Toughen up – we need online anonymity

Sure anonymity is required for democracy in certain situations… But certainly not when it comes to critiquing of work, opinions or people.

If you have an opinion on work or people, then you should put your opinion behind your name otherwise you’re just a coward. That’s how society works.

IMHO, in our industry, the anonymous criticism of work does nothing to make the work better most of the time and serves only to line the pockets of the blog operators that allow it as people line up to take anonymous punches. It’s not productive and is quite often destructive.

Where else in the world do you see it?

I don’t think we should conflate the issues of anonymity for democracy’s sake and anonymity when it comes to criticism… They are two different animals.

cheers

Andrew Knott

Interesting read but perhaps not that relevant to the railing against anonymous commenting on this site.
Perhaps a more close to home reason why it happens here: most companies have a policy that employees can not make any comment publicly that can be traced back to their company name. If I feel an ad campaign is shit or an opinion piece is misguided I can’t comment on behalf of (by proxy) my employer, so I have to do it anonymously.

For most websites, the problem with the anonymous comments is that they are just a torrent of negativity and not really worth reading.

While it’s true that there are certain situations where anonymity is needed by those posting comments online, 99% of the time it’s not. The reason why there is so much hate in public debate these days is because people can say whatever they want with virtually no repercussions. If people had no choice but to reveal their true identity every time they posted online then their language would be more measured and considered – perhaps even constructive.

But since their is no practical way to stop people from posting comments anonymously on websites it’s pointless even trying.

It should also be pointed out that Goggle, who started this whole debate, aren’t necessarily championing free-speech but are instead thinking of the profit to be gained from knowing more about our online activities.

I have a hard and fast rule when posting, if it’s something I wouldn’t say to someone’s face in the rule world, then I wouldn’t post it anonymously (sp?). So if I am critiquing someone’s work or opinion, I make it constructive (in my opinion at least) as I would address them in person, so I have no problems if I was forced to not do this anonymously.

I feel most on here are the same other than some who do it humoroulsy and a small percentage who are just hating tossers that crap on anything.

I think that Craig Thomler is missing the point. The anonymous commentary issue is about the content not so much the anonymity as a blanket. If an anonymous blog post is up and it is complimentary to a campaign or about someone there is no fuss or concern at all. If it is factual and legal then there is no issue.

The issue is that the anonymity also allows people to be more vile than they might ordinarily.

I agree there are times when anonymity is valuable but its a far stretch to compare to democratic issues when we’re really only dealing with nasty, bitchiness for no purpose. Subjectivity about what we think of someone’s work or of a person should be considered freedom of speech – where the line is drawn is where it slips into abuse which is what we’re talking about here.

Unfortunately anonymity allows the abuse to escalate which leads many to believe that’s the problem, when it is only part of the problem. This abuse happens in the office every day too actually. It is the employer and the publications that need to take responsibility and edit out abuse, allowing free expression of opinions but in a respectful manner.

I’ve got to say that anyone that can’t see the difference between freedom of speech and abuse is someone to stay clear of as they’re either perpetuating it or an abuser themselves.

“anyone that can’t see the difference between freedom of speech and abuse is someone to stay clear of as they’re either perpetuating it or an abuser themselves”

New version of Godwin’s Law?

@Ghost of Perry Kacker – very funny actually…

There’s a difference between Australian law and Nazi behaviour of course. I assume you’re posting this for the fun of the comedy rather than the misguided concept.

When I began at SOM (now Ogilvy) I was surprised to discover the staff had an anonymous complaints box. To his credit,CEO at the time Andrew Varasdi, would stand before the gathered agency each Monday morning and answer each complaint. Because it was anonymous he got the truth about what his staff were feeling. And because he got the truth he was able to air it and respond to it, sometimes positively and sometimes critically. He didn’t particularly enjoy it, but he did it. The important thing was that the topic –often about not being allowed to enter awards–was aired. Now imagine if he insisted on names.
Come on people, everyone knows that any opinion here is likely to be colored with professional grudges and vested interest (wonder if Andrew’s got any freelance going?). That’s what people do you gronks.
Mumbrella – just for one week, insist on names. See what that does to the debate. What’s the bet it turns into a load of hollow, self-serving spin that isn’t what people are really feeling or worth the paper it’s not written on.

