For discussion...

Web Anonymity Is as Destructive as Internet Porn
By Dennis Prager

Whenever people lament aspects of the Internet, they are most likely to lament the net's ubiquity of pornography. Only God knows, for example, how many kids, searching for some government information, typed in "whitehouse.com" only to be greeted by pornographic images (happily, the website changed hands in 2004). It is almost impossible to completely avoid such imagery even with filtering programs.

But there is something at least as awful -- and arguably more destructive -- that permeates the Internet: the lies, vitriol, obscenities and ad hominem attacks made by anonymous individuals on almost every website that deals with public issues.

sɛҳuąƖ images and prose for the purpose of sɛҳuąƖ titillation are not new. But the ability of anyone in society to debase public discourse is new. Until the Internet, in the public's best known venue for self-expression -- letters to the editor published in newspapers and magazines -- people either expressed themselves in a civilized manner or they were not published. And overwhelmingly, even those letters that were not published were written in a respectful manner because the letter-writers had to reveal their real names and their addresses (though only names and cities were published).

Being identifiable breeds responsibility; anonymity breeds irresponsibility.

That is why people -- even generally decent people -- tend to act so much less morally when in a crowd (the crowd renders them anonymous). That is why people tend to act more decently when they walk around with their names printed on a nametag. That is why people act more rudely when in their cars -- they cannot be identified as they could outside of their car. There is no question but that most people would write very different entries on the Internet if their names were printed alongside their submission.

E-mail provides another example. It is the very rare individual who sends a hate-filled, obscenity-laced e-mail that includes his name. As the recipient of such e-mails, I know firsthand how rarely people identify themselves when sending hate-filled mail. It is so rare, in fact, that I usually respond to hate mail that includes the writer's name just to commend him for attaching his name to something so embarrassing.

The Internet practice of giving everyone the ability to express himself anonymously for millions to read has debased public discourse. Cursing, ad hominem attacks and/or the utter absence of logic characterize a large percentage of many websites' "comments" sections. And because people tend to do what society says it is OK to do, many people, especially younger people, are coming to view such primitive forms of self-expression as acceptable.

Some might argue that anonymity enables people to more freely express their thoughts. But this is not true. Anonymity only enables people to more freely express their feelings. Anonymity values feelings over thought, and immediate expression over thoughtful reflection.

There is not one good reason for any website, left or right, or non-political, to allow people to avoid identifying themselves. Anyone interested in serious political discourse, or in merely lowering the hate levels in our country, should welcome the banning of anonymous postings.

It would be interesting to find out how many websites continue to encourage anonymous postings. Presumably, they would pay some financial price by insisting on posters identifying themselves. I don't know why, and I don't know how big a price that would be, but it is hard to imagine that it is higher than the price society pays when hate, anger and irrationality become the normal way of citizens expressing themselves. And even from the websites' own perspectives this policy is probably self-defeating. I doubt I am alone in reading fewer and fewer comments sections because of the low level of so many of the postings. Just as bad money chases away good money, moronic postings chase away intelligent ones. I have come to the point where I even read fewer comments posted about my own columns.

Websites should insist on listing names and cities of those who post comments, just as newspapers and magazines do.

The irresponsible, the angry, the obscene and the dumb have virtually taken over many Internet dialogues. But there is an easy fix, and websites owe it to society to use it. Just ban anonymous postings.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Hi,

I have posted on several sites over the last couple of years.  On some, I use a screen name, while on others I use my real name.  In both cases, everyone usually knows (or can easily ascertain) my real name.  This has no bearing upon how I post.

Indeed, so then you do not post anonymously.

Let us suppose someone uses their real name, and gets into hot water on a site.  So what?  If I know that both "Bob Smith" and "whoozyadaddy" are argumentative, illogical SOBs, what is the difference?

I think the article does not argue about the difference it makes to you if X or Y is a pest.  It's more a matter that X will perhaps be more mindful of what he writes if he bares the responsibility for it.

People have been using pen names for centuries, if not millenia, and that is just life.  Deal with it.  I do not see how this is substantially different.

And in past centuries and millenia, if one wrote a stupid comment, vitriol or what have you,  with no thought behind it; who would have printed it and distributed it for others to read?

Personally, I think the worst thing is not so much anonymity, but the ease and quickness of response.

It's real easy to develop relationships online that are more like figments of your imagination.  It's like a combination of watching soaps and being able to interact with the characters.

It discourages intellectual and social growth by retarding our interactions with people.  Something like that....

I know, while it's been great for me in some ways, in many ways it's been a damage to my psyche.

I don't like it at all. It makes the entire world fictional. I've seen people talk about others using their screen name more times than I care to count. The imagination is the "mad woman of the house" according to spiritual authors and people make wars against "screen names" and develop false identities and attitudes.

How this translates into society is going to be apparent in 20 years when less people can just talk and more people will be clammed up. In some ways it's great because most people are morons.

I don't believe in screen names and the biggest reason is that people just become nastier because of them. There is too much false honesty where we say whatever we feel because the retribution of a comeback can always be diminished by emoticons or sarcasm.

The enemies of internet anonymity want to have situation where everyone in the world has written about themselves on the internet have a searchable dossier of everything they've ever said online.  It will be the ultimate social control mechanism.

They can't control information on the internet the same way they do in "real life" because they cannot use popular prejudice and ostracism to shut people down.  But if these Zionists and other PC fanatics have their way they will have a system of controlling the reputations and careers of everyone who speaks their mind.