Massive fail - the anti-social world of social media

Patty says:

01:40am | 01/11/09

I try to steer away (not always successfully) from reading comments. They are not usually very informative and on political blogs (i live in the US) they are often filled with hate, vitriol and ignorance. Depressing overall, and I don’t need that. I’d rather read what an author has to say and be done with it. A lot of people appear to comment without even having read the piece!

Adam Ferrier says:

05:42pm | 30/10/09

Thanks to all those who contributed, especially those who did so without insulting me. Here are some responses:

a) Some of the points raised by people such as Wayne H and Jana (and on blogs elsewhere) make me believe there is some value in people being able to post anonymously. For the disenfranchised it’s a voice. However, I wonder if the online world was ‘kinder’ if there would be less of a need to remain anonymous.

b)  It’s a complex issue - and touches many concerns in society such as freedom of speech, censorship, peoples safety, confidentiality etc. I don’t know what the answer is - but it still needs to be addressed. I believe in some level of censorship in society (where to draw the line is of course tough to work out).

c) To Laurel Papworth and many others who insist that it’s not a problem - consider an extreme example of what is happening in our schools with cyber bullying through the anonymous comment.  Yes bullying has always existed but it’s the frequency and varsity of the attacks that anonymity allows over the internet that has become an issue. I love social media both personally and professionally. Long will it reign.  It’s changing the face of communications. But there are issues that should to be addressed - surely?

d) To Michael who believes I should have disclosed my agency was responsible for the Witchery campaign.  Our agency conducts many campaigns some of which use social media (including a partly social media based campaign (http://www.askrichard.com) that recently helped save community radio station FBI).  However, for the argument I was making these are not at all relevant. My point was around people being afraid to speak their mind for fear of retribution - not the pros and cons of advertising in the social media space. I’ve spoken about Witchery a lot this year - much of it is on the web.

e) to Joel B1 (and Tim Burrows) I totally agree there is power, and validity in your online identity. I don’t know how it fits into the debate – but I believe you are right.

I’m sure there are many other questions to answer - but for now thanks everyone who chose to participate.

Michael says:

12:10pm | 28/10/09

We need some proper disclosure about this author.

He is the founding partner of Naked Communications. This is the company who attempted to perpetrate the “lost jacket hoax” as part of a marketing strategy for a fashion company.

He was perfectly happy to manipulate social media for his own cyncial, mercenary ends, but now wants to complain about and malign social media when its participants turn on him and his failed attempt to exploit the new media. Those people were right to condemn him and his company for the failed, counterproductive and offensive hoax.

When examined through this prism the article is seen for what it is - a whinge from someone who was caught on his own “massive fail”. His failure to mention this fiasco is disingenuous.

AERHead says:

11:22am | 28/10/09

In addition, future blogs/websites may be unable to control commentary: http://www.ere.net/2009/10/26/google-gives-hr-something-new-to-worry-about/

(It’s an HR article, but well argued and you get the point.)

AERHead says:

11:19am | 28/10/09

Well argued, and very interesting. Perfect response angle from Tim Burrowes, I’d say.

Free speech for all, but if it’s your blog or your site, then set editorial rules - and feel free to delete those that don’t match up. The community generally acts as a filter for trolls.

Otherwise, social rules still apply online and if you’re funny, charming, witty and handsome, you might stand a better chance of getting on in the world, than if you’re boring and clever. Not that anyone here is boring.

Nathan Bush says:

11:11am | 28/10/09

The anonymous commentor may be louder and more assertive but falls down in credibility. Without a personable brand behind the comment the legitimacy is shot.

Andrew Goff says:

11:10am | 28/10/09

Furthermore… a quick tour of this site, a pop music forum, the herald sun, and a football forum suggests to me that the range of opinion expressed through anonymous comments is far from one-sided or coming from only one point of view. Can you actually provide us with a link to any site anywhere where this has been the case?

Or is this kind of “give us some evidence” the negativity of anonymous posters you are talking about? Do you really just wish to be beyond criticism (positive, negative, meaningful, or rubbish)?

Andrew Goff says:

11:05am | 28/10/09

What an ill conceived article.

If you were worried about being lambasted by “anon”, then you always have the anonymous comment to use. For every anonymous post there is an equal and opposite anonymous post.

I always post with my name, but I can honestly say I never saw that as being brave. Furthermore, it takes confidence to post anything at all in the first place, so surely the timid and meek amongst us are more likely to be the ones anonymously posting?

Joel B1 says:

10:51am | 28/10/09

Interesting but not enough depth.

I comment using Joel B1, it’s anonymous but it’s what I use across all blogs. It’s me in the blogging world and it’s an identity and it’s “worth” something. So much so that it’s been “stolen” on several occasions and people have posted their own views using my name. (presumably to get more “respect” lol!)

So anonymous isn’t worthless… Many anonymous commenters have integrity.

G$ says:

09:16am | 28/10/09

@ David. 

Wow…  I don’t know where to start.  You’re all over the place, flip flopping like a fish out of water with contradicting statements contradicting yourself at every turn.

