Prev
Next

Four reasons it’s OK to ditch your real self online

Lucy Kippist

by Lucy Kippist

15 Mar 05:39am

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

47

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

112

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

83

Filed under: Anonymous, Internet, Social Media, Society, Websites

135 comments

Online anonymity has been a hot topic on The Punch recently. Here, Lucy looks at the pros and cons of revealing your true self.

Many people will call you a coward - or worse, a bully - for hiding your real identity online. But unless you’re troll or an aggressive poster, most of the time that’s far from the truth.

Who are you when you log online? Photo: AFP.

Like a dress-up box for adults, the internet has become a place for people who want to engage in debate, throw around ideas, complain about their lives or just muck around - without their real name.

And there are several perfectly valid reasons for doing it.

1. You can explore another side of yourself
So, maybe you don’t think there could be a “better” version of you, but most of us aren’t always keen to expose ourselves indiscriminately.  Posting under a pseudonym can often be just another way of tapping into a different side of ourselves.

Tyler Tervooren would disagree. He’s an American blogger who thinks online discussion would be more compelling if everyone just “came out” as themselves. He calls it “mindful interaction” and you can read about here, but his basic message is about the benefits of bringing your “physical” and your “online” worlds into balance.

2. It focuses the discussion on your message
It can get ugly out there in comments world, especially when the contributor becomes the target of abuse. So, sometimes it can be more effective to let your “message” do the work for you.

A Punch reader revealed earlier this week that they often swap genders before posting on the site, to avoid being scrutinised over a particular topic. And they’re probably not alone.

3. Freedom to express yourself outside of social conventions (well, let’s face it, you don’t have to be polite)
One colleague told me recently about his experience with a site he’d visited everyday over of a period of about seven years. But when the opportunity arose to meet up for drinks, (at a venue very convenient to his then place of work), he chose not to go because he didn’t want to “ruin the experience”. 

He didn’t want to make friends in “real life” or be accountable to the people he debated with online on a daily basis; he just wanted to engage in discussion.

4. It’s a great outlet for your curiosity
There’s a reason advice columns were an instant hit for early newspaper readers – they were one of the first published ways for people to “dip” into someone else’s life, without actually revealing their own identity.

And the pattern continues with online forums. Just look at the popularity of niche blogs like Ask Bossy or Mamma Mia, where the combination of anonymity and discussions about morality, sex and relationships makes for lively debate.

The Punch is a hotbed of creativity when it comes to online identity - from Hot Tub Machine to Haitch, Gladys, Nosthow, all the way to the people’s favourite, Erick.

Maybe it’s time to share what’s behind these mysterious choices. So, over to you.

Do you post as the “real you” online or do you choose to be someone else? And tell us why…

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

135 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      04:51am | 15/03/11

      Interesting topic.

      I used to post online with my real name, many years ago. Eventually I became tired of being abused by anonymous people, so I went anonymous myself.

      This provides some extra freedom as well - for instance, one employer told me that if she had known my political views, I’d have been denied a job. On another forum, I received some quite serious threats of violence, and I was glad for my anonymity there.

      I tend to be possessive of my online identity - it is an avatar of the real me and I do not like impersonators. On the other hand, “Erick” is very much an edited version. I have left out large slabs of material which could be used to identify me, as well as lots of personal stuff which would only be used to attack me. The 10% you see here is just a tiny part of the real person.

      Reply

    • James Ricketson says:

      06:14am | 15/03/11

      Much as I understand and appreciate the logic of what you are saying, Erick, arguably the most important social changes that have occurred this past 500 years (separation of church and state, abolition of slavery, the vote for women, Aboriginals …the list is long) have been the result of individuals setting aside their fears of retribution and behaving in accordance with their deeply felt beliefs and accepting the consequences. Being privately (and hence, to all intents and purposes, anonymously) opposed to slavery and segregation did not result in their abolition.

      The change taking place in the Middle East now is the most recent instance of people refusing any longer to merely talk privately (anonymously) about the need to topple dictatorships but being prepared to put their lives on the line for their beliefs.

      I fear for a society in which the anonymous expression of opinion becomes accepted as the norm when it comes to matters of social import. The fear maybe unfounded but it does seem that the majority of contributors to The Punch do not want to attach their real names even to subjects in which there can be no fear of loss of job or any other form of retribution.

    • skepdad says:

      09:10am | 15/03/11

      I’m sure there are things I said ten or twenty years ago that I’d be horrified to have linked to me today - even more so if it were without the benefit of the original context.  There is no half-life for information on the web.

      It’s been tried too - Blizzard’s RealID was a PR disaster.

      The real problem is not anonymity per se, but the practice of trolling - specifically those who use one pseudonym to put up an indefensible strawman, giving their “real” pseudonym an opportunity to tear it down.  This is very effective at making the other side look stupid and ignorant, but unfortunately there’s simply no way to tell if someone is posting a heartfelt case or a polemic.

      So while I will remain anonymous, I will always and exclusively post as skepdad.  I feel a manifesto coming on…

    • definitelynotskepdad says:

      09:49am | 15/03/11

      As one of this country’s leading public intellectuals, I must say skepdad that I find your comments invariably thought provoking and entertaining.  Good show sir.  Very good show indeed.

    • rufus says:

      10:16am | 15/03/11

      Does’t surprise me, Erick. Much of your viewpoint is odious. Bet that female boss gave you hell after she found out about your misogynist views as often expressed here.

    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      10:20am | 15/03/11

      @Erick - Thanks for sharing this. I’d like to know what prompted the new spelling? When The Punch first kicked off, you used to be Eric (no K).

    • Tim says:

      11:16am | 15/03/11

      And Rufus proves Erick’s point. Nicely done.
      The reason some of us will never put up a real (or full) name is because of people like Rufus.
      Any sort of non-PC thought is to be torn down, any difference in the “correct” opinion is to be squashed.
      I know that at my workplace any sort of non-PC think is treated like the plague.
      At a union meeting the other day, I suggested that we dump part of our maternity leave scheme in favour of a larger pay rise for everyone now that people are pretty much double dipping with the government paid scheme in place. You wouldn’t believe some of the looks the women gave me for questioning their cash cow.

    • Erick says:

      12:51pm | 15/03/11

      @James Ricketson - I think you’ll find that a great many anonymous pamphleteers also contributed to social change, particularly the American Revolution. But possibly an even bigger contributor was the Gutenberg Press, which allowed mass communication with less control by monarchs or the Church. Today e are seeing the second “print revolution”, as everyone becomes a publisher!

      @rufus - Thank you for taking the bait!

    • Erick says:

      12:54pm | 15/03/11

      @Lucy - I first chose a name that was too genEric. Eventually, other Erics started commenting, causing confusion. In addition there were some impersonators.

      So I changed the spelling a little, just to distinguish the regular Erick from all the Ericks. It also helps me to know if someone just happens to use the same name, or is deliberately pretending to be me.

      Incidentally, that’s another reason I don’t want to use my real name. It would be far too easy for my opponents to smear me by posting nasty comments attributed to me. I’ve seen this happen before.

    • redvixen says:

      01:13pm | 15/03/11

      @ Tim - My goodness!  Are you my husband?? He, also, is quite vocal about employer paid maternity leave.  I thought I knew his pseudonym…......  Anyway,  I have a very unusual surname.  There are only 15 of us in the Brisbane phone book, I’m the only one with my initial and I’m related to all but one of them.  So, if some mentally unstable person decided to take violent objection to anything I’ve said then finding me would be really easy.  It would be nice to think we live in a safe world where people can express their opinions without worry, but that simply isn’t the case.  The nutters have won.  People who know me know I’ve used this name on the internet for at least 13 years.

    • rufus says:

      01:15pm | 15/03/11

      Tim: so you’ve been ‘squashed’, have you? Oh, poor you. You seem to be recovering OK, and Erick seems able to look after himself, too.

