If I Don't Know Who You Are, I Don't Care What You Say

Comment

Comment by Lucas Cioffi on November 30, 2009 at 5:51pm

Pixel-for-pixel, anonymous comments may or may not be of higher quality; it would be wonderful to see some data on that.

Quality of comments, however, cannot be the only consideration for government agencies; there are free speech issues at play. We found in a preliminary study in front of the US Capitol here in DC that requiring real names would leave far too many voices out of a national conversation.

Comment by Adriel Hampton on January 24, 2009 at 7:34pm

And moving this discussion forward.

Comment by Bryan Klein on January 22, 2009 at 12:46pm

'valueless commentary' -> invalid content.. maybe I missed the distinction.

I agree that most people can usually be tracked down regardless of the name they use to communicate with. Although this level of tracking is outside of the skill set for most people. On the flip side, there are tools that can be used to mask or remove traceability, and they are much easier to use than the tracking tools.

Like you said, I do think that we agree on the majority of issues in this topic.

Comment by Adriel Hampton on January 22, 2009 at 12:33pm

And I did not say your first sentence, despite my provocative title. Anyone who thinks anonymity protects speech on the Web is 100 percent fooling themselves, and we should not be perpetuating that notion.

Comment by Bryan Klein on January 22, 2009 at 12:22pm

I guess that fundamentally I recoil at the concept that anonymity == invalid content.
From a government employees perspective (personal opinion) I think that it is paramount that I and we use our full names in public discourse when communicating during duty hours and in connection with our assigned role. The public should know who we are, what we are doing and saying. This same rule does not need to apply to the public, they should be free to expose themselves as much as they feel comfortable with. Remember that historically and around the world today, the government is not always wear the white hat. I think that this issue places a bit of hesitancy in the minds of the public, who may feel the need to make critical comments about the topics of the day.

Comment by Chris L. Latendresse on January 22, 2009 at 12:06pm

@Bryan - "I would disagree that the people who have gone through the 'trenches' and 'know more' are those with degrees and titles" I completely agree with this point. I have met people that can run technology circles around me that are degree-less. I believe higher education can teach you 'the how' , how to properly investigate, argue, support and articulate (and even this can be learne without getting into academia) but it comes down to how much a person dedicates themselves to a particular subject matter (in terms of knowledge and experiences). Anything can be learned well, with or without degrees...its a matter of dedication. As Malcom Gladwell proposed, expert-ness is a matter of spending 10,000 hours on something, not specifically brain power or degrees.

I am humbled all the time on this site by the expertise, insight, and depth of knowledge by those with, and without higher education.

Comment by Adriel Hampton on January 22, 2009 at 11:52am

Thanks, Chris. It would be really valuable to have more research and analysis on this issue beyond opinions of a few people. How does the non-networked public feel about this issue? Is it a barrier to engagement?
If you do work on the issue, I look forward to seeing what you come up with!

Comment by Chris L. Latendresse on January 22, 2009 at 11:45am

@Adriel - .There is a reason I'm overly interested in this post and thread in particular. You posed a great question, one that appears not to have been explored in any depth in an SN context, and so I might take up the challenge. I honestly have no personal preference on anonymity, but I am interested in the contributions of those in government.

A side note, just wanted to let you know I value your contributions and efforts on this site and always look forward to reading your posts, you write well, and with clarity. Cheers Chris

Comment by Adriel Hampton on January 20, 2009 at 4:12pm

@Bryan "Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." - Gertrude Stein
Would love to debate this issue with you further. I suspect we have less disagreement than it looks from our long responses, but are just looking at identity management from different directions. Perhaps we can get a Twitter thread going one night, which I would then publish as a follow up to my original blog entry. It's a hot topic.

Comment by Bryan Klein on January 20, 2009 at 3:53pm

@Adriel, to quote a little Shakespeare...
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet."
Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I understand that names are given and are then used as convenient labels for identifying an individual, but they are not unique nor are they always (in fact they are rarely) the most important part of a discussion with a person, it is the content from that unique individual that is most important. Information is power, and to restrict the flow or access to that information by enforcement of proper identification is a loss to the true value of the internet. It is all about information flow, easy and free. I think it would help things out significantly to reduce our focus and dependence on containers and formats, names and titles and instead work hard to make sure that creation and access to raw content is unhindered. We are intelligent creatures with sophisticated tools that can track down sources and filter content after it is created if necessary.

Also, I would disagree that the people who have gone through the 'trenches' and 'know more' are those with degrees and titles. I would say to that... Know more about what exactly? In many cases I have seen that they are the upstarts, who have spent years in academia, and arrive on the scene with little real life experience to validate the knowledge that they possess. That there are those who have been immersed in the systems, gathering tested knowledge by learning what really works and what doesn't through the execution of ideas, and have gained wisdom and respect through the successes and failures that come along with it. These people may not have titles or names of import, but they have valuable information... information that needs to be added to the collection. This in my opinion is what is new and revolutionary about social media technologies. That you don't have to have a name or a title, you don't have to publish books or become famous before you are heard. That you can easily enter into the connected realm of information and become an active participant... you can contribute.
Are there going to be worthless trolls who make a mess and try to start flamewars? I can almost guarantee it. But, that is what more modern information management systems help us deal with, and what community moderated information stores can help to filter out. Which in many cases makes this concern a non-issue and can reduce and eliminate their 'tremendously destructive' potential.
In the end, use your name if you want to, or don't... but in any case... freedom to contribute should be the highest priority, and not restricted through requirements for use of your personal identification text string. That true transparency is the ability to evaluate a person based on what they do, which defines who they are. Where people can no longer hide behind names, titles and positions of assumed power and prestige.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page