1.  “Anyone who thinks that Adam’s supporting censorship or moving for the abolition of negative commentary with this post needs to go and repeat primary school comprehension.  Or shut the hell up.”

So your not supporting censorship but anyone who doesn’t agree with your post or Adam’s article shoud shut the hell up?

2.  “The point of the argument, a side that I agree with, is that posting under anonymous is weak and invalid, because when you fail to take responsibility for your comments or opinions, then you have no position.  How can anyone respect that?”

Unless we have a bio-security screening system that verifies every citizen against their officially issued ID when posting online then we can never 100% positively identify anyone on the internet.

3, by saying that all posts are weak or invalid because someone doesn’t post under their name by definition means your post is invalid. 

David David, you are seriously messing with the space time contiumum with your posts.  Please carefully read your what your write before posting.

David says:

07:55am | 28/10/09

Anyone who thinks that Adam’s supporting censorship or moving for the abolition of negative commentary with this post needs to go and repeat primary school comprehension.  Or shut the hell up.

The point of the argument, a side that I agree with, is that posting under anonymous is weak and invalid, because when you fail to take responsibility for your comments or opinions, then you have no position.  How can anyone respect that?

I make negative (or at least, alternative view) comments all the time and always use my real name.  I want people to know my opinion and view, and hope to add to a debate rather than deconstruct it.  Although I’ll concede that, just because a name’s there, doesn’t mean it’s a real name, so I think that comments made under an obviously false name, that attempt to argue a point, are invalid (though I reckon there’s always a place for humour, distraction and interruption under the veil of celebrity, don’t ya think Barack Hussein Obama?)

It’s not elitist or exclusionary.  It’s simply about the idea of having enough spine to have an opinion you actually believe and the guts to provocate.

Laurel Papworth says:

11:04pm | 27/10/09

Hi. My blog is consistently in the AdAge Power150 list as mentioned in the article above. I have thousands and thousands of comments - and only about 4 negative ones given anonymously. My clients - journalists, governments, global companies - that are building online communities don’t have an issue with negative anonymous comments, in fact the comments are 80% positive, 20% neutral…

Mumbrella is a typcial example of a shock jock blog that goes out of it’s way to get negative comments. Newspapers are used to creating word grenades and lobbing them into communities and ignoring/being unaware of the consequences. Well, welcome to reality - if you don’t treat your readers with respect you won’t get respect back. An article with comments is not a community…

Your article is naive at best and deliberately mendacious at worst, but not unexpected from someone who consistently displays a rejection and negativity about people communicating online while trying to convince clients that his agency is up to speed with this social media.

For the rest of you, BazaarVoice did a comprehensive study which shows that onine reviews are overwhelmingly positive. I guess it’s just media organisations that struggle with negative branding. Irony, much?

Anonymity is no different than using a pseudonym - will we now force people to use real names? If you rely on that strategy, you’ve already lost the war for a positive culture in your online community - last resort measures.
Laurel @SilkCharm
Online Community Strategist

Anonymous says:

10:20pm | 27/10/09

This article and the whole comments section is a crock of $#!T.

g says:

09:51pm | 27/10/09

Adam, you should hang your head in shame.  Your piece proposes censorship, why hide your true intent in the guise of free speech.  When clearly your position is quite the opposite.  Quoting international provisions no less no less, sigh.  You sir do not deserve the privelage to write here.

Dan Cass says:

09:33pm | 27/10/09

Good article Adam.

What do you predict will happen as anonymous comment-spam clogs up news sites and blogs? The anonymous ones tend to be the most negative, aggressive and dopey.

I was thinking that the simplest system would be to build a filter into the CMS so eg, you can filter out all the anonymous comments altogether. They can still enjoy the freedom of the post, but the rest of us don’t have to bother reading them.

Another option would be to have the CMS collate anonymous comments beneath attributed comments. If you want to read reams of incoherent idiocy, all you need to do is dive straight to the bottom.

Brad Coward says:

07:52pm | 27/10/09

mcdazz…yes, it is my real name !  I use it every day and often !  Thanks for confirming my view that people who are unwilling to use their full, given name are the equivalent of the late night heavy breather on the telephone !

Barack Hussein Obama says:

07:42pm | 27/10/09

Everyone should put their real name to all comments.

After all, it’s not as if such things could possibly be faked.

marley says:

07:28pm | 27/10/09

Oh for heavens’ sake - it’s the content that matters, not the name of the author.  Anonymous criticism has a long and more or less honorable history - anonymous pamphleteers from the 17th century on have swayed opinion and infuriated the powers’ that be.  You can use your full name and write a completely inane blog;  I can use an alias and write something actually factual and worthwhile.  To accept the one because it has a name attached to it, and to reject the other, is to ignore the worth or otherwise of what the person is actually saying.  That’s just silly.