      You may have noticed that this is a place for robust debate. You put up strong views, others will strongly oppose them. There’s no place for whinging like yours.  Political correctness (an odious and value-laden term) don’t enter into it, because everyone has their own version of it.

      Yeah, Erick-bait, sure. You are a real misogynist, not a baiting, pretend one. You should have tired of any pretence long ago. It’s the real deal, for you.

    • Dave-o says:

      01:57pm | 15/03/11

      Threats of violence Erick?

      Those feminazi’s would never stoop that low would they.

    • mary says:

      02:18pm | 15/03/11

      I applaud your stance James. I just get a sense that you may not be familiar with the abuse dished out to people who express non mainstream opinions. It would be blatantly unfair to ones family having to put up with that just because they happen to be related to you.

    • LC says:

      02:26pm | 15/03/11

      “On another forum, I received some quite serious threats of violence, and I was glad for my anonymity there.”

      Which you should’ve reported to the AFP regardless of wether you were anonymus or not.

    • Tim says:

      02:35pm | 15/03/11

      Rufus,
      thanks for proving Erick’s point once again. Are you really Erick posting in disguise?
      I’m all for robust debate.
      For me this includes logical and defensible arguments written concisely.
      You say you don’t like the term political correctness (as an odious value laden term) but are willing to pull out the overused “misogynistic” as if it is an argument winner and label Erick’s viewpoint as odious just because he disagrees with you.
      You don’t have to agree with Erick (and I often don’t) but at least he puts together a reasonble argument without having to stoop to petty insults and name calling.

    • Erick says:

      02:50pm | 15/03/11

      @LC - I seriously considered reporting those threats, and I kept a record just in case. However, because I was being carefully anonymous, I did not think the threats were likely to come to fruition - and some years later, they have not. So I didn’t bother the police at that time.

      On the other hand, if I had been using my real name or IP, I would definitely have contacted the AFP. It’s only my obscurity that I regard as a protection in that case.

    • Mirror says:

      05:15pm | 15/03/11

      LMAO

      Rufus whinges at Erick ’ Much of your viewpoint is odious.’

      THEN

      Rufus tells others they aren’t allowed to whinge ‘There’s no place for whinging like yours.’

      rotflmao

    • James Ricketson says:

      05:06am | 15/03/11

      I am certainly curious to know why so many contributors to Punch feel the need to remain anonymous? And no doubt will find out, anonymusly, as the day progresses.

      The reasons provided here by Lucy here are valid, but imagine if letters to the editor, opinion pieces in newspapers (Carlton, Bolt, Adams etc.) remained anonymous? And what about political commentators?

      What a bland culture we could become if remaining anonymous, taking on, in essence, a false persona to express a personal opinion, became an acceptable social trend.

      A little anonymity is harmless but, as yesterday’s discussion about ‘whackjobs’ demonstrated (and as often happens on Punch,  interesting and important debates can be sidetracked by nonsense spouted by commentators who would not, I suspect, do so, if they were to be held accountable for their opinions by friends and colleagues.

      It’s going to be an interesting day!

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:29am | 15/03/11

      I write on other forums involved in a special interest group.  There as here, most know who I am.  We still get people who haven’t the guts to own their idiocy and sometimes downright poisonous comments!

    • Jim says:

      08:09am | 15/03/11

      There you go with the ‘poisonous’ again acotrel….go back through any thread over the last 12 months and usually amongst the first dozen or so replies is one from you, with a pointless stab at someone. Whether it be Abbott, ‘GRUB’ bosses, engineers or other posters. Your attacks are nearly always off-topic, obscure and not very factual. Though I admit you’ve done well to finally nail the correct ‘Reply’ button!

      Maybe you should modify YOUR online behaviour and moderate YOUR comments before shooting your mouth off at others who stick it back to you.

    • mary says:

      02:06pm | 15/03/11

      In an ideal world I would post under my real name. In the world we live however I wouldn’t want my family having to put up with the insults I seem to inspire by having an interest in religion. At times, trolls single people out for abuse in which case one can morph into another name and keep going.

      I actually don’t like the anonymity because it inspires trolls and insincere posters. Just the same it makes no sense whatsoever to post your real name and have this abuse follow you from online into real life. Just the language and attitude used by some posters would seriously distress anyone in real life.

      Good for you James, but when your opinion is not mainstream, a little anonymity, sadly, goes a long way.

    • TimB says:

      05:35am | 15/03/11

      I like to think I’m the “real” me when posting here. Certainly I do post under my real first name and initial. What benefit would be achieved by providing my surname (one that is fairly uncommon) though? To most of you it would be meaningless. It serves no purpose.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      10:41am | 15/03/11

      Mild entertainment could come from it…

      Timothy Bombolas?
      Timothy Baryshnikov?
      Timothy Brayshaw?

      Oh my god, its Timothy Brown isn’t it? Timothy love child!

    • TimB says:

      11:00am | 15/03/11

      But see Sharon, your fun comes from me *not* providing my last name wink .

      The mystery is exciting!

      PS. Before anyone asks (again), no it’s not “Blair”.

    • ZSRenn says:

      11:17am | 15/03/11

      Timothy Buzzkill?

    • fairsfair says:

      11:19am | 15/03/11

      Timothy Blanket?

      Did Michael Jackson name his son after you?

    • ZSRenn says:

      11:40am | 15/03/11

      5-5-5

    • TimB says:

      01:23pm | 15/03/11

      Come on guys, you can do better than that surely.

    • meh says:

      02:23pm | 15/03/11

      I typed “who is Tim B” into google (Google knows all). You are Timothy B. Schmit - Bass Guitarist for the Eagles.  Dude, you rock!


      quote for blogs:
      “Never answer an anonymous letter” - Yogi Berra

      quote for subject matter:
      Oscar Wilde: ‘‘Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.’’

    • Seanr says:

      04:34pm | 15/03/11

      I’d agree TimB (B for Brinkworth or Bartiz?, completely random picks)

      I used to post under “Tropsmurf” on various sites but have changed to my real first name and initial.
      In my view,  it forces me to take more ownership of any comments I make

    • Chris L says:

      10:30pm | 15/03/11

      Right there with you Tim and Sean!

    • Sarah Bath says:

      05:57am | 15/03/11

      I also wonder why people have to hide behind a persona.  I happen to be a proud member of the Greens and have advocated some excellent Greens policies on this site.  Most have been accepted at the National Council. It is clear the neocons who dont like our policies resort to name calling.

      Well I challenge anyone ho doesnt like our policies of Gay appreciation taught at schools, legalising drugs, increasing the price of carbon based fuels by 400% encouraging bicycle riding and abolishing the ANSUS treaty and abolishing the defence force then instead of whining come down to our regular branch meetings.
      Sarah Bath
      http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002196937994

      Reply

    • Jade says:

      07:57am | 15/03/11

      Increasing carbon based fuels by 400%? Are you f**king serious? Ha!! I live 65km from my work… there is no way I would ever ride to and from work everyday! as I am sure most other people wouldn’t either. 

      God I hope the greens never get into full power… this country would be stuffed!

    • Elphaba says:

      09:22am | 15/03/11

      In your opinion, they are excellent Green policies.  In my opinion, I disagre, because they are impractical and typical ideological stuff that has no place in making real world decisions that affect real world people.

      @Jade, the Greens won’t get into full power.  They don’t have enough actual seats they can win to form a majority government.

    • TracyH says:

      09:22am | 15/03/11

      Very funny!! Satire so close to the truth it’s scary!
      Incidentally…I use my first name and initial but why divulge it all…it might affect employment etc. In the case of serious issues…of course I speak or sign petitions with my full name. I hardly think commenting on The Punch is akin to abolishing slavery…

    • Markus says:

      09:33am | 15/03/11

      Alternatively, the vast voting majority can just continue to give ridiculous policies such as those listed the amount of attention they deserve.
      That amount being zero, of course.