There’s something not quite right with these PC crusaders who want us all to have a group hug so we don’t upset each other by expressing strong opinions, whether anonymous or not. In an environment such as here at Mumbrella we should respect the ability of the editorial team to decide what’s crossing the line and trust they will moderate accordingly. We don’t need do-gooders throwing grenades from the sideline to change the tone.

This is a tough industry with larger than life people with all sorts of opinions and personalities, let it find it’s own level. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Tough talk there from anonymous Rob.

Typical.

Let us not confuse anonymity with moderation. If someone is being unnecessarily bitchy or nasty, then that is a moderation issue.

If it’s just that they’re anonymous and they don’t agree with your opinion then maybe you just need to grow a pair.

Having the ability to comment anonymously allows people to be freer with their thoughts, and not feel like they have to agree with the status quo for fear that they may be ostracised for having a difference of opinion.

Take a look at the conversations that go on in a networking situation. Get someone with an extroverted personality going and everyone around them will be nodding and agreeing even though you can see in their faces that he/she is talking absolute crap. I bet they all wish they could say something anonymously!

The whole idea of anonymity in online comments is about taking social status out of an opinion.

Yes people abuse it but it’s the responsibility of the sites to decide the proper balance of moderation to ensure that conversation and debate is encouraged.

Rob, strong opinions aren’t the problem – it’s the rabid language, the scare-mongering, the self-interest and the blatant lies that people get away with that’s slanting debate. It’s these comments that are ‘changing the tone’, not the other way around. The original article wasn’t about Mumbrella, but the entire digital community.

Strong opinions are welcomed, particularly here on Mumbrella, and when those opinions are being made by someone willing to stand behind their words then they hold even more weight.

@Dave – absolutely on the money and beautifully said.

likewise Bob….tool

@ Adam Paull if someone is pushing the language/scare-mongering/self-interest line then don’t they out themselves and their cause to most discerning readers anyway, whether using a real name/url or not?

I’m guessing that what everyone’s actually worried about are their clients reading this stuff. I’d be interested to hear from someone who’s client has held them to task over a critique of their work on Mumbrella. Does it happen?

@Rod – Discerning readers, yes… but how many of those are there?

@Rob, rather

Adnews got it right with the lead they took last month:

http://www.adnews.com.au/adnew.....f-no-troll

@Adam don’t sweat it, my real name is John….oops

As I client I don’t give a damn about squabbles on industry web sites like this.

Creative people tend to be prima donna’s insecure and bitchy with each other- it’s not like that’s shocking news.

As a client I don’t give a damn about awards either except for effectiveness – if you want to make pure art, put your work in a gallery or sell that script you’re writing.

So Peter Rush – no need to worry I don’t reckon about clients reading this – we know agencies are often full of drama queens.

I prefer to be anonymous to neuter ad hominem diversions and focus discussion on “playing the ball, not the man”

If everyone knew I was Harold Holt, every discussion would end up about the whole Chinese spy thing.

I have to agree with the writer’s article – anonymity promotes honesty.

No-one likes having their work criticised, but its a fact of life.

Without anonymity most of the industry will be unable to comment honestly as they will lose job opportunities etc.

As I said, it hurts to be criticised, but if the worst that happens is someone slags off your work, well then #firstworldproblem as the twitterati say.

By the way, what the heck is government 2.0????

Most of the people who don’t use a nom de plume have a link to their net site so their argument against anonymity could be said to be a little tainted.

There is no more to be said in favour of anonymity than has already been said. Those against it would be better off staying anonymous too lest they are identified with their shallow logic.

@Dave. Well said. I like the moderation part. If comments are too close to insults and could offend, a publisher can choose to edit, or delete them(.) I see videos on YouTube and I truly feel that Google / YouTube could be far better at moderating their comments. Every thread seems to turn into a racial slur fest – it is awful.