Emily Katherine Joseph says:

05:05pm | 27/10/09

What people seem to forget is just because someone puts a name (ie. a christian name and surname) so what?? It could be ANY name.  If you want someones identity before you know their opinion, read the letters pages in newspapers or debate face to face….......don’t read online blogs then bitch and whinge because you don’t know the identity of someone you disagree with

Kym Durance says:

04:33pm | 27/10/09

The anonymous comment does represent a problem - as it allows people a pretty free hand to slag off at others without fear of recrimination - however at the end of the day they are anonymous comments and by virtue of that essentially worthless and best disregarded.

- I use my real name as I cont be bothered making one up ( although I have an alias on another site - when I tried to change it the editors said it was too hard ) but as a rule I am who I say I am - and let I let the anoneemice as I call them squeak to their hearts content - becuase if they dont have the guts to put their names to what they say their contributions are just noise.

marley says:

03:54pm | 27/10/09

I think this article has it exactly backwards.  It’s not the bullies who benefit from anonymity, but the sensitive, intelligent nerds (such as myself!).  I wouldn’t dream of subjecting myself to the kind of abuse I might get from the bullies if I had to identify myself.  It’s all too easy these days to track someone down and harass them by phone or e-mail once you know who they are.  The anonymity of the internet protects those who wish to express their views, occasionally unpopular ones, without engendering retribution.  If everyone were forced to identify themselves, the blogs would lose their free-wheeling nature and would become as stilted as the “letters to the editor” pages of the papers.

There are legal remedies for comments which are defamatory, and the blogmasters can always reject abusive, scatalogical or inappropriate submissions should they wish.  However, if the blogmasters want to insulate themselves or the blog participants from critical or even abusive comments, then I think they have lost sight of what free speech really is.  Let it all hang out - everyone knows who the more egregious offenders on any blog are, and discounts the value of what they have to say anyway.

James says:

03:35pm | 27/10/09

Why dont you just harden up, its an online comment.
grow a pair and stop being such a wuss.

Darren (aka mcdazz) says:

03:18pm | 27/10/09

Brad Coward says:

“Surely “the bastard child of the internet” is the person who doesn’t have the courage to put their own name to their comment ?  So to all of the Fred’s, Mr X’s etc out there…you are the cyberspace equivalent of the late night heavy breather on the telephone !”

Are you telling us that Brad Coward is your REAL name?

Darren says:

03:16pm | 27/10/09

Adam:

Can I suggest that you take your bat and ball and go home immediately.

Apparently you don’t have what it takes to play with the bigger boys.

Brad Coward says:

02:40pm | 27/10/09

Surely “the bastard child of the internet” is the person who doesn’t have the courage to put their own name to their comment ?  So to all of the Fred’s, Mr X’s etc out there…you are the cyberspace equivalent of the late night heavy breather on the telephone !

casey says:

02:29pm | 27/10/09

robynne, I think you’ve missed the point. I hope I’ve read this article correctly. It isn’t purely about the right to speak adversely to government or corporation, it’s about the right voice opinions with being rebuked by anonymous internet users who have nothing better to do than launch ill-informed, unrelated personal attacks in response.

At any rate, if you have something to say and really believe in it being said, then you ought to be saying it with ownership. The ability to remain an anonymous poster, and the right to withhold your number when calling friends are privileges exploited by many to annoy, harrass and bully.
Derision from unknown sources can often do more damage if the subject can not identify and rationalise what has been said.

Sorry, Adam, I’m not a psychologist. I’ve just been trying to live fearless.

Grant says:

02:12pm | 27/10/09

Adam,

Yes yes, everyone has heard of Voltaire’s famous quote, but quite unlike you I actually believe in what Voltaire wrote.

Do you even see the hypocrisy in quoting Voltaire, whilst espousing censorship of what other people write because they don’t match your literary standard? 

Even if the comments are just rubbish, they are still entitled to write it, you can’t pick and choose the degree of free speech that you would like to impose on people.

Sometimes less is more and a well placed insult or comment in a discussion can be more poignant than a three paragraph non sensical rant.

Yes I agree Fail.  Fail article Ya deush….

Brian Semmens says:

01:56pm | 27/10/09

Social media is just that, social and media. And like any media, it can be corrupted and misused. I agree, people should have the guts to put their own name to comments and take the consequences. Otherwise, they’re just social amatuers. The “mass media” has to accept that “social media” is here to stay, but has to realise that it’s evolving. Like the mass media, it has to adapt or die. The internet is not the democracatic utopia that people once wished for, but it gives a voice to those with the access to the technology and the ability to use it (even those whose voice we don’t want to hear ... just like some of the dinosaur opinion pieces in the daily rags).

Mr Pastry says:

01:49pm | 27/10/09

Don’t want your head shot off, keep it down.  There should be more anonymous bottle throwing from the back of the hall, do I care who does it, no (unless it is Sam Chowder), I care whether the comment stands up.  Need to avoid elitist mutual ma*t?tion clubs as there are plenty of those services available elsewhere online (I have been told).