    • Knemon says:

      09:46am | 15/03/11

      ...God I hope the red neck conservatives never get into power - full stop Jade. this country would go into reverse!

    • The Original Oz says:

      09:51am | 15/03/11

      “excellent Greens policies” - no such thing. Greens policy is the politics of envy and hate. If you do not believe in the fairies then you will get slammed by the “true believers” of the Green party. Their policies are anti social, ant progress, anti reality.

    • TimB says:

      11:02am | 15/03/11

      “God I hope the red neck conservatives never get into power - full stop Jade. this country would go into reverse! “

      Good. Then maybe we wont drive off the cliff. Because that’s where we’re heading ATM.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      11:36am | 15/03/11

      ‘‘It is clear the *neocons* who dont like our policies resort to name calling’’ 
       
      Uh huh

    • Jim says:

      12:52pm | 15/03/11

      Just clicked on the link….I note that Sarah proudly states she works for ‘Unemployed’! No surprise really…anyone who thinks like that would struggle to get a job, let alone keep it, and the greens policies won’t affect her; she’ll be the beneficiary of everyone elses hard work.

    • Parranormal says:

      01:35pm | 15/03/11

      I really hope this was a wind-up Sarah. Surely no-one is really willing to condemn their fellow Australian to these policies. I am not at all surprised we never see any policies from the greens at election time. These policies are truly scary and of the worst kind of Utopian rubbish.
      Get a bloody job and try raising a family - I struggle on a weekly basis to keep my family sheltered and fed yet my taxes keep you in you happy little burrow.

    • Zeta says:

      02:01pm | 15/03/11

      ^trolled.

      Check the Facebook, it’s a fake. The profile photo is a photoshopped man. Many of the friends were obviously made up by the same user.

      This is what’s wrong with the internet. People take something at face value and express immediate, ridiculous outrage without looking at the details.

    • count dracula says:

      02:31pm | 15/03/11

      Zeta - how many of the 500 million FB users do you think are real?

    • TracyH says:

      09:29am | 16/03/11

      good grief ...obviously it was a troll!!! not even a greenie would say out loud they’d increase any tax by 400%, and get rid of the defence forces!! I laughed when I read it…I thought it was funny. Surprised any one fell for it tho…which, yep, is a worry!

    • MrEd says:

      06:08am | 15/03/11

      The internet is a much larger forum than real life, publishing my real name would mean nothing to 99.9% of the people whom might be interested enough to read my posts. Be very helpful for Nutters whom might disagree with your point of view.

      Its not like whacking up a note on the local notice board in a small country town where your name would be recognised by 90% of passers by.

      Remember those old fantasy books about magicians, elves, ogres etc you read as a teenager? They had one valuable lesson for you going in to adult hood. Giving someone your real name is giving them real power over you.

      Look at Farcebook, how many cases of identify theft, bullying, etc etc do we hear about each week caused by silly people putting to much info about themselves out there for all to see?

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      10:38pm | 15/03/11

      Another thing that makes these comments akin to fantasy RPG is the danger of falling afoul of trolls!

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:12am | 15/03/11

      I hope I haven’t ditched my true self in my persona as ZSRenn. I kind of like me. I would prefer to see it as an extension of me. I will admit in real life I am slightly meaner when an idiot opens their mouth and as I “Joe Blogs” were to start arguing politics with mates I think I would very quickly find myself on the outer of the circle of trust.

      If asked my opinion on a subject I would give the same answer as you would read. The beauty of a forum is you have time to think before you reply and it does not look like a pregnant pause that would occur face to face. In a forum you can read back and think “Oh fuck” that’s not what I meant to say and change it. 

      I think though that I am the minority and anonymity allows for dual or triple roll playing or being able to just stick to a point and keep ramming it home no matter how many times you have been shown to be wrong. These characters are known to all I think are part of the fun. If it weren’t for them at the moment there would be no one on the left side of politics to discuss with.

      Reply

    • A Bob says:

      07:26am | 15/03/11

      I have used my real name online for over 20 years. The Punch is the only place I post anonymously, and like Erick, I censor myself to avoid identification. This is the only place I engage in any sort of political debate.

      My anonymity provides protection to my person from zealots, and also from nosey recruiters. I may seldom agree with Ericks views but would be appalled if he was denied employment based on them as much as I would for my own.

      We can only show a portion of our true selves online. I’m not going to let some pimply faced recruiter who’s never met me decide who/what I am without even speaking to me. It’s hard enough to get a job as it is.

      It’s the moderators job to police responsible use of the Punch, I shouldn’t have to give up my right to privacy because of it.

      Reply

    • Ex-police employee says:

      07:28am | 15/03/11

      In their wisdom and experience, police strongly recommend general online anonymity. One computer can have several family users, all with differing opinions.  Should one user supply his/her real surname and be tracked down for mischievous purposes, the entire household can be subjected to unwanted attention on the basis of one individual’s viewpoint. This is the exception and not the rule, but it definitely occurs and can result in very dangerous outcomes.
      There are many cases where adults unintentionally expose their innocent children to bullying and safety risks by signing their surnames to a seemingly harmless personal opinion.
      I heard Malcolm Turnbull advocating mandatory use of “real names”.  Again Mr Turnbull demonstrates little understanding of the real world. Online publishers who demanded disclosure of “real names” should expect to lose a good part of their readership. Those who like to participate anonymously for family or safety reasons would prioritise family protection and withdraw.  On this important public safety issue, I think police have got it absolutely right.

      Reply

    • psuedo echo says:

      09:20am | 15/03/11

      Yes agree!  As someone who’s family was targeted in an online (FB) attack, there is nothing cowardly about using a psuedo in public forums, it is sensible and all about protecting your family and friends from the nutters. Nothing quite like having your kids photos copied with threats of someone posting them all over the internet.  Cloning is very popular too, in the endeavour to discredit someone with inappropiate and sometimes threatening comments on popular pages.  Its not nice. One of the demographics to be most weary of is middle aged women.  They are most certainly right up there with the worst of the worst. I won’t use my real identity here, in the event that some of the offenders read his article!  Be safe.

    • deb says:

      07:33am | 15/03/11

      real names? tried that and ended up with unsolicited emails from scammers in the past.i enjoy posting under my first name ,tend to upset people quite often.all part of the fun.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      07:53am | 15/03/11

      Colgo and Tors knew my secret identity. I’m not sure if they told their colleagues. I don’t say anything as Zeta I wouldn’t say in real life, and I specifically avoid topics where an opinion could get me into strife at work.

      Why don’t I use my real name? I guess there’s a degree of branding. Who would remember a guy called John? Maybe one day I’ll start a blog of my own and bring my legion of adoring fans who think I’m a woman with me.

      Reply

    • Gladys says:

      09:37am | 15/03/11

      The Zeta brand should be protected.

      Is your name really John? How prosaic.

    • Zeta says:

      09:58am | 15/03/11

      @ Gladys - I know right. I tried to change my name to Lestat when I was 11.

    • Lily J says:

      10:00am | 15/03/11

      Beware Meta-Zeta….....the Zeta beyond the Zeta.

    • Dirk Hartog says:

      02:43pm | 15/03/11

      I am sure Zeta’s first name is Lightburn

    • Dew Point says:

      08:05am | 15/03/11

      The issue I have with online anonymity is that sometimes people use their on-line (un-identifiable) self to potentially defame others.
      If a site allows an anonymous person to defame another, what recourse does that person have to rehabilitate their reputation?
      Yesterday Anthony Sharwood posted that the reasons Punch moderators use for not posting a comment are as follows: name calling, really bad language or incitement to violence/hatred. That’s it.
      So presumably, falsehoods calculated to defame another are ok. Is this the case?

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:10am | 15/03/11

      Ditch the nom de geurres ? and use real names ?
      Well OK, but for me it would be Tee Chong, or (to use my confirmation name),  Mr   A. Lias Undercover.

