I have chosen not to be an anonymous blogger because I am willing to be held accountable for what I publish. It's OK if a reader disagrees with me or criticizes what I write. It will make me a better writer and thinker. Likewise, if I write something that is factually wrong, being corrected is what is best. It's better to be right than to prevail. Fair fight and all that.
Many bloggers and commentators choose to be anonymous in order to vent, go hyperbolic, or get their righteous snark on. You have seen their emotional contributions trying to sway, attack, defend, crush, protect or push a point of view. Without being identified with their beliefs, arguments, mindset, biases, language or wrong-headedness. It makes the marketplace of ideas a messy place indeed. It can be argued, in a few cases, that anonymity is required to protect the whistle-blower, the person in a job whose boss might punish the expression of a contrary view, etc. I can see that, but I think it is definitely an exception rather than the rule.
Stanley Fish has a thoughtful piece on this in the New York Times. It is a good departure point for a discussion about what is good and useful about the free speech elements of the internet and how it should be viewed, protected, guided, etc. I am grateful for anyone who opens a topic as mindfully as Fish does.
When I think of blogging, I wish Mark Twain were around today. Even though that was not his "real name" he became so identified with it, he was for all purposes that man. Would he have been an anonymous blogger? Would Will Rogers? Mencken? Would any of these writers been held back by putting their names next to their opinions, criticisms or arguments? Doubtful.
One of the great things about encountering people in any marketplace is knowing who they are. Knowing who someone is generates conviviality; indeed, one is more apt disagree respectfully with someone you know. I grew up in a family of debaters where we often disagreed about many things. Having good arguments and sound evidence was an entry level requirement to survive a dispute over any issue from the relative strength of comic book superheroes to what was the best dessert to who was the best president. It would be wrong to say that none of those arguments ended in physical conflict, but to this day, I love and respect the siblings who disagreed with me.
As a society--and increasingly, the world--that increasingly cherishes free speech and exchange of ideas, it seems we are better served by leaning more directly in the direction of accountability, responsibility and transparency in the conduct of public discussions. If you want me to agree with your point of view, let me know who you are.
No comments:
Post a Comment