The results are in and the judges have come to a decision. (Correction: that should be judge, singular. There’s only one judge, and it’s me.)
Thirty-eight readers – by my count, but my arithmetic is not to be trusted – responded to my invitation to give their opinions on whether or not comments on this blog should be anonymous. Their responses were thoughtful and constructive, and I thank them all.
There are persuasive arguments both ways, but on balance I’ve decided to retain the status quo – albeit with some slight modifications (see below).
I came to this decision because while I would rather that commenters identified themselves (and if it comes to the crunch, I will favour those who do), I accept that some people have legitimate reasons for not doing so.
I’m particularly persuaded by those who point out that social media can be vindictive and toxic – far more so than letters to the editor, which I cited as a precedent for requiring names – and that the expression of the type of opinion found in the comments section of this blog may be career-limiting, or at least have unpleasant personal repercussions.
I find this appalling but have to accept that it’s true, and it would be wrong to deny people the right to express themselves for fear of damaging consequences. That would be a win for the other side.
Freedom of expression, after all, is arguably the most important right we have, and if insisting on people naming themselves results in free speech being discouraged, that’s a setback for open debate and the exchange of ideas.
To put it another way, requiring names might satisfy my purist ideals, but at the expense of engagement in public debate. At a time when freedom of speech is under sustained attack by the woke Left, we need more opportunities to say what we think, not fewer.
And there’s another factor, albeit a more pragmatic one. The comments section is a vital part of this blog and I’m loath to do anything that might stifle it.
Having said that, I intend to introduce a few guidelines (note – guidelines, not rigid rules).
■ Bitchy attacks on other commenters will be firmly discouraged, especially when made from the cover of anonymity. I see these on other blogs and it’s not pretty. One of the great virtues of the comments section on this blog is its civil tone, and I mean to keep it that way.
■ Similarly, people who anonymously
snipe at me, as happens occasionally, shouldn’t expect to have their
comments published. This is not me being precious. It’s no different from the
legal principle that people accused of wrongdoing are entitled to know the
identity of their accuser. Besides, it’s an abuse of hospitality to bad-mouth
your host. (This doesn’t mean I’m not fair game if I say something stupid or
wrong. Just don’t hide behind a pseudonym.)
■ Commenters whose meaning is obscure shouldn’t expect to be cut any slack in future. Fortunately there are not many of them.
■ Similarly, I reserve the right not to publish long, rambling
or repetitive comments. I’m the only one on this blog who’s allowed to be
boring.
24 comments:
Anonymity is the curse of the internet. If anonymity was banned across the entire internet, then people would realise what fools and bigots they really were.
Tim Berners-Lee stuffed this one up.
All in all a very fair call Karl. I look forward to all your future articles, with the occasional comment.
Ken Maclaren
I for one am extremely happy about your Solomonic decision. That is close to getting the best of two worlds.
Yesterday I made another comment on that thread and was ignored. I have carefully studied your reasons for censorship above and have come to the (upsetting) conclusion that this is not truly a gentleman's blog in the Kiwi spirit as I know it; I was wrong.
I have no hope now that the activity here could contribute to our great need for national healing and fast. I guess it's just another social club; I wish you all well.
I spent many hours making sure I was on the right track trying to communicate here.
A well balanced and well expressed course to action to follow, Karl.
I fine some bloggers tend to write long and rather obscure tomes, using complex phraseology that I find difficult to unravel.
This is probably because I have spent my whole professional career as a pharmacist explaining complex medicines and legal matters in simple plain English.
For example - you are prescribed omeprazole.
You do not need to know that it is a proton pump inhibitor that irreversibly binds to and inhibits the hydrogen-potassium ATPase pump that resides on the luminal surface of the parietal cell membrane !!
You need to know that, taken 30 minutes before food, it turns off the acid taps in your stomach, and stops the acid reflux and heartburn.
Jacqueline,
I'm sorry that you feel excluded. Your comments would be welcome if only you could (how can I put this delicately?) trim them back a bit.
Hi Karl
At least you stopped at a poll and didn't engage in focus groups. *chuckle*
The important thing is that you keep publishing, and we have opportunity to engage with a perspective that is otherwise missing from the MSM.
Good outcome, Karl.
I have no problem with requiring commenters to login - using for example a google/wordpress account or whatever.. it doesn't have to identify them to the world, but it does allow you to block them if they are repeatedly violating a "no dickheads" rule. Sure they can just get another account, but that's time consuming and probably enough to put them off.
My censored comment included an offer to inform your readership of an incident where our police acted illegally and shamefully; and the crux was that Mallard must go.
My purpose in communicating is regarding national healing and where I come up against a brick wall, well, it's a brick wall.
I choose to move on.