      Reply

    • nihonin says:

      06:00pm | 15/03/11

      lol@ Mr A. Lias Undercover, mine would be Mr B. Invisi-ible

    • Jim says:

      08:12am | 15/03/11

      No problem with anonymity - though I use my real first name. BIG problem with the absence of a registration process here at The Punch which means anyone can use multiple tags for purely troll-ish reasons.

      People who use tags are not cowards, people who use multiple tags are.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      08:41am | 15/03/11

      I always thought that ‘Your location” was some type of verifier / registration,  for the bloggers ID, but the number of times I ( and others ) are trolled, it appears not.

    • Jim says:

      09:23am | 15/03/11

      I doubt the location gets checked Chongy, and I doubt there are checks on different emails under the same name (or different names under teh same email for that matter).

      As Tory hinted at yesterday, there are a lot of posts coming in each hour and not many moderators.

    • Kerryn says:

      08:26am | 15/03/11

      I am Kerryn, and I have always been Kerryn, even when I post under the name of kezzstar (It’s a long story dating back to when I was 14 and thought I was all that). 

      I am fondy referred to as Kezzy on most sites I use the kezzstar nickname under, and the only time I ever hear my real name some days is when I have been a bit naughty on forums (which is exceptionally rare hee hee).

      Reply

    • Bilby says:

      08:38am | 15/03/11

      Bilby is the real me. I’ve been online using this handle for 20 years, so apart from not being able to look me up on an electoral role, Bilby is as me as it gets.

      Reply

    • CJ Morgan says:

      08:51am | 15/03/11

      Of course there are pros and cons with anonymity on the Internet.  However, I think it’s inarguable that relative anonymity has facilitated the proliferation of hate and abuse in forums such as this - and worse in others.

      I post under my real name, because I think that civilised discourse involves participants showing the courage of their convictions and owning what they say in public forums.  CJ Morgan is the name by which I’m well known in my community and elsewhere, and under which I conduct business.  Mind you, I don’t generally provide other identifying details in unsecure forums, but I’m not hard to track down - as has happened with old friends and acquaintances who’ve noticed me online.

      While there have been occasions when someone who knows me has indicated they’ve read something I’ve posted somewhere online, I have never had the slightest negative repercussion - even from some of the haters with whom I’ve crossed keyboards over the years.

      I’m quite sure that the standard of discussion in forums like this would be enhanced significantly if people were forced to own what they say by doing so openly and honestly.  There will always be good reasons for a minority of people to hide their ideas behind anonymity, but I think that they are the exception, rather than the rule.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      09:10am | 15/03/11

      I see what you are saying CJM (I always assumed that was some sort of moniker for Captain Morgan wink ), but I don’t have any degree of anonimity in my name that a Tim a Jim a Dave or a CJ Morgan has. If you googled my full name you would find me and probably my family’s names etc etc. I am from a small town that I regularly name, I am not protected by Brisbane, Sydney or Nutbush city limits.

      I agree that the anonymity generates the hate and the abuse. But conversely I also think that anonymity makes you more forward with your views from the get go. I stand by fairsfair’s convictions, they are mine. I am honest and open and I don’t see how me now knowing that your name actually is CJ Morgan (and not homage to your favourite rum) makes things any different?

    • CJ Morgan says:

      11:02am | 15/03/11

      Fair points, fairsfair smile

      My rule of thumb is that I don’t post anything online that I wouldn’t be prepared to say to someone’s face.  I’m a fairly forthright person and quite used to being (almost) ‘t’he only Green in the village’ in the little country town where I live.

      Indeed, by being open about who I am and where I stand politically and ethically, I think that I demonstrate to my classically conservative community that members of the Greens aren’t the feral hippies that we’re purported to be by much of the MSM to which they’re exposed.  Our business is a focal point of the town, and over the years they’ve come to know and trust us, notwithstanding our openly progressive worldview.

      I tend to think that those sad souls who post the most vituperative crap on the Internet are those who are most alienated by the real life world in which they live.  For them, Internet pseudonyms provide proxy shields by which they can experience temporarily a taste of self-actualisation - which they can’t in their miserable real lives.

      [P.S.  I’m more of a single malt lover - at least when my health permitted wink]

    • Slick says:

      11:29am | 15/03/11

      I was young and stupid and thought that a healthy discussion wouldnt actually affect my life. I found out that it would, when someone went through all my posts on a site and pieced together where I lived and worked and contacted my boss to complain. Hence lost my job. I have only recently started to post again and try to be as anonymous as possible, even if I don’t say anything that is worthwhile.

    • fairsfair says:

      11:42am | 15/03/11

      Aha - so your real name is actually Glenn Fiddich! wink

      I would like to tell everyone my name but I do worry about repercussions. Not that I think I have ever said anything too bad - I worry about other people’s reponse. I guess that is everyone’s conern, but there are some really extreme views out there - most of which I choose not to respond to because acknowledging them isn’t even something I want to do. If I majorly annoyed some loon and they decided to look for me, it would be an easy task. Plus the amount of times the point you are tyring to make gets misunderstood or contewed is a bit worrying.

      So I guess I am not frightened where my opinions will take me, I am just frightened of some irrational indiviudal with minority views will take offence to my support of the Cowboys and my overmentioning that Cairns is a backwater town that is being left behind.

      I am hearing you on the miserable real life factor. Though it is funny to watch people refuse to let something go. Often continuing to reply to the same post without further interjection from anyone else.

      I don’t strongly oppose anything really. I think it is a curse of a lot of Aussies - they just don’t care enough to care and be consistent with it. What I do appreciate is that there is good and bad in everyone and I also think that all political parties are laughable. Plus I don’t think aligning yourself with one party does not make you a “type” and it does not necessarily mean that you have to take every notion/policy to be heaven sent. For that reason I won’t hold your green affiliations against you wink I think it is for that same reason that I like Bob Katter so much - even though when I met him I was a bit scared by the firmness of handshake, intensity of eye contact and volume of voice. I may not agree with the man on eveything, but he has courage in his convictions and I would like to think fairsfair does at times too.

    • Tim says:

      11:50am | 15/03/11

      CJ Morgan,
      I disagree. Using real names would simply amount to a large number of people self-censoring their thoughts. I too am forthright with my views in real life but it is very difficult in some workplaces to say what you really think.
      I agree with what fairsfair has said, that although the level of hate by some posters may increase through their anonymity, so does real debate.
      I think threats to employment will increase over time from things people have written on public blog sites. Everyone will become more boring because they won’t want to be seen as different.
      There is an interesting blog on this very issue at:
      http://blogs.theage.com.au/executive-style/allmenareliars/2011/03/15/theantibogan.html

    • fairsfair says:

      12:51pm | 15/03/11

      did’t Courtney love just go down for “Twibel”. I think she had to pay off some guy for tweeting somthing bad about him. If that is happening, I guess it is only a matter of time before it filters to facebook and general blog spaces. Though, blogs have been around way longer than twitter, so I am not sure why it has not already happened. Is it because of the prescription/broadcast factor of twitter? I don’t know -  am not on the Twitter bandwagon, I don’t think I even understand how it works.

    • fairsfair says:

      08:53am | 15/03/11

      I just don’t see an issue with it. To everyone out there my name is fairsfair, my mum does not call me that but as with Zeta I would not say anything that I would not say as myself. Eric - I thought for sure that was your real name so I think that is case and point - I could get on here an say my name is Felicity Flickersby, but is it?

      I’ll second Jim’s mention of the rego form and multiple tags. I have posted under another tag a few times, but it is usually to crack a joke that others may or may not have found funny. Anything serious I am always fairsfair. I think to comment on the punch you should have to register. This would allow the guys to test your email to ensure it is not bogus. If you don’t want to be a part of that, well don’t comment.