I also agree Dave with your social comment. I love to put forward my point of view. I don’t like to broadcast ‘me’, not because I am a coward, more, I don’t really want to be known. Some people like to get their name out there and state their place in an industry etc “me, me, me…” Not all. I however prefer a few pen names and thus keep my real self out of the spotlight.

Each to their own I guess (and I am not the best writer, so apologies for the waffle.)

I think that people who post comments (anonymous or named) can choose to be responsible / constructive or irresponsible and negative) I guess..?

At the same time, yes people will hide behind anonymity to offend others, which perhaps moderators could police a bit more? What do others think?

Groucho your post makes no sense at all

Thanks to everyone for their comments.

Knotty, Al, Devil’s advocaat, fraser and Adam Paull, I don’t agree with your views, but will defend to the death your right to express them.

My questions to you is where is the line between constructive and inappropriate comment (whether anonymous or not)?

The issue you outline is not one of anonymity but of judgement – where the line lies between comments that help stimulate thought and comments that are simply vindictive.

Given that individuals and organisations often learn more from unguarded remarks, and that everyone has a different tolerance level, who in society should judge whether a comment is constructive or not?

Certainly there are limits which most in society would agree is ‘too far’ (mindless slanging, deliberate trolling and personal abuse for example).

However these are best managed through moderation, not through attempting to prevent anonymous comment. And it bears keeping in mind that moderation, as an act of judgement, won’t be called correctly 100% of the time – just like referees in any sport. Expecting moderators to get it right every time (under threat of being sued if they get it wrong once) is unrealistic to start with.

Across society there is a broad grey area in which some people may find comments constructive and others find them abusive. Often it isn’t even the subject of the comments that has the issue (those in the public eye develop thick skins), instead it is third parties who are upset “on their behalf”.

Again, in my experience, this has nothing to do with whether comments are anonymous or not, it has to do with individual tolerance for criticism.

The solution is not to shut down those who criticise, but to consider whether those criticisms are valid and then address or ignore them as appropriate.

Hi Cairg, Thanks for the re-post, your argument there actually seems better formed than in the main post and I agree with most of it.
As my old uni lecturer used to say, the solution to debate you don’t like is not censorship, it’s more debate.

Welcome to the internet peeps.

If you’re unable to perceive hidden agendas in posts (beit anonymous or not), you’re in for a rough ride. Take it all with a grain of salt and enjoy a good chuckle when the ferals drop one into the debate – makes it all the more interesting and god forbid – entertaining.

@ Peter Rush & Craig – spot on chaps.

Great post Craig and well summarised in your re-post.

I have to concur with @Dave. As a long time Community Manager I can attest that people are confusing anonymity with moderation. The *real* reason that so many industry blogs (and beyond) are full of abuse and vitriol is a lack of community management. Of which there is much more to than simply removing or deleting comments. Setting the guidelines and tone are paramount to creating parameters and fostering a civil community.

Anthony Freedman is 100% right! There’s so much more I could say but I’m going to leave it at that!

Regular readers of this website already know my position on this subject. Can’t help feeling disappointed that it’s come up again.

Good one @Alison – I’m glad you too can see the real issue here. Same here @Paddy.

I’ve stopped sending Mumbrella any press releases now for any of my clients work (that can be several creative businesses at one time), my own news or content, and Commercial Ideas Network news and project postings. I know many others in the Commercial Ideas Network that say that they don’t either. This is possibly why Mumbrella is having to make up pointless and nasty content these days to generate interest (I wont draw attention to the articles I’m referring to as they don’t deserve my energy – appalling).

Well over a year since that incident happened with the Attorney-General and i’m glad to see sticking up for myself had such an impact on issues around anonymous commentary. I still contribute to AdelaideNow and voice my opinion whilst publishing my details online without fear of prosecution for politically interpreted ‘defamatory’ commentary (Atkinson said I never defamed him).

Freedom of the press doesn’t extend to freedom of the net?

hey anne miles why don’t you follow through your boycotting of mumbrella by staying away altogether…..your shtick is boring