RE: Anonymity is cowardice, and cowards aren’t known for their wisdom.

Professor Peter Friedman of Case Western Reserve University Law School recently posted an entry under the above heading. Professor Friedman’s entry was in response to a bit of back and forth between Dan Hull of What about Clients?/What About Paris? (an international legal blog focusing on client service) and the writers and commentators on Popehat (complaints about law & liberty. Small l Libertarianism) which can be found here.

I’m re-posting my response to Professor Friedman at his blog (and my thoughts about anonymous commenting in general) below:

Well this is certainly an interesting conversation.

Obviously there are differing opinions as to whether or not anonymity is valuable in the context of posting on the interwebs. Currently, as is readily apparent from my blog, I choose to post and comment under my real name because I want what I post on my blog and elsewhere to be associated with my IRL person. That being said, there are a variety of circumstances in which there are things I would not share under my own name.

Not sure about everyone else involved in this brouhaha, but I’ve been on the internet for a loooonnnggg time. I can recall dialing in to my local BBS with my 9600 baud modem in DOS during the 80s – I was a nerdy kid. No one used their real name. Through the nineties, things sped up and more people jumped online but using one’s real name was still thought of as odd. I grew up on messageboards and forums, and very, very few people ever used their real names. Any authority or respect that was given to people was based purely on the veracity of their words and their seniority (time registered on the board/post count).

I started my first, personal blog back in 2000. I used my real name. However, the circle of people that were aware of it numbered in the dozens. I kept it going for a few years before I let it fizzle out. At that time in my life, while I was open with my real name online, I also wasn’t trying to say anything meaningful.

Since the early-to-mid 00s more people who have some level of “authority” or “seniority” IRL seem to have come online, especially with blogs. These people want their IRL status to transfer to the interwebs. As such, it’s valuable for them to utilize their real name as it carries some level of weight.

I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that my generation growing up on the internet and subsequent explosion of Facebook, etc. has led people (particularly older people) to become comfortable with using their real name online. However, this ignores the past twenty years or so of the internet in which anonymity was the norm. This is particularly true in places like messageboards and forums. Maybe a person is a devotee of World of Warcraft or some other videogame but doesn’t want it to be known in their office. They use a pseudonym, in order to keep their true identity private while being able to enjoy their pastime (in game, boards, posts, blog, etc) while engaging with others. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with this as that’s how I’ve always known the internet to be. There is definitely a trend to people being more open about who they really are, but demanding it comes across as odd.

So when I come across the words of an anonymous poster, I give them due course as I would if it was written by someone I know. That’s one of the benefits, and perils, of the internet: everyone is on an equal playing field. Very few people are able to transfer any sense of “authority” or recognition to their writings online. You must be judged along side everyone else, even if you use your real name and are a Rhodes Scholar and the next poster, “Marcus Agrippa,” is really a 16-year old kid posting from his parent’s basement. If what either has to say has weight, give it credence. If not, not.

As a caveat, I will say that I do have a higher degree of respect when in regards to people who post under their own name. When someone is willing place their words up to scrutiny with their real name attached, it does elicit a heightened sense of regard. But, for those who choose not to do so, I am not going to discount what they have to say out of principle.

Sign up for free updates
No Spam Ever

Tags: , ,

6 comments
shg
shg

I read simple justice whether or not that counts. It matters enormously to me, even if I have no clue who you are.

Kevin Chan
Kevin Chan

and while I'm at it: Thanks for doing a bang-up job.

Hull
Hull

Is a link to Friedman's post here somewhere? If it's there, I apologize. If it's not, you fucked up. Fair to have Friedman's post before your comments. Re: your comments. Also, I am sure you are nice guy. Sincere. But you are really full of yourself. What do you know about lawyering? Or writing (all of above is self-indulgent and could have been done in 3 sentences; don't you have something else you can do?) Or thinking? Or stress? Or pressure? Or good work? Or hardship? Or life. Why don't you practice law for 15 years--and then imitate me and other grown-ups later? Write about what you know. OK? You are not doing that--and you could. Like some of the geek shit above--but not about lawyering. Not fair. You're guessing? You are embarrassing yourself and dishonoring many of us. Quit putting on airs and do not link to me anymore if you can help it. You are not ready for the bigs. Dan Hull PS "Principle" is word you want, I think.

Kevin Chan
Kevin Chan

I'm an articling student about to be sworn in tomorrow. That said, why so much hate? I believe there's nothing presumptuous about the content of An Associate's Mind. As far as I'm concerned, this blog offers something completely different from those of seasoned vets (I read simple justice whether or not that counts). I go to the blogs of practicing lawyers to understand the difficulties and challenges lawyers face everyday; I come here to ponder what kind of lawyer I want to be. While I don't agree with the content of all the posts on the blog, I very much appreciate the broad canvas of thinking covered (psychology, western classics, eastern philosophy) as seen through the eyes of someone about to enter the profession. The value lies not in the practical experience of the author, but rather in his care and attention in selecting these readings for an audience of lawyers and his reflections. Based on these criteria, I think the author is doing a bang-up job.

Keith Lee
Keith Lee

Thanks Kevin, I truly appreciate the vote of confidence. I think I'm pretty open in that I'm a student and that my blog is about my thoughts in regards to a wide spectrum of topics and how they intersect with the law. I've never claimed to be an expert and think that if someone reads my about page and read about Shoshin and took the time to understand it, I think it would be clear what my blog is about. In regards to Mr. Hull's comments above, being negative and offensive seems to be his schtick. He's free to his opinion; I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Keith Lee
Keith Lee

I have no problems with posting your comments. If I wasn’t prepared to have people disagree or dislike what I’m saying I wouldn’t be putting it up for scrutiny. There is not a link to Professor Friedman’s blog. Mea culpa. It was not intentional, I assure you. I will fix it after this correspondence. However, you’ll note that I stated: “I’m re-posting my response to Professor Friedman at his blog (and my thoughts about anonymous commenting in general) below:” My post on my page is my response to Professor Friedman posted on his blog at (http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/07/own-your-words-anonymity-is-cowardice-and-cowards-arent-known-for-their-wisdom/comment-page-1/#comment-3830) to which he replied directly afterwards and seems to have been fine with my comments. So while there wasn’t a link, anyone with half a brain could have Googled “Professor Friedman blog” to find his comments. Was this too much effort for you? I’ll note here is where despite you saying “RE: your comments” you don’t actually speak to my comments at all and instead resort to ad hominem attacks on my character, just as you did at the Popehat blog/forum. I presume this is your Modus operandi when people disagree with you? Throw a hissy fit? So while I might respect your opinions on law, you’ll forgive me if I don’t respect your manners. As such, I think you’ll understand if I ignore your recommendations and keep my own counsel as to who and what I write about. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. FYI – I’m not trying to imitate you, I’m merely writing about what I want to. If there is any overlap, it’s happenstance. I merely sent you a message on Twitter as a courtesy to let you know that I was discussing your comments; I thought it was the polite thing to do. I won’t bother next time. Also, this is the internet, not your private kingdom. If I want to link to your page or photographs of hippo placentas, it’s my prerogative and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. So thanks for the advice, but you can keep it. P.S. Thanks for noting that I mis-used the wrong spelling of “principal.” I fixed it.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] real names and identities in an environment in which, historically, people have been anonymous. I’ve posted about it before. It occurred to me that these people are probably unaware of John Gabriel’s “Greater [...]

New Here? Like What You See? Follow Me on Twitter
More in Reputation
Cultivating Your Online Persona

Conrad Saam at the Avvoblog just put up a great anecdote as to why lawyers, or any business should pay attention...

Close