      In all honesty though, who cares? Does anyone really go home at night thinking that b*stard MarK really upset me today. If you do, the fact you don’t know his real name is not the problem here. You are the problem and perhaps a timeout is in order.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      09:56am | 15/03/11

      I replied to this before, but seeing how this registration has come up again, I’ll repost it. It should give you a better idea of the challenges of dealing with this sort of thing.

      There was some discussion yesterday regarding trolls, stalkers and abuse that appears in The Punch from time to time and what can be done to address this situation.
      Because The Punch is an opinion site, it would be difficult for it to survive without comments by its readers. To this end, I would like to explain my understanding of the options currently available to The Punch and newspapers in general.
      It must also be kept in mind that any approach to addressing these issues will cost money and newspapers have been focused on reducing cost for many, many years.  News Ltd has created The Punch as an instrument to engage and participate in the constantly evolving social network phenomena. I’m sure The Punch is expensive to produce and does not pay its way at this point in time. Whilst it has some dedicated resources, producing it requires some borrowing of resources from within other parts of the News Ltd enterprise.

      1. The cheap solution done by some newspapers is not to moderate, but to only “take down” comments when an online editor occasionally checks the comments and spots an “inappropriate comment, or a reader complains to the editor if that facility is available.

      2. The next cheap solution is to have an offshore (usually Indian) company monitor comments before posting them. This usually only catches obscene language or spam comments because of the difficulties with language and comprehension.

      3. Another solution is to have an “on-site” moderator review comments before they are posted. This approach is costly and has limitations with regard to the “big picture” of the thread as highlighted by Tory in yesterday’s open thread.

      4. Another approach is to require people that comment to create a member account and only “members” are allowed to comment. If this approach is adopted, the comments still need to be moderated by one of the previously described methods. This approach may lead to less people commenting by the need to register and concerns about privacy and unsolicited correspondence. Registering is no guarantee that inappropriate comments will not appear, because of the proliferation of “free email accounts like hotmail and gmail. Serial pests may register many times and when banned will just switch to another member account they have set up. Comments still need to be moderated.

      5. Another approach is to not allow comments on controversial topics that are known to provoke inappropriate comments, such as Asylum Seekers or Aboriginal issues to name a few. In this case, The Punch is diminished.

      One important consideration of newspapers providing comments functionality to their readers is that of libel and litigation. Can a newspaper be held accountable when a commenter libels or defames someone? I don’t believe that this has been tested in the courts yet, but it is a possibility. With this in mind, some newspapers adopt option 1 above. They believe in the eyes of the court, they cannot be held accountable for comments because they have not “viewed” them, but addressed the comment by taking it down when they were notified by the public.

    • Jim says:

      10:11am | 15/03/11

      .....or, people could grow up and stop making childish personal attacks under multiple pseudonyms!

    • fairsfair says:

      10:21am | 15/03/11

      Thanks Badge. I think the only real positive of registration might cut down on the multi-tag people. If you had to sit down and set up a whole seperate email for your “Jemina”, it might deter people who want to have a quick dig at someone else.

      That said, it won’t stop people like Meh. I have no issue if Meh is doing it a means to protect his/her identity (which is the impression I get from his/her post). But if people are doing it to put several opinions out there to enrage others, I don’t like it.

      Wankers Colic is generally an untreatable condition and unfotunately it is not fatal. They are always going to slip through the cracks and these people will always walk among us. I guess we best get use to them!

      I honestly have no issue with the way the Punch is handled, it has a certain je ne sais quoi about it and I would hate to see that ruined. You being “The Badger” does not make me think of your differently if you were posting under Paul McFinnigan.

    • TimB says:

      11:22am | 15/03/11

      Fairsfair, the problem with Badger’s comment is that he’s been proven many times over to have posted under multiple pseudonyms. And he does it for malicious reasons. It’s very hard to take his comment seriously when he’s a known instigator of the problems.

      Honestly though I would applaud a simple registration system. One (real) email address tied to a fixed alias. Yes the truly determined can get around that, but we can at least weed out the lazier trolls. That’s something.

    • meh says:

      12:00pm | 15/03/11

      News limited has real life ID’s on some of their regional newspapers, there is still comments but I could never describe it as lively. I stopped posting when they required personal info (addresses and telephone numbers) to become active.

      The Age has a good system where you have to have a confirmation email before it becomes active. I have a single account on there, but use different names (usually the same name on a single day). An improvement to the system would be 3 monthly re-activation to catch people with burn accounts.

      fairsfair - I used to take people’s comments too personally, but now days I have become detached from caring about online opinions. The site I was talking about where there was organised attacks just showed it is not worth letting your offline life suffer by becoming angry at silly online comments. It was never fair on my family of canines - I have 27 dogs and no other family, it gives me warm-fuzzies to be the leader of the pack.

      No one knows your a dog online, although on FB everyone knows I am a bovine.

    • The Badger says:

      12:05pm | 15/03/11

      timmie
      play the comment, not the man

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      12:44pm | 15/03/11

      Does Punch publish a submission if the confirmation of publication email is bounced?

    • TimB says:

      12:46pm | 15/03/11

      I do Badger. The majority of your comments are ridiculous no matter what name you post under.

      That being said you should have the guts to own your comments under one name. You want to attack me or anyone else, do it as Badger, don’t do it under a different name so you can personally claim innocence to which you aren’t entitled.

    • Jim says:

      12:49pm | 15/03/11

      Can a screenshot of Badgers comment to TimB be uploaded and a link provided? To be pulled out and posted when Badger has his troll pants on smile

    • Mr. Mustela says:

      01:49pm | 15/03/11

      Sorry if I offended your feelings jim.

      I know you’re a sensitive soul easily overcome with emotion.

    • TimB says:

      01:51pm | 15/03/11

      Good idea Jim.

      It can also be pulled out when Badger goes on one of his infantile rants about Bolt or a News Ltd publication. You know the ones where he sticks his fingers in his ears, insults everyone in sight and generally refuses to argue the actual point raised.

    • Jim says:

      02:23pm | 15/03/11

      His rants about Bolt et al don’t bother me…they’re his opinions and he’s entitled to them like anyone else. It’s the snide one liners he stalks people with and the use of multiple names to hide behind that degrade the fact that he can actually write a well thought out contribution, like he did in the first reply to fairsfair.

    • fairsfair says:

      02:49pm | 15/03/11

      I like to think The Badger is a good bloke. You are right Jim, he often consructs valid contributions and well this joint wouldn’t be the same without the blind rogue. I also agree, the multiple tags are annoying, but they still maintain a standard of badgery - ie you can see that they are him and he does have a pretty good sense of humour about him. Go on, admit it!

      I am a bit annoyed by the prospect that people could be supporting two seperate ideologies though and just using them as a means to shit stir. I do hope that neither he or any of the other “regulars” are doing that. I think most of us would fall into the “lazy troll” section Tim Brown, so registration would see some of it wiped out. But, when you have people like Beth who are prepared to create a facebook page and friends to support their trolling, what is the point? It is like security screens - the just keep honest thieves out and ensure you die in a fire.

    • TimB says:

      03:05pm | 15/03/11

      Oh don’t get me wrong Jim. Badger can think “Bolt is an idiot” all he likes. But if a link comes via Bolt with a viable argument, I think that the mature thing to do is to debate the argument itself. If there’s an issue with it, state why.

      Resorting to “Bolt is an idiot” as the main ‘go to’ argument no matter what is just plain childish, and not conducive to proper debate.

      Actually that goes for anyone. There’s some posters on this very page who quite frequently & proudly state “Oh I don’t read xxxxx”. Quite frankly the attitude is ridiculous.

      I’m not going to refuse to read something just because I don’t agree with most of what a paticular person posts. I’ll read it, and if necessary pick all the holes their arguments until whatever they’ve posted resembles Swiss cheese. And who know’s I might even find myself in agreement on some points.
      Refusal to subject oneself to what might be an opposing position is just a sign of a closed mind.

