versus a troll who engages in ad hominem. I think there is a vocal group who believe that america is bad, exporting inflation to the third world is bad, and who hope for a little schadenfreud as they gleefully await the collapse of the system and they hang around at websites that confirm their pre existing beliefs such as zero hedge. Personally I think they are the real trolls because even if you are attacking the argument and not the person they can get really passionate about it and start with the ad hominem. i sometimes characterize these types as angry populists who are marginalized and unhappy with what they have accomplished in life and blame others for it "the cartel" "the PTB" or "the system." But even a troll has his limits and I don't think I have ever directly attacked a specific individual with ad hominem, although many of my comments are intentionally designed to inflame. My "you" is the "general you" and I should probably try to be more careful.
I may display my disgust with america bashers, third world apologists, grifters who want a free home because the paperwork is out of order, etc, but try to keep my comments based on the argument even if I intentionally try to inflame someone!
If someone begs the question then of course it should be challenged. To assume that third world food inflation is all bad is probably incorrect. As Shakespear noted "tis an ill wind that blows no good." Even the most violent destructive tempests brings a gentle rain some where. To assume that it is bad for us to burn our corn in our automobile tanks must be challenged also. It is our corn dammit! So I like to troll with certain types on this site, but hopefully we try to argue a point rather than cut someone down. If I make someone mad because I don't really care if a third worlder starves because I like to run my car airconditioner and drive aimlessly for the fun of it, then I get a little kick out of it. What really makes them mad is they can tell I really believe what I am saying.
If I think many people in the third world are smelly, primitive, and dirty, well, it is the god's honest truth. Some of you need to get out more. If I have to butt heads with america bashers and angry collapsaholics hoping for some schandenfrued, then I enjoy it, and we couldn't have such free wheeling debates if we weren't anonymous. Yes we Americans have been privileged and I don't feel guilty about it at all. I hope we stay privileged and we will unless the rest of the world figures out a way to quit using the dollar. I like belonging to a private elite club. It has it's benefits and I don't feel guilty about it at all. It takes away the pleasure of being in the private privileged club if one feels guilty!
So really who is the troll? The angry guy hoping the entire system collapses and lots of people suffer, the kind of person who would cut off his nose to spite his face, or the guy who ridicules that belief system? The guy who gets others upset with unpopular opinions or the others who engage in ad hominem? Is Harry Wanger a troll, or is it the people who engage in ad hominem and junk him? Those people give us trolls a bad name!
and no doubt someone could find an example of ad hominem from me, but it really is more fun to engage in the debate of ideas and to gore a few sacred cows and third world apologists. I don't believe it is ad hominem if one is insulting an entire group and not a specific individual. Why in the fuck is it bold? I tried to change it. Wierd
One of the best economic minds of the last 50 years posts sporadically from a prison cell; his name is Martin Armstrong. He is in prison, without habeus corpus, essentially for not giving the USG/CIA access to his forecasting skills, which are quite remarkable and prescient. Sometimes when I read Tyler, I think he is channelling Armstrong.
The ability to promote unpopular ideas such as freedom, liberty and opposition to tyrants often depends on pseudonymy.
+1 for anonymity
--Timothy Turnstone
I don't think it really matters. We all need to have our BS meters turned on when we're on the internet. If someone claims they're Joe Doe I either have to believe or not believe them, or try to do enough research to verify their claim. In the end it's all just words on a monitor.
Good; for reasons you addressed - removes the person from his/her argument.
yes. experienced it. For example, contributor Cognitive Dissonance at ZH is a poster boy for ad hominem attacks when faced with holes in 'its' theory or 'its' seniority is not respected greatly.
For.
In a world in which every sound you utter, word you pen, and gesture you make can be undetectably altered beyond recognition and infinitely duplicated and publicized for the purpose of promotion or criticism, it probably makes little difference whether you prefer personal or pseudonymous attribution. Virtually everything gets buried under the landslide and parsed and edited into vacuity.
However: it benefits both speaker AND listener to engage in honest communication without the emotional baggage and judgmentalism which results even unconsciously from knowing who was speaking when a certain subject is raised.
We post under pseudonyms here, yet how many times has it been repeated that someone is "talking his book"? If half as much attention is consistently paid to what is being said as to who is saying it and how we feel about that speaker, all dialogue will benefit.
All for it... Tyler couldn't be near as honest or efficient if posting from the gulag.