Comments on: Anonymous comments again

By: Steve Stein

Steve Stein — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:41:54 +0000

Thanks for the thoughts, Dan, and no problem about the delay.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:52:50 +0000

@Steve: Good question. My instant, gut answer is that I believed anonymous comments were harming my blog, so I got rid of them. On the other hand, if I decide to link to and quote from an anonymous blog, then by definition I don’t think it’s harmful or I wouldn’t do it. I realize that’s a bit of a tautology, but there you go.

Apologies for not posting this sooner. For some odd reason, your comment got caught in the WordPress spam filter.

By: LFNeilson

LFNeilson — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:14:10 +0000

It’s worth noting the difference between DK requiring that bloggers post under a real name in his blog and the Southborough Board of Selectmen demanding that Susan reveal the identity of a certain blogger.

Dan is in control of his blog and wants to maintain a respectable level of conversation. He’s well within his rights.

Southborough, on the other hand, has no right to demand that information. If it’s a matter of libel or criminal activity, a court might require Susan to reveal the anonymous blogger.

By: Steve Stein

Steve Stein — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:42:22 +0000

Dan, something I’ve been meaning to ask you -

Why do you cite pseudonymous blog authors (in this case “Outraged Liberal”), but don’t allow pseudonymous comments on your blog?

(I don’t know who OL is, and I don’t know if his/her identity is common knowledge, so please forgive me if I’m just clueless.)

By: BP Myers

BP Myers — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:33:16 +0000

@Susan: Thanks for the follow-up!

Like I said, my anecdotal experience is that when the blogger participates in the discussion, if only to occasionally counter lies with the truth, it seems to make a difference. Folks understand that their comments aren’t going into a “black hole” but are indeed being read and considered.

But it can backfire too, so if you do choose to participate, pick your battles! Maintain a thick skin. And don’t get sucked in.

Thanks again, and best of luck!

By: Susan Fitzgerald

Susan Fitzgerald — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:25:03 +0000

@BP – I’m the blogger in question, and you make an interesting point. I’ve always remained fairly hands-off in the comments because I wanted people to have an exchange without my meddling or influence. But perhaps a different approach is in order?

By: L.K. Collins

L.K. Collins — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:55:37 +0000

Being anonymous doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

Unless the town’s government has a subpoena or, perhaps even if they have a subpoena, they are trying to chill the free expression of ideas and opinions.

Since a name, any name, is merely an arbitrary assignment of a bunch of letters to an individual, what is stopping someone like, say, Samuel Clemens from calling himself Mark Twain.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, I am sure, would agree with protection of anonymity.

And remember, it was, is, and always will be one of the satirist’s favorite tools.

By: BP Myers

BP Myers — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:35:44 +0000

@Jenn: I’m intrigued by her saying “I don’t like it either” about much of what goes on in the comments. Not being a frequenter of that blog, I can only guess, but I wonder if she participates actively in the comments?

It’s been my experience that when the blogger/reporter participates in the comments, and provides not censorship, but a much-earned smackdown now and then, that the civilized nature of the commentary is elevated.

By: Jenn Lord Paluzzi

Jenn Lord Paluzzi — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:46:18 +0000

Speaking of anonymous comments, have you heard about what’s going on in Southborough? They’re demanding that the blogger for My Southborough reveal the identities of her commenters: http://www.mysouthborough.com/2010/03/19/a-post-i-never-expected-to-write/

Kind of wishing I knew what Anon was writing, though — I do appreciate a good GateHouse rant.