    • The Badger says:

      04:06pm | 15/03/11

      fairsfair
      Are you coming on to me?
      timmie and jim
      Look you 2. I think you guys are fairly smart and you certainly have opinions and are entitled to them however wrong they may be.
      I know I will never change your mind, no matter what and I accept that.
      That doesn’t preclude me from having a bit of fun exposing your myopia. After all, I consider your embarrassment to be self inflicted. I’m just the messenger.

      bolt is an idiot. There is really nothing else to say about bolt other than he is an idiot. Personally, I don’t read the work of idiots. If you guys want to, then by all means, go for it. Personally, I think it diminishes you.
      Would it help if I called him a fool; a half-wit; an imbecile; slow-witted; a dullard; a pillock; a blockhead; a simpleton or a dolt? Tell me which you prefer and I’ll try to use it more frequently when we are on subject.
      I always preferred dolt for obvious reasons.

    • Cate P says:

      12:12pm | 16/03/11

      Badger, I always felt sorry for you because I thought you were dyslexic.

    • JR says:

      08:53am | 15/03/11

      Yeah, let’s get rid of online anonymity and allow corporate behavioural expectations to kick in. Don’t say anything too scandalous. Don’t post those party pictures. Don’t talk about your wild teenage years, rant too much about extreme views, or discuss your love life. The recruitment agencies and customs officials will be Googling you to make sure you are a suitable drone for their employers. Give it a few years and I’m sure Conroy’s broadband initiative will effectively give each household a distinct ‘user id’ online.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      09:13am | 15/03/11

      My name might not be real, but my opinion is.  Whatever my opinion on the topic, that’s what I post - albeit, probably a bit more articulate than IRL because I have a moment to think about what I’m typing before I hit ‘send’.

      Reply

    • Shifter says:

      04:50pm | 15/03/11

      If your name was real that would be rather fantastic. It’d almost be like changing your name by deed to Optimus Prime.

      I’ve always liked the fact that the character’s name in Wicked was derived from the author’s initials.

    • notsue says:

      05:11pm | 15/03/11

      Yeah, ditto, not afraid to change it IF convinced either. Doesn’t help me spellun ot thyfing but! haha!

    • Shifter says:

      02:12pm | 16/03/11

      Yeah but it does make me feel sorry for poor Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii and all of Frank Zappa’s kids who didn’t get a choice.

      If you choose to be Captain Fantastic in real life, more power to you. If your dad names you Moon Unit, well, that kinda sucks. Plus side is you have a pre-made online alias.

    • Meh says:

      09:43am | 15/03/11

      I use different names, different email addresses (although usually just the one which is a burn email address), different IP’s, different life circumstances (sometimes I am happily married man with a family sometime I am a single girl).

      Why - because you are being profiled and you don’t know by whom or how many people or oganisations (google HBGary and Anonymous). Even keeping up a good defence on your actual personal info usually is not enough for someone to form a decent picture. And lets face it, if it is just to contribute a comment to some online blog, it is not worth it.

      I only keep 1 rule online, I do not refer to my own posts with stuff like “That Sally is right”.

      I used to be a regular on another site until a small group decided to set up their own litle club so they could organise to attack other posters opinions. I have been rung by journalists after so called anonymous comments, I have been physically threatened online, I have had people call me out of the blue, I have seen people who have had accounts compromised.

      Quite frankly, screw giving up your real identity, it is just not worth it. It may be paranoid, but I really don’t care.

      My biggest problem is how do I teach my (maybe imaginary) kid to tell the truth offline, but lie her ass off online.

      Reply

    • Bilby says:

      09:55am | 15/03/11

      Or his ass. You’re slipping… or are you?

    • rufus says:

      10:21am | 15/03/11

      What meh said. Although it occurred to me as I read it that while I also wouldn’t use a second alias to agree with my own viewpoint, it might be fun to use one to argue against it, with typical online invective thrown in eg ‘your a tool’ or ‘rufus, you doofus’.

    • Arnold Layne says:

      11:07am | 15/03/11

      Similar to a few other posters here, everything I say is me except the name I use.  Like Zeta, Colgo knows who I am and the reasons why I use a nom de plume. 

      Interesting piece Lucy and the comments in reply are generally fairly well reasoned.  It’s a nice change.

      Reply

    • Joel B1 says:

      11:21am | 15/03/11

      I’ve sure ditched mine!

      In reality I’m an 18yo Female Arts student who can’t decide whether to vote Green or Labor ‘cause Gillard is such a femspro!

      Although Bob is kinda hot in a crinkly way too.

      Reply

    • Aaron says:

      12:00pm | 15/03/11

      I am replying for the first time ever and so was put in the position of having to DECIDE what my on-line name would be for thepunch after reading this article. With on-line forums I actually bounce back and forth between my real name, a made up handle and what I used this time which is one of my middle names. I figure by using my middle name I’m still pretty much me, but not as detectable as if I use my real name, which is not an overly common name.

      Also - I found to my horror about a year ago that my posts on an on-line toy collector forum show up when you google my name, and though I admit fully to being an 80’s action figure collector geek in his thirties, there is stigma about it at times and apparently employers sometimes google applicants. I’d hate to miss out on an interview because someone thinks I’m a freak due to my collecting hobbies, and not give me a chance to present myself face to face and show them I’m very much an average guy albeit with a niche hobby.

    • Alice of Wonderland says:

      11:46am | 15/03/11

      I suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). So I find that using multiple nom de plumes is a godsend. Sometimes my extremely nasty side replies to other comments, sometimes my beautiful side comes out to play, sometimes I’m that confused, I don’t know who I am. I have a feminine side, I have a masculine side. Please don’t take that away from me.

      Reply

    • James Ricketson says:

      11:51am | 15/03/11

      Imagine this:

      You have just returned home from work. You check out THE PUNCH. The good news is that there’s a topic of great interest to you. The bad news is that there are more than 200 comments.

      You trawl through the first half dozen. One or two are pertinent, on topic. Then you hit one in which the writer (almost always anonymous) is using the topic to push his or her barrow – whatever it might be – one that has nothing to do with the topic. Then you strike another. Then you come upon someone abusing the barrow pusher and then someone abusing the abuser of the barrow pusher and pushing a different barrow. You get to the 30th. such anonymous off-topic comment and give up. Life is too short! You were looking forward to a good debate, intelligent dialogue – not a cacophony of voices babbling about whatever the writer wants to babble on about.

      Suggestion for THE PUNCH: Have a section entitled OFF TOPIC. Into this go all those comments that really have nothing to do with the debate in hand but which are still available to those who want to read them. This way, instead of being confronted at the end of the day with 200 comments (about half of which are off-topic) there’s 100 that are. There’s no censorship involved – just keeping the dialogue/debate focused. This way anonymous barrow pushers and verbal abusers can be dissuaded from cluttering up a good forum!

      Reply
    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      12:59pm | 15/03/11

      @James - Thanks for all your comments. I’m interested in your “off topic” idea. It’s true that most threads can take off in several different tangents throughout the day.  Is this something that bothers a lot of other Punchers too?

    • mary says:

      02:33pm | 15/03/11

      To get an OFF TOPIC would stifle the conversation I belief. Whatever the topic I would think that usually there’s at least one hundred different angles/viewpoints which could be taken. This is what keeps the debate alive and interesting. More like a real life conversation where some people just waffle off topic and on we go .. Could get quite intense without any of that.

      Who would judge? For some people politics is a way of life and everything is linked to this, or kids or religion, whatever. Doesn’t necessarily make them barrow pushers, it’s what makes them tick.

      Maybe have regulars and visitors. This could make it easier to weed out ..

      The best way to deal with relentless barrow pushers and verbal abusers is to not give them any air. Don’t respond. Ideally moderate them out, particularly the abusers. It’s just uncool.

    • Jugg says:

      05:08pm | 15/03/11

      Great idea James.

