On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:22, Lahar Appaiah <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's a Japanese online forum where people aren't allowed to use a name or
> a handle (I think it's called 4chan). The deal is that a person's identity
> may lend undue weight to any posts of his or hers- and similarly, a new
> person may not have the credibility to 'take on' established posters. Past
> records should be irrelevant, so the party line goes.
>
> That said, there is obviously tremendous context to reading something from a
> particular individual (or an 'identity'), and sometimes, 'past records' are
> vital in lending weight to an argument. I'm personally fine if someone wants
> to post as HotChick or Vader2001 or something, as long as I can, over time,
> attribute certain characteristics to that person.
I understand and agree with Lahar and Abhijit that part of the
discomfort with anonymous communications is the inability to associate
characteristics with identities ("identity" being used here to mean a
name/symbol/marker of a singular presence and not as multifaceted
constructs of/for social interaction). But, given the numerous other
changes we make (both conscious and subconscious) to adapt ourselves
to the (potentials of the) online world, why can't we let go of that
discomfort? After all, then you truly will be judged not by the
colour of your skin, nor by the content of your character, but by the
power of your speech.
We make convenient assumptions (sometimes because of active prejudice,
most times else because of stereotype-conditioning) about people based
on their "real names", as well as their pseudonyms (such as "HotChick"
being a 41-year-old hairy guy, and "Vader2001" being a recent netizen,
etc.). Consistent pseudonyms also makes us fall back on such
assumptions (based on the consistency of someone's syntactical skills,
political beliefs, etc.). Whether they are "assumptions" or "traits"
is arguable, but still, they are something that we 'fall back upon' to
evaluate the contents of a post in addition to the thoughts conveyed
in it. Isn't it then a desirable thing to have consistent anonymity
(by people posting from a random e-mail addresses each time), even if
it causes discomfort?