Sloth says:

01:15pm | 27/10/09

The biggest problem with this article is that it’s completely wrong. The real danger to the dialouge of ideas isn’t that people won’t discuss them robustly, it’s that they won’t discuss them robustly enough. The rules of polite society stifle public debate - try having an honest conversation with a stranger about religion or politics where you don’t have to guard your ideas for fear of causing offense.

The internet strips that away, and allows people to call a spade a spade - and this is precisely the kind of free expression that’s needed to weed the good ideas from the terrible ones. The Punch is a shining example; not a few posts up form this there’s a half-dozen commentators calling Kevin Andrews out for engaging in insipid dog-whistle politics. Tell me, Adam; do you think the debate would be better served if people refrained from expressing these ideas for fear of offending him?

It’s all well and good to take aim at the anonymous troll and make (usually) him the target of your outrage, but a) no-one takes any notice of truly nonsensical trolls and b) who gets to decide what’s trolling and what’s robust debate? A panel of psychologists, applying the terribly scientific measure of whether someone’s feelings were hurt? Forgive me if I think that sounds like the second worst idea on the punch today (first place goes, naturally, to Kevin “No more africans - unless they’re white, of course” Andrews)

Western society since ancient greece has been built on the foundations of arguement and debate. I impore you to go back and read Plato; you’ll find that people weren’t all that saccarine when ideas where concerened 2500 years ago. And, shockingly, the fact that Crito and Socrates disagreed violently - and often said things to each other that weren’t very nice! - has not resulted the in collapse of Western civilisation. Would it be trolling to hypothesise as to how the author of this strident defence of mediocrity might have voted at Socrates’ trial?

No, I think far from your fear that “[s]ocial media may well be killing our entire society one anonymous comment at a time” - unfounded hyperbolic nonsense if I ever heard it - the real danger we need to watch out for is people who want to regulate the free expression of ideas because they’re worried some nerds will get their feelings hurt.

theevilsloth@gmail.com

E says:

12:52pm | 27/10/09

yep, the real answer to this is as AT suggested, to have the writers be anonymous, then nobody can do ad hominem on them. Of course that would hurt their little (apparently fragile) egos if nobody knew how smart they are?

@Mark Young; Being in marketing is hardly a sucess story, its not like hes a doctor or a garbo or something with real social value. Hes just a paid bulls%#ter after all. And given the self evident ‘race to the bottom’ in the quality of intellect engaged by the main stream media, he probably isnt as smart as he thought he was either

AT says:

12:32pm | 27/10/09

Adam, might it be that those malevolent, sullen rubber throwers at the back of your classroom knew you were going to make some thoroughly ridiculous and hysterical comment like; “Social media may well be killing our entire society one anonymous comment at a time”?

The “intelligent, sensitive, nerds in the front row” have long dominated the debate. For decades they have enjoyed privileged access to the premier forums where the only opportunity to express a dissenting opinion came in the form of the contrived, regulated and exclusive “letters to the editor” page. Anyone not suitably mannered, resourced or educated in the etiquette and protocol of this arcane and esoteric practice was denied a voice, however valid or even crucial their opinion may have been.

What you’re advocating is a return to those stifling autocratic days, the ‘front row nerds’ setting the agenda, controlling the debate and vetting the voices.

I’d argue that what social media needs is more anonymity so that people can freely express their “true feelings” unencumbered by the censorious constraints of their personal and professional lives. I’d argue that even the ‘front row nerds’ should publish with a greater degree of anonymity, lest their disclaimers prejudice the rubber throwers assessment of their proclamations: for instance, when I see you described as a consumer psychologist and marketer, I read “tarted up spiv” making cheap halfarsed comments designed to further promote his business. Perhaps that’s not the case, but there you have it; a lack of anonymity has led to a grievous misrepresentation and debasement of a fine upstanding citizen.

It’s an enormous folly to measure the value of an opinion by *how* it’s said and rather frightening when corporate identities demand posters show their ID before making a comment.

E says:

12:31pm | 27/10/09

suck it up princess!

it is also true when anonymous comments allow people to feel free to challenge orthodoxy without fear of oestracism or retribution

Carl Palmer says:

12:28pm | 27/10/09

Definition of anonymous is “unsigned”, “nameless”. So names like dude, biff, RT, etc are not anonymous?  No I don’t agree, every post here is effectively “anonymous”.
We start getting closer with the likes of Tim Burrowes and Mark Reid but for mine, still no cigar. We are all strangers communicating in a very informal environment where one cannot put a name or even an initial to a face. It ‘s as though we are all communicating in a pitch black room, we can hear but not see. Your classroom example therefore is a little off the mark.
In the journalistic world, I would say that the anonymous comments / articles carry no credibility. Nowadays, I always check to see if the article includes its author and if it doesn’t then I either don’t read it or take a very cynical view of the article. For example there is an article on one news websites today with the heading “Aircraft in 10 near-misses each year over Sydney” by AAP which BTW I didn’t read, and if I did would I believe, no, not a chance.

Now for the bully(s). They are everywhere and I don’t know if there is anything you can do today to stamp it out. Maybe in 200 years time it might be gone but today it is everywhere. So what can we do about it?? Well I thought that one of the characteristics of a civilised society was its ability to help those who are weak, frail, unable to defend gthemselves. If someone is been bullied (the weak one) then it is up to those that are not weak to stand, protect and help the person been bullied.  Pick up on their comment and help support their point of view. They may as you quite rightly state be a little meek and timid and therefore easily scared away. If they see they have support, then maybe they will continue to speak up.  Identifying who is been bullied isn’t always easy particularly when that someone always leads with ones chin.

Krys says:

12:21pm | 27/10/09

The right to express an opinion on different issues should be upheld - but how is posting comments/responses not expressing an opinion in itself?

Basically you are saying - be sensitive in your responses to the author’s feelings. There are ‘anonymous posts’ which are blatant insults and these should be seen for what they are. There are other ‘anonymous posts’ which can be seen to be valid in providing a differing opinion whether these are in agreeance with the author’s views or not.

The internet has not only facilitated freedom of expression by way of publication through blog sites etc but through the possibility of posting feedback to what is printed. I can’t see how vile comments can squash this freedom. As intepid said - just a nuisance.

JaneAgatha says:

11:51am | 27/10/09

There is truth in what Adam says.

In the early days of the Internet I sought to engage in several email discussion lists - radical_psychology_network, ausfempolnet and cohousing-l, for example, Each list had it’s share of cyber bullies seeking to either get one up on the next person or crush them if possible, generally without seeking to understand what they were really trying to say.

As a result of these experiences I no longer engage in email discussion lists although still an occasional observer.

I suppose these bullies abound because t is so easy to be negative and find fault - much easier than seeking to inform oneself of the issues and engage in honest, open and respectful dialogue.

Mark Young says:

11:04am | 27/10/09

@Bob Higgins
You have missed his points, he does not want positive affirmation of his genius, he wants to be able to discuss issues and express contrary points of view without bullies taking shots at him.

You also suggest he has never left school or got over the rubber. On the contrary I would say that he has most definately got over that rubber and left school. He is working in Marketing and having articles published in ‘The Punch’. Wheras you are clever enough to come up with an insult insinuating that he is immature and never got over school…

It is more likely that YOU have never left school where you could be rude, insulting and condesending and kids would actually worry about what you think and do. Wheras now days, you are reduced to trying to be cool writing clever things on the internet which actually show that you are a complete knob.

Reader says:

11:00am | 27/10/09

To Eric…
Learn to read.

“b) the loudest voices will belong to those with the thickest skin. “

(Obviously the author has thick skin)

Lots of love,
Someone who actually read the article properly.

intepid says:

10:56am | 27/10/09

IMHO The obnoxious anonymous comment is *not* the equivalent of being hit in the back of the head by an eraser; I think a better equivalence is of someone yelling “fag” or “wanker” from the window of a passing car. The anonymous commenter is never a threat, merely a nuisance.

“Social media may well be killing our entire society one anonymous comment at a time.”

You’re being a concern troll here. I’ve been blogging for 7 years and allow anonymous comments, and I just don’t see this breakdown of society happening. If I was trying to sell or promote something then of course I would expect to be torn to pieces in anon comments, but that’s as it should be— you can’t try to sell me crap AND be my friend at the same time (if I could leave comments on commercials and press releases there would be a lot more hurt feelings in the world).

DG says:

10:49am | 27/10/09

The question is whether the trolls are trolls or of they genuinely believe the views that they espouse. Sure abusing people is one thing but if someone comes in here claiming that the Third Reich were onto something would they be considered “trolls” or would their opinion be respected? or that the stolen generation is an example of an effective assimilation policy that removes the risk of inter-generational culture shock.

I suspect they would be shouted out of the forum. Where is the respect for their opinion? Do they only deserve their opinion if they happen to agree with the common view? Is the right to dissent inversely proportional to the distress that may be caused by expressing ones opinion? One only has to look at holocaust deniers and global-warming deniers to see the consequences.

The reality is that people will always be judged for their views and their actions. It’s better than judging people based on their hair colour or cultural background. At least they are responsible for their opinions and actions. Meanwhile, I respect the right of people to say something that I might not like (such as advocating for limitations to the ‘right to free speech’).

Simon says:

10:05am | 27/10/09

Right, let’s get the housekeeping out the way first: Voltaire NEVER said what you claim Adam.

This has to be the world’s worst misattribution. It was said by Evelyn Hall, writing as Stephen G. Tallentyre - yes, ‘anonymous’ commentators are a centuries old tradition in society - in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), to sum up Voltaire’s attitude in Essay on Tolerance, where the chap who despised democracy as mob rule said:  “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

Now to matters at hand.

To extend your metaphor - and c’mon man, where are your cojones Adam?! I had rubbers in the back of the head too and really, it hurts a hell of a lot less than being at the bottom of a scrum against the private school boys! - yes, there are trolls and flamers, but they’re not nearly as anonymous as they like to think and leave little internet electronic fingerprints all over their grubby handiwork. The intellectual bankrupts should keep that in mind next time they want to hit and run.

Consider a recent debate on Mumbrella where Tim identified a number of “anonymous” comments as coming from the same source, which just so happened to be the agency at the centre of the controversy. It was a nice gotcha moment. And what about Wikipedia, where you can track down who’s made amendments to listings? If I remember correctly, the occasional government department’s been pinged for cooking the books on that front.

In cyberspace, they not only hear you scream, they’ll hunt you down if you get out of line. Social media likes a robust debate, yet it’s also happy to catch and kill the trolls. Blessed are the meek on the Internet, because they realise they’re not alone and others will defend them.

I think you do nerds a disservice Adam and underestimate their courage.
Public debate is always robust and you’ve just got to jump into the fray. The price of having an opinion is that others will disagree, some vehemently - just ask a meek and nerdy Christian in this secular world. It comes down to that old saying of fighting for what you believe in.

A debate on the etiquette of commentary is worthwhile, so nice try, but please don’t sound so whiny next time.

Bob Higgins says:

09:55am | 27/10/09

Never got over that rubber then. 
You are saying you want to broadcast your thoughts outwards and have only positive affirmation of your brilliance returned.
Never left school either.

Tony Fraser says:

09:53am | 27/10/09

It is easy to throw bottles from the cheap seats than to get in the game and actually be seen. Good article. That is why peer review is a fundamental necessity in well-regarded journals. However, there are times where anonymity is a must and these times must be respected also.

Daffy Duck says:

09:32am | 27/10/09

Mark Reid, what makes you think people who use a surname with their first name are using their actual surname? How do I know your Mark Reid? And who is Mark Reid?
Daffy Duck

glengyron says:

09:12am | 27/10/09

As Chopper would say: HTFU.

Your point that trolls are rife is true, basically it’s because the key social dynamics that prevent outlandish comments in real life are absent online.  Comments tend to the extreme with little fear of loss of prestige or standing within a group.

The whole concept of ‘virtual communities’ is bullshit.  Social media is a simulation of ‘social’ but lacks the bonds which make the real thing work.

Mark Reid says:

09:10am | 27/10/09

There’s no doubt that the metaphorical rubber throwers exist and they do no good. But it’s intriguing that of the 20 comments above, only 5 use given and surnames…
If you’re posting an original thought, it’s reasonable to assume you believe what you’re saying, and that you would also be prepared to defend it. In other words;  that have the courage of your convictions.  Hiding behind anonimity isn’t the course one would take if stating something they believe or believe in.
So, instead of getting upset over the anonymous bully with the rubber, we should discard them as cowards or idiots, and continue to speak our individual truths where and when we want to.
If the rubber throwers do serve a purpose, it’s only that they show us what cowardly idiots think and say….
Mark Reid

Jolanda says:

09:04am | 27/10/09

Lexi - Maralyn Parker often doesn’t publish posts from people who write about things that she doesn’t want to address on her blog.  Even if those people use their full name, have evidence for what they say are on topic and she knows that they are telling the truth.  She is not alone.  The daily telegraph often doesn’t publish posts that the moderator doesn’t want published. 

People automatically assume that if the post is moderated then the posts must be flaming, rude or defamatory but often they are not - often they are dealing with issues that relate to the moderators Government friends or acquaintances and these moderators are protecting their friends. 

I think the moderating of blogs purely because the moderator is friends with those in high places or follows a certain political party and assisting in a cover up is more harmful to freedom of speech and to society than the writer being anonymous.  You have to ask whether anybody moderates the moderators?

Adam Ferrier – the DET throws dusters too and we know because my children were dealt blow after blow and even when it is thrown from the DET’s hand, the system sees and does nothing to protect the children and hold those who fail in their duty of care to account.

Education – Keeping them Honest.
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Our Children deserve better

Rachel says:

08:52am | 27/10/09

I was you in grade 5. I got hit with the metaphorical rubber and made a conscious decision to stop being smart there and then. I wonder where I’d be now if that never happened? I hope it never happens to my kids

Micko says:

08:42am | 27/10/09

I thought the whole point of the internet is that it did away with the ad hominem agurments and let the ideas play out—what does it matter who is making a comment so much as the merits of the arguements.

The internet is content—not personalities, that’s what good about it!

Elle says:

08:42am | 27/10/09

In my experience, the main issue is not anonymity. What I see happening is what I saw in Adam’s anecdote - the cool kids up the back are firmly entrenched in their territory and are busy chucking things at everyone else.  Social media pundits have a bet both ways shrilly insisting that social media is open and free, and yet god help anyone who doesn’t play by their rules. Sometimes by the time I’ve read the rules I’m too tired to contribute
@Wayne H, go easy on the ‘weak’ criticism. There are some people engaging in online discussion and debate in areas where privacy and disclosure requirements haven’t caught up yet, and where there is much at stake. Some of these forerunners are the brave ones.