      It can’t possibly work though.  The political monkeys hijack every thread with their nonsense about how one party or the other is responsible for the fashion at the oscars, Australia losing the cricket or Ant flogging off his online roses company.  They couldn’t cope with the concept of not being able to post some irrelevant political posting, there they sit stuck in cyberspace, hitting submit over and over again, not being able to figure out why it won’t come up in their desired ‘hijacked’ blog.

      Lucy put me down as a supporter.  I think you should run this as an article because most people may not have seen it?

    • Scarneck says:

      06:27pm | 15/03/11

      @ Lucy - Would a set up like, dare I say it, the ABC work? - You must register a name (it does not have to be your real name) and your email address (this must be real) before commenting, once you have registered your name it is linked to the email address. I was surprised when Tory ( I think) said you receive bogus email addresses, surely there is a way your IT people can solve that problem? It would stop a lot of the trolling and rubbish comments as they would have to re-register a different name with a different email address, which I’m certain would deter most morons like myself. I admit it would not stop the problem James is referring to as far as off topic goes (much to his anguish) but the amount of comments would be less ‘off topic‘, if any of that makes sense? (I‘m trying to see how many parentheses I can use).…Now, which name do I use for this post? Mmmmmm

    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      09:50am | 16/03/11

      @Jugg @Scarneck What about the open thread? Leo pointed out yesterday that this is exactly what we designed that for. Is there any benefit to providing an additional section that serves the same purpose?

    • Scarneck says:

      10:46pm | 16/03/11

      Quite right Lucy - I lost the plot there somewhere wink

    • Aaron says:

      12:14pm | 15/03/11

      I didn’t realise people actually sign up as different people to support or go against their own view points. You learn something every day!!

      I do know on youtube I have an account with my own videos I make, but can get a bit vocal in the comment sections if I encounter a troll, but then that person has gone and rated all my videos down in revenge, I don’t get many views or ratings to start with so those ‘dislikes’ really make an impact. I’m thinking of starting up a second youtube account JUST for commenting and going into battle against the trolls, which will leave my youtube videos safe from troll attacks. Don’t know if this was a little off topic but was another little reason why it can be handy to keep your real details secret. A few years back I got into an on-line game of whom the moderator turned out to be a total fruit cake and ended up posting my details out of the white pages on-line amongst threats of coming to my house. I definitely don’t advise revealing too much of yourself on line, a lotta crazies live on the net, and crazy people are scary since they can be so unpredictable and you don’t know how serious they are when they go off the deep end.

      Reply

    • Aaron says:

      12:14pm | 15/03/11

      I didn’t realise people actually sign up as different people to support or go against their own view points. You learn something every day!!

      I do know on youtube I have an account with my own videos I make, but can get a bit vocal in the comment sections if I encounter a troll, but then that person has gone and rated all my videos down in revenge, I don’t get many views or ratings to start with so those ‘dislikes’ really make an impact. I’m thinking of starting up a second youtube account JUST for commenting and going into battle against the trolls, which will leave my youtube videos safe from troll attacks. Don’t know if this was a little off topic but was another little reason why it can be handy to keep your real details secret. A few years back I got into an on-line game of whom the moderator turned out to be a total fruit cake and ended up posting my details out of the white pages on-line amongst threats of coming to my house. I definitely don’t advise revealing too much of yourself on line, a lotta crazies live on the net, and crazy people are scary since they can be so unpredictable and you don’t know how serious they are when they go off the deep end.

      Reply

    • skepdad says:

      12:43pm | 15/03/11

      Punch v2.0:

      Registration would save me having to type in the same details every time I post (and yes I know about autocomplete, but it’s broken for replies) and find my own posts to see replies a little easier.

      Voting up and down buttons might allow the “community” to self-moderate.  Of course, this would most likely be abused by barrow-pushers, who don’t have the impartiality to recognise that a comment is well argued and relevant even though it’s for the other side.  Registration would allow us to set a voted down limit per user - e.g. hiding all replies voted -5 or below.  Maybe only allow one vote per post per IP address to marginalise the agenda-driven voters?

      Finally, allow us to collapse the replies so we don’t have to scroll past a flame war.

      Reply

    • Spanish Girl says:

      12:51pm | 15/03/11

      I’m definitely myself when I post online, wherever I happen to be.  It’s too much hard work otherwise.  Although I go by different pseudonyms depending on which forum I’m on.  Having said that, I only ever post here as Spanish Girl and it’s the same all across the net for me.  I’m happy to remain anonymous.  I would never meet up in real life with people on blogs because I’m happy just to talk about stuff and leave it at that.

      Reply

    • Carz says:

      12:56pm | 15/03/11

      Personally I have a lot of reasons for not using my full real name, safety, for myself and my family, being the most obvious. The name I do use is a nickname that a few people use for me anyway and is, in many ways, the person I identify myself with the most these days.

      In all honesty I believe that the use of pseudonyms or posting anonymously allows people to be more authentic than face to face interactions or writing things under their real name does. There is no need to hide what you really think and believe. And there is nothing to connect you to anyone else in your family that they may believe shames them. Many years ago my high school was under attack from some who didn’t like the “progressive” model it followed. I wanted to go into battle to support my school but was prevented from doing so by my father, who was the school council president at the time, because he didn’t want my opinions to reflect on him (whereas, as a parent I like to believe that I can support my children even if I disagree with their point of view). If a similar thing occurred today I would be able use the anonymity provided by the internet to get my opinions out there with everyone elses.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:59pm | 15/03/11

      Well, I use an alias and I’m not going to apologize for it. (Actually I use several - one for each of the websites I follow.  But only one per site.)

      I do so because I like the freedom of writing and commenting, without having to worry about inadvertently offending friends, neighbours, relatives or my butcher.  Who wants their lamb chops tampered with?  And also, I do it because I want such interest as there may be in what I have to say, focused on the content and not the author.  Who I am as a person doesn’t matter; I hope that sometimes, my thoughts do.

      In using a pseudonym, I do try to observe a certain “blogiquette,” if you will - no trolling, no multiple identities, and no personal attacks.  I try to keep the tone at a level I would use face to face, but frankly, the blogosphere gives me more freedom than I would probably exercise in real life.  That’s what I like about it.  And if something is really important to me, I will stand up for it publicly.

      Reply

    • Anon says:

      01:10pm | 15/03/11

      I posted under my own name here until I got pursued and abused for it.

      Now rare, my posts are always just screen-names. And as for leaving a live email addy to be hacked or tracked & profiled, dream on.

      Reply

    • mary says:

      01:55pm | 15/03/11

      My mum told my dad to list all (5 boys and girls) middle names as mary, no doubt intending to instill some holiness in us. Of course we all now know that the catholics pray to the wrong mary.

      My dad forgot to list my middle name as mary on my birth certificate and using it as my avatar is making up for this.

      Meanwhile I like to think that I was named after the right mary, the one who mucked up big time and attempted to do better. We can only try.

      Reply

    • Seano says:

      02:03pm | 15/03/11

      I post under one fairly anonymous name because whilst I hold my opinions passionately and stand by what I say don’t think I or my family should be exposed to any sort of risk either real or cyber based for holding an opinion. On other blogs I’ve had threats from loopy right wingers because they didn’t like my opinion, 99% of it is idiots and hot air but why take the risk.

      As it is having one handle gives your views an identity but also gets you stalked by morons but that’s to be expected when you’re hansom, witty, windswept and interesting. Personally I don’t care, it’s amusing. Nor do I care to follow anyone’s comments particularly, although I read some regular commenters more than others (and some rarely at all) but at least those who stick with one handle make it easy to filter.

      As far as I’m concerned, as passionately as I may hold any opinion I really don’t care outside of the blog, what happens on blog stays on blog. Why get worked up, there will always be things about which I’m not right and there will always be idiots regardless of anything I do or say. If I learn something or gain some new insight from someone else’s comments or someone gets something from one of mine well that’s what it’s all about IMO. That and taking the piss.