Thank you for the opportunity, and now lost.
It could have have been different if you'd said straight up to be briefer.
Cheers, Karl
Okay, here's something you might consider a "snipe". This comment from someone who obviously identified themselves and doesn't have to worry about any outside consequences was made about me.
"Typical Guerilla Surgeon comment. If a blog decides it won't accept comments from anonymous posters he says its cancel culture."
And yet my reply was censored. Was it censored because I'm anonymous? Did I go too far? What's so acceptable about Simon's comment that he wasn't censored as well? This seems to be a problem, and I've had Chris Trotter on about it – someone makes a snide remark someone responds in kind, and it's always the reply that gets pinged never the original. Your blog, your rules – but if these are the rules then I'm staying away. It's not as if I'm short of spaces where I can be insulted.
Good well balanced call Karl in keeping with the standard of your blog
regards
Graeme Faulkner
I suggest to Jacqueline that there are sites where you can contribute your own article such as the BFD. Personally I tend to read the bloggers thoughts rather than spend a lot of time on comments underneath.
Guerilla Surgeon,
You provided your own answer. Unlike you, the person you're taking a poke at writes under his own name (or appears to - if I'm wrong, I hope someone will let me know). Have another read of my guidelines.
Excellent! Please keep your articles coming, there's a hell of a lot going on. It looks like a grim winter is fast approaching.
Anonymous said...
I for one am extremely happy about your Solomonic decision. That is close to getting the best of two worlds.
I am Andy Espersen. It was I who wrote that comment (above)!! How that happened only Google will know!
The wrong decision, in my view. You put yourself at the mercy of your readers and they should be man (or woman) enough to return the courtesy. People who are worried about the results and hide their identities are stating opinions that they don't actually want readers to know belong to them. In other words, duplicitous people. In plain language, gutless wonders. - Bill Moore
Karl,
what is behind the anonymity of news paper editorials?
Unknown,
There's a perfectly sound and rational basis for the anonymity of editorials. Traditionally, the editorial is the voice of the newspaper as an institution, not of any individual. In theory, this gave it more weight than an opinion column, which reflected the view of one person. (Yes, I know it seems quaint to some people, but that's the rationale.)
But there's another important factor. While the editor takes responsibility for the content and tone of the editorial, he/she may not have written it. In fact I've known editors who never wrote an editorial. Larger papers have designated editorial writers, and the person who wrote the editorial may not agree with it. In fact I once heard a very good editorial writer lament that he hadn't written an editorial all year that he agreed with. He was paid to express the view of the editor. In those circumstances it would be ridiculous and unfair if the editorial carried the writer's name.
I will stick with the pdm pseudonym Karl and as you know me feel free to name and ridicule me if I stray out of line.
Loved this start:
`The results are in and the judges have come to a decision. (Correction: that should be judge, singular. There’s only one judge, and it’s me.)'
Reminded me of something my late father in law used to often say, to anyone in listening distance, of rugby - `the referee is the sole judge of time and fact'.
He may have said it to you if you ever had a haircut in Waipawa when you were a young fellow.
You're in a more fortunate position here than we were at No Minister using this "Blogger" platform because you're the sole owner and can thus switch all comments to requiring approval, whereas we have multiple bloggers and it would block all.
As a result we got hammered by trolls, often using multiple nyms, fake emails and IP addresses, all so they could just endless abuse on us that always consisted of the following pattern:
- simple assertion of why the cause/topic/subject of the post was stupid, vile, etc. (with no supporting arguments, reasoning, links)
- abuse of the blogger as stupid, vile, etc
- childish taunting
Thankfully the move to Wordpress enabled us to identify all these wankers and clean them out, although we've still got one tool who refuses to go away even as his comments (always following the above pattern) get trashed.
You should be okay here.
New Zealand is't at war, isn't (yet) at the point where we are likely to be woken by a boot on our door at two in the morning for criticising the government or our neighbour so we have little to fear by having the courage to put our names to our statements.
Solomon du Fresne.
Ron Palenski
I'm a longtime reader of this blog, though I comment seldom.
As a rule, I favour commenting under one's own name: for years that's what I did.
However. My name is distinctive and I'm easily found. While I have firm opinions, which I express forthrightly but politely, and I'm not easily intimidated, family members became concerned after I was approached by complete strangers. And when I say "approached", I don't mean somebody abusing me online. Said family members worried for my safety, and also for theirs.
So I've been obliged to adopt a nom de guerre (an old family name, in my case). When the political environment is particularly febrile - as it is at present - it's safer to be anonymous. I wish it weren't so, but there it is.
I'd add that I have no problem at all with Karl knowing my identity. Just so long as the crazies-at-large don't find it out.
Post a Comment