Lexi says:

08:34am | 27/10/09

The difference between classrooms and, say, The Punch, is that blog participants can be excluded for flaming, or their comment amended.  Maralyn Parker suspends blog participants who flame repeatedly.

Some of us do try to play the ball and not “the man” (or woman), but there are always people in life - blogs or workplaces or on the street or in classrooms or pubs - who can’t help but come up with the most caustic comment purely because they think it shows they are smarter than everyone else.  Perhaps the opposite is really true - they are the least smart of us all.

The smartest of all are those who have the functioning filter between brain and mouth/keyboard.  I only wish I was a member of this group - but most of us say or write things we later regret (or should regret). 

I guess most of us use the safety of a pseudonym because of a fear of (a) the flamer - it’s not as harsh if they don’t know who you really are and thus can’t find you in the phone book or via FB etc to personally have a go at you; and (b) the everlasting nature of the web, what if future employers etc google us and don’t agree with what we said 10 years ago on a topic that we would not ever raise in the workplace or with colleagues, even over a Friday drink?

Pen names have been used by authors since humans started writing for mass audiences - so the blog just makes it possible for more people and quicker responses.

I don’t blame K-Rudd individually in regard to the censorship of internet in Australia - I blame the fact that religious zealots have infiltrated Australian politics.

I am far more concerned with improving the separation of chuch and state.  I am not saying I am against any church or any church-goer, but that I resent churches and churchgoers moralising and establishing judgemental laws - such as the censorship of the internet, attempting to prevent gay marriage and trying to stop abortions.

sven says:

08:34am | 27/10/09

great piece Adam. 95% of anonymous responses to blog pieces are imbecilic, add nothing to the debate and have nothing to do with democracy or freedom of speech. They are usually just the puerile bleatings of ignorant bed-wetters.  And then there’s the truly scary stuff - such as “I learn nore about the Government by reading other peoples opinions than relying on a biased media. It also exposes the Government and the media to redicule”.

Elicia says:

08:18am | 27/10/09

Shelley -  your comment about, Labor will now have some statement regarding giving more money to someone or to fix something that the previous Government has ignored has come true for you. I have just heard Gillard on the news say that the Government will be spending more money on teachers and teaching because the previous Government neglected this issue. So funny, Labor really are becoming prectable! What about your BER blow out Gillard and hey what’s going on with your Indonesian Solution? Have they got those refugees off that Australian boat yet and shoved them into those inhumane detention centres there, You maybe able to put them out of sight but they aren’t out of mind. Waiting now for the next splash of money announcement. Get Australias attention away from the border protection debacle you have yourselves in. Some of us can see through your political games Mr Rudd.

Tim Burrowes - Mumbrella says:

08:17am | 27/10/09

Well argued by Adam. I’m not sure what the answer is, but what I’m fairly certain is that it will not turn out to be banning anonymous comments.

For starters, there are times when people can’t comment in their own names - perhaps because their employer doesn’t allow it.

But I think we’re all growing into the shorthand of online comment.

In general we give greater weight to comments from someone who fully identifies themselves.

But there’s also a valuable contribution to be made from those who post with a regular pseudonym - we get to recognise, and often respect,  their point of view.

Then comes the anonymous commenter who has something to say. That can still be a valid contribution.

Whern it comes to entirely anonymous commenters with a negative agenda, then Mumbrella’s policy is to delete them if they are personally abusive; and to call them out if them same person is multiple-posting from the same IP address to give the misleading impression that there’s a groundswell of support for their view.

But I’d be reluctant to force everyone to identify themselves or keep quiet. Valuable perspectives would be lost. That seems too high a price to shut up a few trolls.

Cheers,

Tim - Mumbrella

RT says:

07:55am | 27/10/09

Eric.: The fact that Adam published his story in the knowledge that it would draw criticism from a troll like you doesn’t disprove his point, as you claim. His points is that trolls intimidate the timid and only the thick-skinned are brave enough to dissent. Trolls are thick skinned, true, but many are also seemingly thick-headed.

Bazza says:

07:51am | 27/10/09

I’m sure if Kevin Rudd had his way he would ban the free anonymous world of social media. Any forum that can srutinise his performance as PM would not be tolerated.

Biff says:

07:30am | 27/10/09

The robust debate that takes place on sites such as The Punch should be encouraged. Yes, The Punch does attract the hidebound, timorous and blatherer but that is part of its appeal.

Jana says:

07:28am | 27/10/09

Thank goodness for free anonymous comments, it opens up the world to other peoples views and breaks the strangle hold the media have over the public. I learn nore about the Government by reading other peoples opinions than relying on a biased media. It also exposes the Government and the media to redicule, thats democracy anonymous or not.

dude says:

07:10am | 27/10/09

Sticks and stones and rubbers (apparently), I think it’s about time we started teaching people how to handle such nonsense and get some self-control over their life. In a world where a lot of its media is where most of the rubber throwers finally get and keep a job where they can get paid for throwing sh!t, you know the scum, the ignorant rightwing bullyboys or shock jocks. Most of them are just brainless word throwing twats. Usually only employed for their muck raking ability and certainly not for intelligence. Words are just words and people need to know that it’s the receiver in communication that has the power in an exchange. It’s the listener that makes the decision what they do with the information that enters their head. It is you that controls your brain. Nobody has control over your thinking unless you let them.

