Anonymity, Commenters and the Internet
I enjoy reading blogs when I have time, and at times I even leave a comment or two. In a recent online exchange however, I ran into one or more (it is impossible to tell) anonymous commenters. As expected, these people did not add anything substantive to the discussion or the topic at hand. They were merely trolls venting and spewing nonsense online, which is unfortunate as it distracted from the conversation and made me think twice about commenting again.
I fully support the value of anonymity on the Internet. The very nature of the Internet has helped to foment descent that has toppled totalitarian regimes. It has allowed people to voice sensitive opinions on topics or provide insider perspectives without risk of retribution. We can go, do, and say whatever we want online when many places in the offline world have stifled freedom of movement and expression. Anonymity is a core principle of the Internet that should never be tampered with or eliminated.
On the other hand, there are practical considerations. If you are building up an online community, you need to foster engagement and dialogue in ways that elevate the conversation. At the same time, you are battling various abuses such as spammers and hostile voices that can significantly degrade the value of your community. Hostile in this sense ranges from annoyingly disruptive to outright threats and hate speech.
It is in your best interests to have a policy and procedures in place to handle these situations expeditiously. Whatever you decide, make sure that the policies mesh with your own values and the type of community you wish to foster. For example, anyone is free to post a comment on my blog. I have configured Disqus to send me all comments right after posting, so I can immediately review and remove any posts that I deem offensive or simply nonconstructive. The overwhelming majority of comments I remove invariably come from anonymous posters. I also personally feel that I would rather have people comment that had enough strength in their convictions to be upfront with their real identity. This blog is called Strong Opinions after all.
There is a delicate balance however to managing online communities however whether they are discussion boards, wikis or blog comments. You do not want to come off as a community that stifles dissenting voices, minimizes a diversity of opinions or appears strident in enforcing rules. Those communities die a swift death or become so myopic in viewpoint as to be entirely worthless. On the other hand, if you create a free-for-all environment, you have discussions boards like the Wall Street Journal or Business Insider, which are some of the most troll infested places on the Internet.
The best approach is one that is collaborative and involves the members and the community organizers. The most vocal and active communities tend to self-police themselves and the members, much like what you would see on Fred Wilson’s blog. Technology inherent in most of the online platforms should also be leveraged such as functionality to report abuse, hide comments, enable blacklists, and down/up vote comments and commenters.
Some people are trying to structure the web. Some feel that it is messy and it needs to be cleaned up. Some only see the risks from malicious hackers and organizations trafficking in illicit activities. Various proposals almost sound like the establishment of drivers licenses for the Internet. They essentially want to force people to use real names before contributing to the social web (I highly recommend checking out the comments on the linked post). While I understand the approach, ultimately I believe that is the wrong path, despite the annoyances and inconveniences that anonymity brings. We do not need, nor should desire, a blanket policy that governs the Internet, but if you manage an online community, make sure you have standards in place.
46 Notes/ Hide
- communityheart reblogged this from marksbirch
- pcrampton liked this
- zeb liked this
- marksbirch posted this