      Reply

    • LC says:

      02:37pm | 15/03/11

      “99% of it [people who make death threats on internet blogs] is idiots and hot air but why take the risk.”

      True enough.

      But I’d say report them to the AFP regardless. Even if it’s just so you can mentally picture the look on the guy’s face when he gets a knock on the door from the feds. smile

    • Seano says:

      04:32pm | 15/03/11

      Actually the particularly loon I had in mind when I made that statement also claimed (quite believeably based on previous comments) to be a police officer.

    • LC says:

      07:23pm | 15/03/11

      I still say you should’ve reported him. Maybe to the AFPs equivalent to The Office of Police Integrity as well. He’ll shit bricks if the feds come knocking, not just pull a funny face smile.

      Wonder if he’ll meet anyone he’s put away when he gets to the big house?

    • Welcome to Queensland says:

      03:02pm | 15/03/11

      Queenslands anti-corruption watchdog is powerless to challenge a decision not to take disciplinary action against police who botched the Palm Island death-in-custody investigations.
      Crime and Misconduct Commission chairman Martin Moynihan said it was “almost incomprehensible” that the police service had found the six officers did not have a case to answer.
      In June last year, a CMC report found there had been serious flaws in the initial investigation, conducted by four officers who fraternised with Snr Sgt Hurley while they were on the island investigating his actions. It also found errors in a subsequent internal review by two senior officers.
      Last year, a third coronial inquest delivered an open finding into Mr Doomadgee’s death.
      Coroner Brian Hine said he could not definitively say if the injuries that killed him were deliberately or accidentally inflicted in the scuffle with Snr Sgt Hurley.
      But Mr Hine said there was evidence that other police had colluded to protect him.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      03:47pm | 15/03/11

      wow badger. wow.

    • The Badger says:

      10:44am | 16/03/11

      That’s exactly what I thought fairsfair
      Let’s go have some drinks and dinner with the guy that killed Doomadgee and then we’ll complete our investigation.
      I wonder if the result would have been different if the officers were aboriginal and they had had dinner and drinks with Doomadgee’s family?

    • fairsfair says:

      03:42pm | 16/03/11

      I was just thinking why would you put that comment in this thread is all.

      Maybe the open thread would have been more appropriate? Or better still, ask Tory and the gang to write a story about it or do something up and submit it to Lucy for Friday’s soapbox?

    • Lucy Kippist

      Lucy Kippist says:

      04:00pm | 16/03/11

      Yep, happy to consider both these options if you want to get in touch, “Welcome to Queensland”

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      03:19pm | 15/03/11

      MPs have the protection of parliamentary priviledge. Journalists are granted the priviledge of protecting their sources.  All to help open discourse for the benefit of Australia.  I’ll give up my anonimity when parliament and the media give away their protections.  Welcome to the information age. Love it. Good ideas get out there and gossip gets hunted out and flushed away.  Quicker than ever before. We are in a transition phase.  The masses will catch up soon enough and trolls will lose their audience.

      Reply

    • Lola says:

      04:22pm | 15/03/11

      Definitely anonymous and definitely for reason 1.

      I’ve changed names twice - once because I was in a new phase of my life which I marked with a new online ID; and once because the online me got too closely associated with real me.

      I miss my previous ID very much, but I wasn’t (and am not) online to be me. I’m online to be the other me - a person who can share thoughts, experiences and opinions freely in a respectful and thoughtful way.

      Reply

    • James Ricktson says:

      05:47pm | 15/03/11

      We’ve all been to public debates and forums where questions are taken from the floor. There’s always one person in the microphone queue who does not have a question, is not interested in the topic being discussed, but has a statement to make – usually written.  A barrow to push. They get a few sentences into their monologue and you can feel the energy leaving the room and feel the audience’s collective sigh. A good moderator cuts him or her off quick smart and returns the debate to the subject in hand. Yes, the pros and cons of nuclear power are important but right now we’re discussing the concentration of media ownership. Or vice versa.

      What I want in a site like this (be it THE PUNCH or some other) is focused debate – not a debate which, in the name of freedom of speech, can take off in any direction any particular contributor wants to take it in.

      I have learnt today of many good reasons why people wish to remain anonymous that had not occurred to me - itself evidence of the value of this debate. I do wish, however, that I did not have to sift through so many off-topic comments to find the gems!

      Reply

    • mary says:

      07:09pm | 15/03/11

      Occasionally the gems are found in the off-topic comments. Despite my earlier comment James, I agree that it is annoying having to sift through blahblablah ..
      But I also think that it is part of the charm of the punch that you can’t help but keep bumping into some regulars having a good old yarn about nothing in particular.

      I say kudos to the punch team for providing us with a steady supply of interesting articles and a forum to respond. I like the nice easy layout too and would hate to see it get cluttered and complicated.

      Reply

    • Kathy says:

      07:47pm | 15/03/11

      Like many others, I post under my first name & that certainly feels as genuinely “me” as it gets.  No purpose would be served by giving my full name.  I can understand people sometimes posting under an alias to play the devil’s advocate &/or stir the pot a bit.  As a bit of a stirrer in real life I see nothing wrong with this.

      Reply

    • Lightwork says:

      09:05pm | 15/03/11

      Anonymity is also a precious thing if you are the sort of person who pushes the envelope in your organisation, especially if that organisation is government. People who push the envelope tend to get paper cuts (or worse). I moved circulating useful/interesting stories and information on my field (I had been doing to colleagues working on this both within and beyond government for 10 years) to a blog after a chain of events involving a perfectly innocuous letter to my local paper under my real name (which did not comment on government policy, refer to our Minister or even identify me as a public servant - it was a letter from a citizen about an issue), a radio shock jock, and an overzealous Ministerial PA. Apparently shock jocks can run their agenda to influence government policy, but people are not entitled to freedom of expression if they work for government, all legit under Code of Conduct and relevant legislation. I also created a separate ‘brand’ in terms of a business card, email, blog URL etc that I gave out in situations where I was not representing my employer. The positive side was this shift online resulted in me connecting virtually with a vast array of people working in my area interstate and overseas and increased my network tenfold, and I am now on leave without pay to work on projects that have come out of this, with a view to finding a way forward to work for myself. So suppression has worked for me, and against the suppressor, in this case.

      Reply

    • Servaas says:

      10:10pm | 15/03/11

      Anonymity is mostly a way of putting forward a statement without taking responsibility for it. This makes it very easy to be ruthless in your comments and speak your heart without facing any consequences. It does get more truth out but at the same time breeds a coward culture.

      I agree with the point that anonymity is necessary at times so that an argument could be considered objectively but then it is a once off kind of thing - if you eventually build up a reputation under your pseudonym it defeats the purpose of having your argument rather than your person judged.

      I prefer my own name in general in order to resist the temptation of treating people different than I would in a real life conversation but I think because we are seperated in terms of space and time and we remain faceless (usually) to eachother we do tend to still speak bolder and harsher than we would had there been a meeting in person - emotions are left out of the picture this way. So, in a sense, most internet conversations are somewhat anonymous anyway.

      Reply

    • An other says:

      05:53am | 16/03/11

      Oh Please. “I prefer my own name”. Sure you do.

      First name? Yawn. Total cop out. Pure unadulaterated bull. You’re anonymous.

      Last name? Sigh. Obfuscation. Spin, if you prefer. At least 10 in the country, on White Pages alone.

      Your grand posturing is simply ridiculous.  You’re just another anon poster.

    • Shenanigans says:

      08:16am | 16/03/11

      Having a name in which i can safely sit behind and troll the trolls has been the sole reason why i have managed to stay on the interwebs without any harm actually coming to my person. I can man up and take responsibilities for my actions without giving my full name, its not that hard, just requires a degree of intelligence and self restraint.

      on this site in particular one of the fews comment thats actually been allowed to be posted stirred up a fair amount of fuss, pretty sure i would have crazed catholics trying to find me if the knew my real name.

      Praise the interwebs for my anonymity

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed