Communication Overtones Comments
Thanks for the linkage, Kami. If I might put a finer point on your intro to my article, it is not so much that unverified (anonymous) users in Second Life are problematic, but that grouping users into "Unverified" and "Verified" classes encourages social unrest. There have been "witch hunts" against Unverified users following recent denial of service attacks in Second Life.
Sidenote: Second Life is not a peer to peer gaming network as you describe. It operates on a client/server model. In other words, it's less like BitTorrent, and more like the WWW. And it's no more a game than the WWW is--it looks like a game, but doesn't offer built-in gameplay.
Enjoy your blog, Kami. Had to weigh in with what should be an obvious point. Doesn't anonymity fly in the face of the "transparency" we're all seeking through social networks -- be it on the personal side or the strategic/PR side? Yeah, anonymous comments can give voice to the less courageous. But if you want to have a meaningful conversation with me or my organization, I need to see your "face." Mine's posted at the top of my blog, warts and all!
Kami, I'm glad you brought this up (I blogged about it a couple weeks ago, although in a far less thoughtful way! 
Couldn't agree more with Bill. I immediately discount any comment submitted by "anonymous" to any blog post. If you truly hold a conviction, why hesitate to claim it as your own?
Tony; Thanks for your input, and yes, I know that SL isn't a game in the traditional sense. I also agree that it is like the WWW. In fact, I see the technology of SL, and the interactivity it provides, breaking the silo of SL and other services and being incorporated into the WWW.
I also get your idea about the social classes, I was recently called an "unfortuately homeless avatar" when I was in SL.
Bill; Ah transparency. I am a fan of it but have a hard time with it in practice. How do you ever know someone's motivation, even of you CAN see their warts? Still, I think honest feedback is easier to get when the person stands behind their words. Edelman for instance, many bloggers criticized them in the past few weeks, and they signed their name to theor comments. That is courage and that is the kind of discourse that brings improvements.
Any other thoughts about transparency? Is it just a vision or do you think it is really possible to be fully transparent?
Jesse; You read my mind, as I must have read yours. I am all for stading behind your convictions, with you name held high.
Literal minds are NOT capable of dealing with the necessity of pseudonymity or fiction for that matter. They confuse it for lying. Well, it is. But the fact is that there are good lies and bad lies.
Here, I'll leave you with this, without good lies and a dozen roses, you never would have been born.
- Amanda
PS for more on the anonymity thing, here's a peice by Cluetrain author David Weinberger: http://www.strumpette.com/archiv...rency-
myth.html
Amanda (and, by extension, David),
Of course there are times when anonymity and privacy are good (tons of times, in fact). But not when you are CHOOSING to shout from the rooftops, which what blogging - and blog commenting - is akin to.
Jesse,
You need to reread my comment. Again, you like others are confusing transparency with truth.
Fiction is an essential to commerce. From the rooftops! What do you think brand is? What do you think Ronald McDonald and friends are?
To not understand that is terribly terrible naive and limited.
- Amanda
Amanda;
"[Transparency has] even been known to enable snarky bloggers to comment archly on their industry, even if sometimes they play too rough." - Weinberger
Weinberger was giving you a pass, mostly due to the abysmal reputation of public relations (which is mostly deserved). Most of the article was about the importance of a more open (or transparent) dialogue with the public-at-large.
Here is the problem with your brand of anonymity (which this post wasn't about, by the way), while it often leads to snarky discourse, it doesn't lead to any kind of change. And why? Because your motives are always in question. Again why? Because you choose to remain anonymous while throwing bombs, sometimes very personal bombs. I am not saying this to be difficult or start a war of words and I appreciate that you have toned the personal rhetoric down as of late. But here is the rub; your anonymity is precisely why your credibility has suffered. This is why I advocate a good dose of transparency. But I am not one that would say transparency at all costs.
I am all for anonymity when it counts: whistleblowers (from inside a company), people who stand to lose life and limb if found out, etc. Unlike some, I am all for character blogs that are honest about being that. So, far from transparency, it is honesty that I value. And a little bit of fiction, as long as it is portrayed as such, is fine with me. However, anonymous blogs or stunts that rely on strident discourse or have ulterior motives bother me from an ethics standpoint. I like conflict to lead to resolution, otherwise it's too much like stopping to look at a train wreck, compelling, but what does it accomplish? Take your last comment to Jesse. I don't know him, but using personal slams about his intelligence to make you appear superior in the argument accomplishes nothing in the debate.
That said, I agree with you when it comes to the problematic definition of transparency, none of us are completely transparent (yes, yes, I know this is your point with your naked journal bit juxtaposed with your "anonymity." I get it, I am just not fond of it).
It is not easy. Sometimes, anonymous opinions are so useless that one does not need to consider about those opinions. At other times, anonymous opinions are meaningful because they often reflect crude nature of human being.
Although anonymous opinions mostly are irresponsible, observing those opinions is interesting to me. For I want to communicate with those cowards as well. :D
Obviously you should be transparent online. It's not only ethical, but just good policy for professionals.
You also have to remember that some people have no reputations to uphold and some bloggers are just raging idiots wanting to get an opinion off their minds.
Anonymity is necessary. Not only does it provide a much safer atmosphere for the online community, but it allows us to freely express ourselves in any form or fashion.
If you see that someone being blatantly rude and inconsiderate of others opinions on your personal blog site, start monitoring your blogs.
As far as SL goes, they do have people monitoring the servers and it is possible to report someone for any reason. The "game" has an incredible concept and we should be smart enough to know when to dismiss information that could be misleading.
The problem here is obvious; how does the social media world find a happy medium with the issue of anonymity?
The benefits and drawbacks of anonymity are something worth thinking about.
The blogosphere allows for individuals to share their opinions without the fear of having their thoughts damage their lives. It seems perfect; one can speak their mind without feeling like they will be judged as an individual.
As a student who is beginning to become familiar with social media, I find it a relief to not have to put all of my personal information out there for the world to see. In fact, my instructor advised my classmates and me to keep our personal information confidential, at least for now. This allows me to experiment and become familiar with the blogosphere without having the fear of being judged.
However, as I get deeper into the social media world, it is clear why anonymity can be frustrating at times. Why would someone write a post and leave it anonymous? By not taking any claim whatsoever for your comment, you're instantly decreasing the comment's credibility. Not many people will trust a comment which does not have an author.
As Bill Sledzik said, "If you want to have a meaningful conversation with me or my organization, I need to see your "face."
I completely agree with Bill. If you want to truly understand a comment, you need to know where it came from. More importantly, it needs a human face.
As I become more comfortable in the blogosphere, I have found that I am less afraid to state my full name. In fact, I will be brave this time, and take full credit for this comment.
Personally, I feel that if annonymity were removed from certain aspects of the social media environment, a greater level of professionalism, trust, and values could be established. Since the debut of e-mail, people do not even consider the repercussions of what they are saying mainly because they will not have to face that person when he or she responds to the message. Annoymity works the same way. The absence of face to face communication and now the ability to keep your identity hidden provides an atmosphere where people do not think twice before speaking. I believe that a balance with annonymity and transparency needs to be met so that we may productively progress into the future of social media.
As a newbie to the whole social media idea, this post interests me and has been a subject of thought since being thrown into this new movement. Agreeing with Stephanie above me, people do not consider the repercussions of their words, they hide behind a computer screen never to be found. They feel no remorse when they hit "submit." Although it can lead to dumb and problematic comments, that is what we get for opening up ourselves to social media. If you filter out who and who can't put their two cents in and you disregard any "anonymous" posts, you could be missing out on something valuable or come off as biased. It is a double edged sword that will never have a clear cut, black and white side. If we are going to open up our sites for EVERYONE to post comments and criticism, we need to open up our minds to the fact that we will deal with idiots at the same time...
Hi,
I just heard you on NPR (discussion about Secondlife) Good point you made. I had set up a SL account and hadn't gotten around to using it. Now with your prompting I will checking it out.
Anyways to you question about Anonymity online, I think it is the "great equalizer" effect of the online medium. Alas as with any paradigm shift you will have more than one sides or effects. Personally, I maintain that commonsense should and will continue to be the best policy. I also believe that with improvements in computing processing power, we will be able to communicate in a "more direct" way. Good blog.
Don
Hey all, great discussion, as you see, it isn't an easy question. Anonymity has its benefits in the form of allowing a voice to those that wouldn't otherwise have one or that would otherwise be drowned out, but it is has its drawbacks in the form of diminished credibility.
Kami, this seems to be a hot topic that you have intrigued us with. Anonymity is a tricky thing. It can provide someone with a lot of power for the same reasons that it can make someone's stand a very weak one. Remaining anonymous allows a person to feel as though they can freely share their thoughts without scrutiny. Having the ability to openly express your opinions can be a very powerful thing. However, I feel as though this is the coward's way of sharing their point of view. If someone feels so strongly about something, they should be proud to put their name behind it. They should welcome the opposition that they might receive and be ready and willing to debate their argument. Sir Winston Churchill once said, "You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." If someone is worried about putting their name on their views because they are worried about the repercussions, then they shouldn't express that thought at all.
Well said, Amy.
You go Amy, very well reasoned and something I feel pretty stongly about it general. However, I understand why someone like the blogger Riverbend, and Iraqi women, choses not to reveal her identity. There is a difference between harping about business associates and harping about a repressive government or system. You see what I mean? In her case, anonymity is a life or death deal.
Commenting by HaloScan