First says:

07:06am | 27/10/09

This is hardly a new observation. It’s been going on since usenet, before the web.
For a funnier take than this that makes the same point, see http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1771556 (NSFW audio).
Actually the internet has evolved to deal with the phenomenon - and this has been an extraordinary process.
Terms like ‘trolling’ and ‘flaming’, ideas like Godwin’s Law, the term ‘haterz’, are all used to pipe down the inevitable badly spelled all-caps dissent.
Sure it gets more raw, but without a lot of the social niceties an argument can also get right down to the core issues very quickly.

Wayne H says:

06:49am | 27/10/09

It’s generally the weak who are the anonymous for fear of reprisal.  That’s what I see as the irony. And reprisal can come from anywhere. Should my view be dismissed because of my fear of reprisal? Just as you say the ‘the anonymous comment’ hinders the rights of the intelligent, sensitive, nerds in the front row to contribute, some of those intelligent, sensitive, nerds in the front row won’t comment without the protection of anonymity.  I personally have no problem putting my name to anything I write and do so when required but I don’t think allowing anonymous contributers hinders the debate. How else do politicians get their message out.  If you write shit expect to get hammered! Simple.

Mick Smith says:

06:47am | 27/10/09

Pardon? Other than the original authors, the vast majority of posts on The Punch are anonymous. The exchanges are free, voluminous and willing.  A tiny handful are thoughtful posts, whether by name or nick.

Most replies - whether by name or nick- are simple slanging matches from every sideand go on at yawnsome length showing little attempt at progress or understanding - whether by name or by nick.

Many of them are laced with direct personal insult - despite the “community agreement” rules, and moderation. 

I suppose if so many of the original authors weren’t posting insultingly slanted or badly argued bunk, the temptation to slag might be a touch less.  But the main problem is that most authors and posters are tapping out empty rhetoric, while most posters are blindly ignorant of the rules, and the standard of moderation is just a joke.

And no, that doesn’t prove your point. It just shows that The Punch is about low-grade fluff and spin - for flash and bang, not to inform at all.

Mr Murdoch thinks we should pay to see this trash - and every post we make here we have assigned him, for free, our copyright. Me, I can’t be a**ed posting here any more.

Shelley says:

06:45am | 27/10/09

Rudd has had a bit of bad media regarding Border Protection. So we can now expect a media frenzy on pro Rudd stories to counter act that. They will be digging for more dirt on the opposition and probably some statement from Labor about how they are spending more money to help someone or to fix something that has been ignored by the previous Government. It’s all becoming too predictable with the Rudd Government.

Old Clive says:

06:40am | 27/10/09

Oh Dear Robynne, what you say is so true, watching the 7.30 report last night and the interview with some bloke by the name of Walsh an old parliamentery commentator and express secretary, it would appear that little Johnnie signed his own death warrant by allowing our parliamentarians to expand their own little empires to include press secretaries, the pen is mightier than the sword and the old story is so true, if you throw enough of what ever you want describe it as, some of it will most certainly stick. How could our fine country finish up in the mess that is now called Federal Parliament.

paul says:

06:37am | 27/10/09

People are just saying what they would have thought or said behind your back. 5% of it is funny gold. It’s like saying hecklers are weak or unnecessary at comedy gigs. They just come with the territory, the medium (and alcohol) draws them out. It’s human nature to be snide, bored, backstabbing and bullying, even as adults. I agree with Robynne, Rudd and his censorship, control-freak mates are more dangerous than rubber band boys.

Jesse Perez says:

06:34am | 27/10/09

Great article. One thing that comes with the territory of online publishing is the guaranteed percentage of nitwits that just want to push the authors buttons - this is just a reality that needs to be dealt with.

However, this reality implores the writer to take recourse, considering all the potential responses their points might produce - this could be argued that it’s a Darwinistic way to make a topic more communicable.

If anything, the Anonymous responses give you a direct link into people’s minds - without the barriers of a social facade.

robynne morton says:

05:49am | 27/10/09

Yes the media has become so political that you can’t say a bad thing about the government without being censored and it will get worse with this internet filter that is comming in.This would be the worst socalist government i have seen in hiding things and shutting people up,i hope the people don’t stand for it and speak up.This Rudd government owns the media ...

Eric says:

05:42am | 27/10/09

I bet you knew that anonymous commenters would tell you this article is a crock—but you wrote it anyway. So much for your theory that differing opinions will be suppressed.

The Internet has indeed made it easier for people to share their opinions. It’s a bit tougher for those who don’t like dissent.

If you don’t like negative comments, simply post somewhere that doesn’t allow comments. You may not get many readers, but that’s your choice.

And no, this anonymous comment doesn’t prove your point. In fact it’s the opposite—you haven’t been silenced.